Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:25:45 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 12:07:28, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 22, 2002 at 11:53:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 21, 2002 at 18:24:44, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On October 21, 2002 at 13:12:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 21, 2002 at 10:22:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 21, 2002 at 08:34:31, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>>> >>>>>It is not valid that they created an awful machine. They didn't >>>>>play any computerchess world championship nor did they join any >>>>>other computer chess events where the european programs could measure >>>>>themselves with deep blue. >>>>> >>>>>After 1995 they quit facing european programs. >>>>> >>>>>All we know is a few horrible games from both deep blue and kasparov. >>>>> >>>>>It is not trivial that deep blue 1997 could show better play >>>>>than the poor level in these games. >>>>> >>>>>It is for sure that kasparov is the person to blame of course. he >>>>>was not only an idiot, he was also bad for chess. >>>>> >>>>>Where the 4-4 from kramnik is a sad reality, he will be able to possibly >>>>>face other programs again. Kasparov will play junior. >>>> >>>>So kasparov made _one_ big mistake in resigning a drawn position, and mixing up >>>>an opening (if that is really what happened) sequence of moves, and he is an >>>>idiot. >>>> >>>>Kramnik resigned a drawn game, and blew a couple of openings, and he is "ok"??? >>> >>>not that i want to take sides in any debate involving deep blue, but: >>>kramnik resigned a drawn game, true, but it was very hard to spot. and i don't >>>know where he "blew openings" - not even one. >> >>I was talking about anti-computer more than anything else. His first four >>openings were >>tame and nearly perfect for playing against a computer. Then he got more >>aggressive and >>left his original plan, it seems... >> >>> >>> >>>>Somehow your "logic" totally escapes me... >>>> >>>>Fritz couldn't beat Kramnik in the match even after he made at _least_ one >>>>trivial-to-spot >>>>blunder that turned a dead draw into a dead loss a piece down. >>> >>>kramnik made exactly ONE trivial-to-spot blunder, Qc4??. the position was not a >>>dead draw without that blunder. i think it's a draw, but if kramnik had been >>>100% sure that this was in fact a dead draw, he could have gone into this ending >>>by force - and he didnt, which tells us something about what kramnik thought >>>about this ending - that it was not *dead* drawn. >> >>My point was that in the Kasparov vs Deep Blue match, Kasparov resigned in a >>game >>that he thought was lost. But which deep analysis showed was drawn. Kramnik >>resigned >>a game that was probably drawn, although it has not been subjected to the same >>analysis as >>the DB/GK game. But the similarity is there, he resigned _too early_. >> >>In the last game Kasparov made what most considered to be a blunder with h6. >>Kramnik >>_clearly_ blundered a piece and turned a probable draw into a sure loss with one >>move that >>takes most programs a few milliseconds to spot as losing. >> >>Yet Kasparov was routinely criticized as playing like a 2000 player, yet Kramnik >>has not >>gotten any such comments. >> >>Everything is the _same_ except for the opponents. One was the hated Deep Blue >>from IBM, >>the other is a popular micro program... :) >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Nxf7 turned out to be a mistake too, but much more in the sense that you should >>>not play this way against computers, and specially not when you are leading with >>>+1. in a chess sense, it is very far from "trivial to spot"... as it turns out, >>>Nxf7 was a ?? for kramnik for the rest of the match - he couldnt recover after >>>game 6... >> >>I concsider that to be a strategic blunder, if not a tactical blunder. But that >>only >>highlights the issue here. Kramnik actually played much worse overall than >>Kasparov >>did, but was still able to draw the match. I think the first four games were >>more revealing >>to me, personally. The last 4 games seemed to be twilight-zone stuff... >> >> >>> >>>judging from the games, DF certainly didn't seem to be "much better than DB", >>>which at least didnt produce such ridiculous moves as DF did :-) >>>which is not to say that DB would not have been capable of playing such moves >>>too... >> >>I certainly agree. Kramnik made more bad moves than Kasparov, yet he didn't >>lose >>the match. That says something... > >More bad moves? Yes. Kasparov played one move that was considered bad, uniformly, by everyone. the h6 move in game 6. Kramnik made at least one horrible move, losing a piece, and then Nxf7 was an unsound sacrifice and must be considered "bad" as well... >1)I do not think that we know to count the number of bad moves that the players >made and we first need to define what is a bad move. I consider "bad" any move that changes the expected game outcome. From a win to a draw, from a draw to a loss. > >2)It is clear that Kramnik played more games than kasparov so he had more >opportunities to blunder so comparison of the number of bad moves is not fair. > >Uri Two more games. 33% more games. He could be expected to make 33% more bad move is he "played as badly as Kasparov". He made 100% more, yet he received no criticism for "patzer play"... That was my point... Whether he is better or worse than Kasparov is a different issue altogether and I'm not particularly interested in the answer to that...
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.