Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 14:23:26 10/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2002 at 16:50:10, martin fierz wrote:
>On October 15, 2002 at 14:58:05, Otello Gnaramori wrote:
>
>>On October 15, 2002 at 14:32:25, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>
>>>After the game the world champion said he had been unable to resist the beauty
>>>of the piece sacrifice. "It had the potential to be the best game I have ever
>>>played in my life." As it turned out, Kramnik gets the credit for a spectacular
>>>game and a wonderful effort, but Fritz gets the point. Kramnik was energized in
>>>the press conference after such a titanic struggle. "I'm not depressed. When you
>>>play such a wonderful game you can't be. It could have gone either way. Fritz
>>>played such great defense. I think I can still win the match."
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=555
>>
>>After this lesson by Dr. Fritz, I think that Vlady will try again the
>>anti-computer path if possible...quite boring but more effective against the
>>machine.
>>
>>w.b.r.
>>Otello
>
>otello, at least kramnik shares your opinion of his first four games! he would
>rather play a beautiful game and lose (AND possibly lose a few 100'000 $!) than
>continue his "boring" but efficient style of play.
>
This is a pity, since the real masterpiece of an human GM should be to beat the
comp using a beautiful style , i.e. with astounding and brilliants sacs, but I
guess it's a really hard task to be accomplished against these nowadays silicon
monsters...
>i wonder how kramnik feels now... after 3-1 looking so safe in all games,
>suddenly everything is open again. i'll definitely try to get up early enough
>(5AM or so) to see the last 2 games!
>
>i also wonder why humans often get carried away trying to win against computers
>under conditions where they *should* know better (see e.g. vanWely trying to
>beat rebel in an equal endgame with little time, christiansen saccing a rook,
>now kramnik with Bf7?!). perhaps those GMs still don't (or don't want to)
>believe that computers are clearly stronger than they are in tactical positions?
Yes, probably because they want to demonstrate their superiority also in the
sparking tactics field, that is also in the words of Kramnik more spectacular
and gratifying ("the most beautiful game of my career" ...he said)
>see for example kramnik's astonishing comment "computers are bad at tactics".
That comment from Kramnik is really astonishing as you said.
w.b.r.
Otello
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.