Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 23:07:35 09/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2002 at 05:17:33, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 21, 2002 at 12:03:06, Terry Ripple wrote: > >>On September 20, 2002 at 23:36:56, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On September 20, 2002 at 23:12:35, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>On September 20, 2002 at 18:44:59, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 20, 2002 at 16:52:46, martin fierz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>it was an even result, but not an even match. there's a big difference, and as >>>>>>long as you don't look at the games, you will never see it... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I looked at the games and the results, however, what is your assessment? >>>> >>>>van wely self-destructed in game 1. to attempt to win an ending where you don't >>>>really have winning chances and have very little time on your clock against a >>>>computer is pure suicide (against a fellow human, why not - he is bound to make >>>>mistakes too...). when you see a human do that kind of stuff, you know he is not >>>>*really* prepared for a computer match, no matter how many training games he >>>>played. i guess he never played really serious games, with time trouble and all, >>>>else he would certainly have realized how dangerous this winning attempt was, >>>>because he would have lost some of his training games in this manner. >>>> >>>>the other 3 games seem fair to me. if you ask me what i see in these 4 games, it >>>>is that van wely should have won the match IF he had been in the right "frame of >>>>mind" to play against a computer. >>>> >>>>you might say that van wely just blundered, as humans do, and that my argument >>>>is wrong. but my argument is that van wely "blundered" long before his real >>>>chess blunder by not taking an easy draw in the position with the 2B-Q by doing >>>>nothing (i think he even declined a draw offer?!) - instead he went straight >>>>into a situation which favors the machine: little time & tactics. and it's only >>>>natural that he loses the game in this situation. >>>> >>>>my belief is that man-machine matches are all about who can force who to play on >>>>his territory. which is IMO why white has had such a high winning %-age in >>>>recent computer matches: van wely (100%! 4 games), gulko (75%! 8 games), smirin >>>>(62.5% 8 games), same pattern in all, white is doing much better on average than >>>>in "normal" computer-computer or human-human competition (i think about 55% is >>>>normal). the extra tempo allows humans to play cautious setups as white, and >>>>stay clear from tactics, while their attempts to do the same as black have been >>>>unsuccessful to put it mildly :-) >>>> >>>>aloha >>>> martin >>> >>> >>>This is absolutely correct. It really is much easier to play anti-computer >>>chess as white. >>------------------------- >> >>I would like to see if White could play anti-computer chess against the "Center >>Counter" >>if he would play P-K4! Example: 1.e4 d5 2.Nf6! (not Qxd5)as Nf6 leads to a more >>tactical game! > >After 1.e4 d5 2.e5 Nf6 white has a winning position. > >You did not say the move that white choose as second move so I assume that it is >kramnik's choice. Hi, it clearly is 2. ed5 Sandro > >Uri
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.