Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:22:55 07/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 1998 at 17:15:44, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On July 22, 1998 at 12:41:29, Mark Young wrote: > >>On July 22, 1998 at 12:36:04, Amir Ban wrote: > >>>Impossible to understand this game without an understanding of what Anand was >>>thinking and where he went wrong. Morally he's the clear loser in this game. >>> >>>Amir >> >>I agree. > >He was prepared. He had white. He had to win. He has an accurate strong elo. >Rebel-team maybe destroyed anands preparation. >He played strange. And I don't understand why he played this way. >I also did never understand why Kasparov played that strange against >deep blue. >Maybe people like kasparov / anand have to learn that playing against the >machine is different than playing against humans. >I still think people like karpov would not have these problems, because their >playing style helps them against machines. It's not a question of Karpov or Anand. All my experience against players ranked up to 400 points below these two led me to expect something different. And it's not a question of the style of play, or choice of opening. It's a question of quality of play. When this thread started, we knew the game was drawn, so it was assumed that Anand saw where all this led and wanted this result. Some people on ICC even congratulated Anand on an impressive game, though I and others were stunned to see what happened to him. Now, as was posted here, we know what some of us guessed: That he had no control. He should have lost, though Rebel did not find this during the game. It's not as if humans, even strong ones, cannot be beaten. They can, but it's usually a long trench warfare where they don't give up half an inch at a time. Even the 2200-class players are rather good at long time controls at controlling where the game goes. All of Junior's victories against GM-class players were fiercely contested with no free gifts of any kind. Usually, some really surprising moves are needed. If you look at my recent Dov Porat Memorial games, especially the two drawn games against Greenfeld and Mariasin, you will see how 2400-2500 players are able to steer a computer into a no-win situation in a position less comfortable than what Anand had today. And these, unlike Anand, are not considered experts against computers and didn't have more than a day or two to prepare. It is not normal, in my experience, to get an unforced exchange sac, followed by a few ineffective moves, followed by some moves that completely unravel the position (and then a lucky escape to a draw). Actually there was one such game (without the draw), against Alex Rabinovich, but he was a 17-year old rated about 2400, not Anand. This, by the way, is also against Ed's experience as he told it here. The anti-GM thing was supposed to be because Ed thought that in the sort of game of today, he has no chance against a super-GM. Kasparov's losses to DB were also not like this. Amir
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.