Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 14:26:14 10/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2002 at 16:03:13, Albert Silver wrote: >On October 08, 2002 at 15:29:11, Mike S. wrote: > >>On October 08, 2002 at 15:04:29, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On October 08, 2002 at 14:26:08, Mike S. wrote: >>> >>>>I've compared the game with the Fritz7.ctg opening, which indicates (too) >>>>that 13.f4 was the last move from the book. >>> >>>I've got three games with 13.f4 in my database. Two draws and a black win. >>>Kramnik chose the path of the winning game with 13...0-0-0. Fritz followed the >>>lost game (in or out of book) until 17.e5. The move exf5 was previously played. >>>(...) >> >>Thanks. This indicates that the game you found may have been in Kramnik's match >>preparation. Maybe he asked his seconds something like "Find me all kinds of >>(side-)variants with an early exchange of the queens." This would seem >>reasonable to me, since this is the most important anticomputer effect of his >>"Berlin Wall" strategy with black against Kasparov. They could have tested it >>with retail versions of the Fritz books, how likely it is that Fritz goes into >>that variants (the match book can't be too much different IMO). It looks now, >>that not only the Ruy Lopez is dangerous for Fritz in that respect, but probably >>many other openings too, unfortunately... >> >>If it should happen that the book has such a big impact to the match result (in >>favour of Kramnik), I'm afraid this will be a problem to explain to a wider >>public. I mean, that the A.I. algorithms so to speak are only partially >>responsible. >> >>It could turn out that the Man vs. Machine comparison (of this parcticular match >>at least) will be a bit devalued because of that book moves/early queens >>exchange issue. >> >>(But there are still 5 games to go.) >> >>Regards, >>M.Scheidl > >I don't see why. Everywhere I look I see people complaining about the >'unfairness' the computer's ability to store an entire encyclopedia of openings >with perfect retention (a nonsense argument but let's not go into that again) >giving it an enormous advantage over us fallible humans. Now the encyclopedia is >to blame for its losses. Bah! > > Albert A delicious irony indeed!
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.