Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:10:59 10/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2002 at 20:28:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On October 07, 2002 at 12:49:42, Roy Eassa wrote: > >>On October 07, 2002 at 12:28:07, Mike S. wrote: >> >>>On October 07, 2002 at 07:05:53, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>Mike, >>>>and you want to imply that the marathon long surveillance of the Pa5 by the >>>>Rook could be cured by some opening book tricks? >>> >>>No... this was in game #2, but my comment was for game #1 and when Fritz has the >>>*white* pieces. I thought, (a) Kramnik's most solid defense is the Berlin, and >>>therefore (b) to have the slightest chance to win White should not play the Ruy >>>Lopez against him. >>> >>>(I don't expect that someone can really hope to surprise Kramnik with a novelty >>>later in that variation.) >>> >>>Or IOW, we all want to see Fritz to go for a win with White I think, and that's >>>not realistic when the book moves chosen allow Kramnik to play the Berlin >>>Defense of the Ruy Lopez. >>> >>>It may be a good way to draw though, for psychological reasons (Kramnik >>>satisfied with a draw too, with black), but I think for an event like that this >>>is not an attractive idea. >>> >>>(We'll know more after the other white games of Fritz.) >>> >>>Regards, >>>M.Scheidl >> >> >>I thought Fritz did pretty darn well until that silly h4 move. It had realistic >>winning chances up to that point (a clear pawn majority on the kingside whereas >>the queenside was essentially equal). Admittedly, Kramnik is the best at >>defending this sort of thing and would probably have drawn anyway, but IMHO >>Fritz did well to achieve such a good position before blowing it with h4. There >>are probably many other (esp. closed) openings in which Fritz would not have >>such a good position after 23 moves. >> >>It's also entirely possible that a decade from now Kramnik's Berlin will have >>long been smashed and this period of time (where it works for him) will be >>looked back on as an anomaly. > >Programmers (not bob Hyatt fortunately) often dream of being real GM but when >did you hear of a single novelty found by a computer??? Humans use computers to find novelties in the opening and I remember that I read about a case when Fritz found a novelty in the opening. Opening theory is not perfect and it may include tactical errors that computers have no problem to discover. 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.