Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:17:29 10/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2002 at 17:02:15, Roy Eassa wrote: >On October 06, 2002 at 16:53:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On October 06, 2002 at 16:26:17, Ingo Althofer wrote: >> >>>In game 2 against program Fritz GM Kramnik has impressively shown how humans can >>>adopt to computer opponents and how helpful such flexibility is. I am firmly >>>convinced that Kramnik had this opening on the board in his preparation, and >>>that 9.Kf1 was fully intended to throw Fritz out of its book. And very likely >>>Kramnik had already seen Fritz' dubious moves 12...Bf8 and 13...b4 on the >>>monitor in his camp before the match. (Remember: Kramnik had the current Fritz >>>version already a long time for sparring purposes.) >> >>Let me just state my opposing opinion. I have no quotes from Kramnik or his >>helpers, but I'm sure that Kramnik does not need such preparations. He didn't >>know the specific play for this line, but he learned how Fritz reacted in >>certain positions after the exchange of Q. I am 100% sure that he did not copy a >>game from his training. >> > > >How can you be 100% sure? Even I am only 99.9% sure! :-) At first I want to apologize for 1 empty post and a double one. But I had a crash after 11 hours without re-booting. Of course you are right. I took - as usual here - 67% for 100%. :) > > >> >> >>>By the way: Bf8 was not an isolated Fritz blunder but was also for instance on a >>>narrow rank 2 in the proposals of Hiarcs... >>> >>>Some spectators may now have the feeling that Kramnik's dry style makes the >>>match less interesting. >> >> >>I don't know what you understand under "dry style" but for me his style is not >>dry at all. >> > > >It's dry in the (good) sense that he does not take unnecessary risks (like >Christiansen did). Pity. I had a different impression. For me this game is a masterpiece. Not based on omissions but on a clear and beautiful demonstration of chess. For me Kramnik shows exactly what he had said in the interviews about what chess is. I had the impression during the game that Kramnik spoke "Now, do you understand what I'm creating here? I try to play beyond the realms of the machine. Afterwards people will say that I had prepared all the moves, but I didn't, I play this way because I've understood the play of FRITZ. So I'm doing nothing different here to human chess. Only, against my human coillegues with Elo like Fritz I could never dare to play like that." > > >> >> >>>But >>> >>>(i) The more dry Kramnik is acting now the more fireworks we will see from >>>Kasparov in December. In his hot temper Kasparov will try to demonstrate how >>>superior his chess is to that of Kramnik. So, have some patience. >> >> >>Don't you worry. Kramnik showed the highest possible chess against computers. He >>played normal chess, no anti-computer chess. And he relied on his superior >>understanding of chess. BTW something you or me for instance could never produce >>with or without computer help! Because here it is not just the idea or some >>technique, the whole game is a masterpiece of chess art with computer as >>opponent! >> > > >I think Kramnik's "normal" chess is already pretty darn good anti-computer >chess. It's when the GMs take unnecessary risks (or blunder) that they lost to >computers. > What can I say different? Rolf Tueschen > >> >> >>> >>>(ii) From my very personal view the games from Bahrain show the superiority of >>>human+computer teams over single computers, even if the human is only an amateur >>>player. >> >>Could you elaborate what this combination should be worth here for this game? >> >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> >> >>>No Elo-2000 player would have selected 12... Bf8 amongst a set of for >>>instance three similarily evaluated candidate moves; and most Elo-2000 players >>>would have prefered a candidate move like 13...Bd5 over the wrong pawn fixing >>>13...b4. >>> >>>Ingo Althofer.
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.