Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:00:09 10/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2002 at 17:17:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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." he would not dare play like that?? kramnik played both the berlin and this variation of the QG against kasparov in their world championship match. the great thing about kramnik is that he is a natural anti-computer player. he doesnt have to play weird openings against the machine that he usually doesnt play and then find himself in a position he doesnt understand deeply. he just plays a slight variation of his normal openings (like 9.Kf1) to take DF out of book. perhaps if kramnik gains a 2-point lead he will try something a bit more spectacular, but for the time being he will take no risks and continue with his anti-kasparov strategy, which works just fine against DF! aloha martin > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>>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.