Author: martin fierz
Date: 14:29:53 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
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... actually, to me it seemed as if the fritz team changed something in the openings after 4 games, not kramnik. kramnik did NOT play anti-fritz chess in this match. he played "kramnik as usual", which is quite good as anti-computer-chess goes, of course. i had this impression already after the first 4 games, that kramnik was not playing specific anti-computer lines he discovered at home (i really hope we'll get some insight into his preparation some day - e.g. did he know ..Bf8?? was coming), but just his usual openings. i don't think kramnik changed anything after game 4. personally, i think his super-blunder in game 5 changed the match completely - kramnik probably makes such a blunder once in 100 or more games at most, and fritz just got lucky. i think that kramnik then wanted to "make up for it" with a brilliant game 6 and that backfired too (naturally...), and then he was only a shadow of his usual self for games 7 and 8... at least it should teach him a good lesson if he ever has another go at the computer! i also think your are generally right that kramnik just lost his concentration a bit after the first 4 games when everything was going so smoothly. that is just very human :-) >>>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_. you can say that with the benefit of hindsight. lots of people wrote this here, but it's just not true. if you are sitting at the board, and only see losses, you resign. which means if you do not see the "miracle save" in that position, you resign - there is no point in playing on if you do not see it, because every other possible line will just lose. you cannot call resigning in that position an "easy-to-spot-blunder", just as you cannot call kasparov's resignation an "easy-to-spot-blunder". it was a wrong decision obviously, but not easy to spot... >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... i don't know how you can say that kramnik played "much worse". i see that both players made one big chess blunder (...h6 for kasparov in game 6, ...Qc4 for kramnik in game 5), both resigned a drawn position where it was extremely hard to spot that it was a draw, and apart from that i see no real blunders. obviously, Nxf7 by kramnik is a very questionable decision, but then you can say kramnik made 3 mistakes in 8 games and kasparov 2 in 6, which is very close to each other. besides, kramnik played excellent anti-computer-chess in games 1-4, and you cannot say that kasparov played a single excellent anti-computer game in the whole match. on the other hand, DB played a great game (the one where kasparov resigned where he had a perpetual), outplaying kasparov completely, something which DF never did to kramnik in the whole match. aloha martin >>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... > > > > >> >>aloha >> martin >> >> >> >>>While Deep Blue >>>_did_ >>>beat Kasparov in a match where both made mistakes. And Fritz is much better >>>than >>>deep blue? >>> >>>Somehow, again, your "logic" totally escapes me... >>> >>>In fact, your "logic" is really just a form of envy/agenda, IMHO... >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Perhaps kasparov has LEARNED a bit more than kramnik has. >>>> >>>>If you lose once from the thing, then only when you are world champion >>>>you can play it again. But for sure is that fritz exists as software >>>>and you can buy it and play it, and it joins tournaments too usual. >>>> >>>>that's not the case with deep blue. >>>> >>>>We just know it sucked ass, based upon its play. Kasparov sucked even >>>>more of course, but he always got away with poor chess against programs. >>>> >>>>In fact it is realistic that he didn't care for getting 2.5-2.5, just >>>>game 6 IMHO he was imagining deep blue to be so bad, like 1980 software, >>>>that he thought he coudl get back to a draw or something, after playing >>>>horrible blunders like b5. >>>> >>>>We do not know. All we know is that humans when playing computers do not >>>>show very good play. Look to kramnik. he plays the first 4 games like >>>>he plays rapid games. He gets 3-1 then (lucky machine) and the rest of >>>>the games he doesn't care simply. >>>> >>>>But still 4-4 is acceptible from historic viewpoint. >>>> >>>>What we do know is that kasparov has on average played 1-1 against >>>>deep blue. >>>> >>>>First match easy win 4-2, second match by some poor games a loss 3.5-2.5 >>>> >>>>Then IBM stopped. Wise decision. AFter so much marketing that deep blue >>>>has solved chess even, they had to quit of course. Or they would look >>>>stupid in 1998. >>>> >>>>>Bob >>>>>Feng DO mention problems with the program by Thomas. If they were enough to >>>>>speak of "full of.." or not it is a matter of tastes in the writting style. My >>>>>impression was and still is that the author did have many problems and even so >>>>>they created an awful machine. Of course this does not means the software >>>>>problem were more or worst than the hardware problems. >>>>>Anyway the core of my mressions is the first: DP could have been absolutely >>>>>untouchable if worked one year more. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>My best >>>>>Fernando
This page took 0.02 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.