Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:42:30 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 17:29:53, martin fierz 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... > >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. I think that people learned to resign too early. I think that players should resign only when they are convinced that there is no hope. These cases are cases when they see a forced mate or cases when the win is a simple technique. Examples for a positions when you can safely resign [D]7r/8/PPP5/3K4/8/8/8/7k b - - 0 1 [D]8/3k4/2p5/1pK5/1P6/2P5/P7/8 b - - 0 1 On the other hand I think that even a player who lost a piece in the opening should not resign because the win is not a simple technique. Unfortunately I know that humans do not follow this rule and I remember a case when a human opponent resigned against me after he lost a piece in the opening. My opinion is that it is too early but on the other hand being a pawn down in a pawn endgame when the win is a simple technique can be considered as enough to resign because the player can see a simple plan to win the game(even without seeing a forced checkmate). KQNPP vs KRRPP does not give a simple known technique to win and if you think about it you can see that even without sacrificing rook for knight and a pawn there is no simple way to push the passed pawn. If the queen and the knight defend the pawn and the rooks attack the pawn then the pawn cannot go forward. Uri
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.