Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:26:55 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 18:08:43, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 22, 2002 at 16:29:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 22, 2002 at 14:31:29, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>> >>>I think that by this definition kasparov made at least 4 bad moves. >>> >>>1)Resignining in a draw position in game 2 >>>2)losing game 6(I do not think that h6 was the losing blunder but he did a >>>mistake that lost the game) >>>3)doing mistakes in game 2 before resigning that gave deeper blue the >>>opportunity to win the game with Kh1 and not Kf1(I did not analyze to try to >>>find the exact bad moves) >> >>Which move? IE white may simply have a forced win, at least in that >>opening, for all we know. And note that Kh1 vs Kf1 is not a closed issue >>yet. Hsu claimed to have done some analysis with DB2 that suggested that >>Kf1 is perfectly ok, but that a later rook move (Ra6 I think) actually allowed >>the perpetual to occur. >> >> >>>4)Missing a win in game 4 when Kasparov got a winning position in the endgame >>>after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d6(I read analysis that suggested a win for kasparov but it >>>was not simple win and I believe that it is not something that the programs of >>>today can see,I remember that I could win programs by following the moves of >>>black in the analysis few years ago but programs(at least at that time saw that >>>kasparov is winning only many plies after the relevant position). >> >>I don't buy that one. Until someone shows a move he missed that would have >>resulted in >>a forced win, or a move he played that resulted in a forced loss while he had a >>drawing or >>winning move elsewhere... > >I remember that I read analysis that said that he missed a forced win > >Unfortunately I did not save the analysis so I am not sure what was the exact >moves. > >If I remember correctly it was in KRRPP vs KRRPPP when the 2 pawns of kasparov >could be stronger than the 3 pawns of deeper blue. > >I could only find in the following link that kasaprov missed at least one forced >win in game 4 >read the comments about game 4 in >http://www.cs.vu.nl/~aske/db.html > >Uri That seems pretty simplistic prose... IE no particular moves given, no particular positions mentioned. Just "seemed to be winning". That's too simple a way to make such statements and have them taken seriously...
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.