Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 14:14:08 07/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 1998 at 13:08:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Two other comments I left off: > >1. Obviously this was a good result by Rebel. And even though it didn't do >well in the two long games, ?!?! Anand was lucky in game 1. Anand was lucky in game 2. in both tournament games rebel has not played something weak, other programs would have made better. ALL programs would have lost the way rebel did. I would not say rebel played weak in the 2 tournament games. It played not succesfully. But it played ok. anand was lucky. He was NOT superior in these games, although he got a better score. He used his experience to beat a machine. >one draw and one near-win that became a loss vs >Anand can't be considered a bad performance. The result is not ok, but the way rebel played it was not that bad. The way was ok. not the result. >2. Just as obviously, computers still have some serious holes. The second game >showed one, where all the programs were sure white was winning. I was too. And >a GM that was logged on as a guest was also chatting with me during the game and >he too thought that white would win because of the extra passed connected pawns. In the first game the hole was the same. No right understanding how to stop connected passed pawns. And how much to evaluate them. This is really not a trivial job to do... they can have different values in different structures and situations. >So the question is, did Anand (a) play Bd6 to enter a forced winning line or >(b) did he play Bd6 to enter a line he was pretty sure a computer would screw >up or (c) did he make a mistake in his calculations, but manage to win anyway >because white blew up and made some weak moves? I would say b. a is a little to much myths. Anand is only a human beeing. He has maybe seen that the line would be a good chance for him, i doubt if he saw the WIN. But thats enough ! He KNEW it, rebel was unable to know, or see, and thats it. Other programs would have played the same mistaken way. >I still like white, but I'm not a GM. But after the trade on g6, Crafty was >anxious to advance the pawns. Whether that would have worked or not, No chance. The queenside pawns with the help of the 2 bishops and the rook are stronger. >I don't >know, but *obviously* they had to move. You can't afford to let black go to >work with the R and 2 B's without trying to keep him off-balance and defending >or stopping the pawn roller. Show me a program that would play better for white after major exchange/trade... >Be a good game for analysis for quite a while, of course. And I didn't see any >overwhelming reason to resign. Crafty was at -3, but that's not exactly what I >call "prime resignation" territory... With those pawns, I'd want to give black >plenty of room to make a one-move mistake, which might be all it took. And >Anand certainly made plenty of mistakes through the match... Ed is the boss. We don't know which reason he had to do so. We had no camera to watch his face, to see how much involved he was. I have seen him behave in a similar situation against polgar, where he gave a point of 1/2 a point. I have also once seen chrilly donninger resign , or was it offer a draw , in a better position just because he could not stand to operate any further because the game went up and down. Operating a program you cannot "help" is a very very emotional job. I was nearly dead after the game Virtual chess-CSTal in Paris. I saw the draw. I even saw the sac chances before. Tal sacced. Tal saw the draw. But THEN !!!! Ough! it kills you when the program changes the best move, and it is a shit move. Only getting older can help this "problem", or you have to make the program that strong, that it does not make mistakes.
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.