Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 13:33:49 03/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 07, 2002 at 15:19:48, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On March 07, 2002 at 12:07:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On March 07, 2002 at 12:00:31, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>If he knew anything about computers he would have known his game >>setup in game 3 was a 100% sure zero. > >Absolute nonsense. Loek tried to get a kind of closed game, >perfectly playable against computers. Unfortunately for Loek >it didn't work, as Rebel conducted a brilliant attack. > >And what should Loek have played instead of the French in your >opinion? I can assure you that a Sicilian Najdorf would have >been crushed. I was fully prepared for that. As I was against >the french, the caro kann. I really didn't expect Loek to play >1 e4 e5, but I had something there as well. > >Vincent, you are making simple talks, but it is very easy to say >after the game has been played. If Loek would have won, you would >tell CCC that you knew this line would be a 100% win for Loek :-) > >>I can't remember i *ever* >>drew a similar setup where i gave the thing options to either >>win queen side AND attack my king. You kind of *force* them to >>attack king side, which nowadays they all do. > >Again nonsense. The way Rebel played it was GM-style. Show me the >programs that would have played the same. All in all you just say >that Loek played badly. How simple to put it that way. Typical >for Dutch, isn't it!? IMO Rebel played an excellent game, posed >Loek numerous problems and won deservedly. Period. > >>Which in fact happened. With the known result. > >Yeah, when you know the result, it is easy talking :-) > >>Loek obviously tried this setup the first time in his life, otherwise >>he would not have chosen it. > >Loek plays French regurarly these days. 3 Nd2 can't be a surprise, >so he must have tried it at home. > >>so the assumption he knows something about the thing is exaggerated. >>All he knows is that it is a machine. > >You know much about Loek, did you have a talk with him in which he >confirmed this? Or is it just Diepenveen speculation :-) > >>I bet he never installed Rebel Century, but only Rebel Tiger. I didn't >>figure it out either until Jan Louwman told me Rebel Century was still >>alive :) > >Same comment as above. Why dear Vincent, can't you just say one time >'yes, the computer was better this game'? Is this a bit difficult >for you!? Never mind, I don't blame you :-)) > >Jeroen I think that the chance I would know more of van Wely would be bigger. he regaluary is seen in a chess club 12km from my home (Most of the time only drinking .) Still I never have seen him Actualy I am not intrested neither Though I offered once to help him. I did see Ulf Anderson more often then again he lived in my town. But you should not attack the Dutch There are other country's enough who will do this for you. I also think van Wely realy would have had chances playing the Sicilian Najdorf. But I also think I know which line would have been used here . So one bad move order an he indeed would have been crushed. But I think van Wely knows these lines too. Other like you want to call anti computer games are slow games Italian game Closed Sicilian even 1.g3 Where positional play is of more importance Then again I don't believe in such thing myself. I also don't have to mention that I am already sure of the strenght of computer programs from the release of Rebel 10 And I am sure that from back then (Though still far from perfect.) They already deserved GM status. And this easely could have been proven if you would not have released the programs before the match. Which actualy is stupid like I said before:Does Kasparov and Kramnik also play some games before the match and asking which moves he will play (They in fact did) Then taking back the moves again? There should be no diference between human human games And Computer human games to get an honest competition. Using anti GM was smart because games published from Rebel Century4 are games without anti gm. Then agian many of the curent theory is created with Rebel10 antigm Which also shows some no's against rebels play. ps Kasparov was first my second idol but he did sell his soul to the devil (Bil Gates) Hehe Why did he not sponsor Kasparov's match? at least he could have played a normal match. But now I have a liltle trust in him again. Regards Marc
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.