Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:09:08 10/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2002 at 00:10:59, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Kramnik might have found a lot this way, but that is not the point. That was working with the computer. > >Opening theory is not perfect and it may include tactical errors that computers >have no problem to discover. Right, but you must change this short into a deeper view. A novelty is something reveiling the result much later. Without a GM no depth in that respect. Excuse me but do you expect A. Kure to discover such things with Fritz? I mean with all respect. But book cooks who are not masters themselves can't accomplish such things. Novelties mean always a new concept of some sort. It's not the isolated move. A novelty is often a line that ends in a surprise. It often looks as if it's a worse line. From the frog's view, as we say it in German, of a computer. Rolf Tueschen > >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.