Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:29:16 10/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2002 at 07:09:08, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 Novelty can be also a tactical idea that humans never considered and a computer can find after some minutes or some hours of search. The idea does not have to be idea to win material but can also be an idea to win something positional but you need to calculate a lot of plies forward in order to find it. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.