Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 06:41:10 07/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2002 at 14:11:23, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On July 22, 2002 at 11:52:35, Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>>The two you entirely miss the point of Kasparov's suspicion, sigh...
>>
>>Lesson 61, now pay attention my pupils :)
>>
>>[d]r1r1q1k1/6p1/p2b1p1p/1p1PpP2/PPp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - id DEEP BLUE -
>>Kasparov,G;
>>
>>Position before 36.axb5
>>
>>Here DB for a long time showed the following main-line:
>>
>>36.Qb6 Qe7 37.axb5 Rab8 38.Qxa6 e4 39.Bxe4 Qe5 40.Bf3 Rcd8 41.Qa7 Qc3 42.Bh5
>>
>>Now let's have a look at the main-line shall we?
>>
>>After 39...Qe5 we get:
>>
>>[d]1rr3k1/6p1/Q2b1p1p/1P1PqP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/R5P1/R5K1 w - -
>>
>>As you can see black has sacrificed 3 (!!) pawns for a king attack. And this my
>>pupils is what Kasparov could not believe, a computer sacrificing 3 pawns and so
>>he started asking questions how that could be.
>>
>>The refusal of IBM to answer Kasparov's questions made Kasparov suspicious and
>>from one thing came another.
>>
>>This is *the* heart of the discussion.
>>
>>Ed
>
>
>So? If two _current_ programs think axb5 and Qb6 are equal, what do you
>conclude then? That we all have similar king safety? That we all like
>the same move (axb5) but for different reasons?
Again, axb5 or Qb6 is irrelevant. What is relevant is the main-line. Black has
nothing for the 3 pawns. You don't need to be a GM to see that, you don't need
the complete main-variation, after 39...Qe5 the picture is clear that black has
nothing for the 3 pawns, see the above diagram. Yet the mainline is a very human
approach to establish a) a draw by eternal check or b) looking for counter play.
Kasparov *KNEW* about the mainline (just check your records), exactly *THE*
reason he started to ask questions.
Bob, this is an issue about chess, not computer chess, try to understand 36.Qb6
Qe7 37.axb5 Rab8 38.Qxa6 e4 39.Bxe4 Qe5 as a chess player, not as a computer
chess programmer.
I know you entirely want to blacken Kasparov for the public scandal but then you
should tell history as it happened, here is:
1) Kasparov doesn't understand DB's main-line 36.Qb6 Qe7 37.axb5 Rab8 38.Qxa6 e4
39.Bxe4 Qe5 and starts to ask questions how a computer who usually sits on every
pawn suddenly can sacrifice 3 pawns in a row.
2) The DB team refuses to answer ("we are not going to tell him our secrets")
3) Kasparov becomes suspicious by the refusal.
4) The next day the press more or less puts the words cheating (the supposed
human intervention) into the mouth of Kasparov. Kasparov reacts evasive, but
suggestive. The accussation is born, the press is happy, a scandal is born.
I withhold myself from a conclusion, my interest is only to list the facts.
Ed
>you can't _see_ DB's full PV. The last 5-6 plies (plus extensions) are
>hidden by the hardware, so it might not be that those three pawns are
>forever sacrificed.
>
>All we can therefore conclude is that DB liked axb5 better, fritz says they
>are equal, Crafty says they are less than .3 pawns different with Qb6
>being better for the moment...
>
>no big mystery to me... And remember Kasparov had _no_ access to that partial
>DB pv so he had no idea what it was "thinking".. We know "part of the story"
>but that is all. And now that we know the two moves are pretty equal by
>today's programs, there is even less mystery in it...
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.