Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:26:38 10/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 05:08:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 22, 2002 at 17:29:53, martin fierz wrote: > >let's be clear. the kramnik guy was happy to receive >a million dollar in advance. Without much effort he played >a few moves and it was 3-1. Then everyone started complaining >that the match got no publicity and got no excitement. > >He then gives away a piece in a clear drawn position with >a 1b trick (1 check in between). That's bullet blunder level. > >In fact i don't make such mistakes that much at bullet and >last time i made such a mistake at slow level was a year or >10 ago. Kramnik had plenty of time. > >0% chance he didn't deliberately blunder there. I think that is a totally stupid statement to make. I can point out GM blunders in _every_ tournament I have watched online. I have seen them overlook a mate in 2. A hanging queen. You-name-it. Human GMs _do_ make mistakes. Not as often as non-GM players, but also far more often than "never". > >He just didn't care. He wasn't shocked after the blunder. > >It was 3-2. > >then some beginner game at round 6. he has white. No way >with his default play to even draw it. He would win it >without problems. So kramnik decides to put some fire in >the game and plays open position. A line he has never played >before. > >To play Bxf7 objective criteria are not there. There is just >one criteria: "make the match exciting". > >Of course that's very hard if you play your entire life 1.Nf3, >so for a change he played some other d4 c4 line and opened the >position. Then give away a piece for a few checks and the >crowd has something > >3-3 > >Exciting enough for the sponsor? > >Yes. So 2 quick draws are enough. Kramnik could have won game 8 >if he wanted to. He didn't want to. he gave it draw. > >Of course that openings line he normally doesn't play. > >So i was unhappy, i had expected kramnik to just make default moves >and win at least with 4.5 - 3.5 > >Anyway, this match drew no attention at all. No newspaper and no TV >station and no one saw it. I can't speak for german newspapers, but >at ARD,ZDF and WDR i didn't see anything broadcasted yet. > >30 seconds at CNN, and even those 30 seconds i missed. That's all that >is broadcasted AFAIK. > >This match was not important. This match is not important. This match >will never be important except for sales for chessbase and 4-4 on their >box not showing a picture of kramnik, becuase no one knows the guy. > >I find kramnik stupid to not play 1 good game at the end. > >Whole match has been dominated again by games with stupid openings and >many sidelines and even openings kramnik never played before his entire >life. > >The match will be forgotten. > >Kasparov - Junior will draw hopefully more attention from the big crowds. > >Of course 'deep junior' the big crowd wil not see as a program called 'junior'. > >They will see it as a successor of deep blue of course. > >First you have 'deep blue' where they needed some old big machine, >then you have 'deep junior'. Very logical. I will not even explain >it too much around me. It's impossible to explain. > >computer = computer. Deep == Deep == Diep > >I stopped already long time ago explaining that Diep != Deep Blue >You can't help it. You can't blame them either. > >If they see Diep with blue interface as Deep Blue, obviously >they will see Deep Junior as the latest Deep Blue version. > >In some respects they are right. It's also focussed upon getting >a shitload of nodes a second, it's searching deep, and it's positional >play is not very good. > >Perhaps Kramnik will understand soon how stpuid he was. We can only >hope Kasparov does by now. > >I guess IBM marketing department managed to inform at least 30% of >the world population about Deep Blue solving chess in 1997. > >The only question i ask myself is: How big of a crowd will in december >2002 be reached? > >Knowing how many TV crews are in Jerusalem, perhaps they reach some market >there. > >>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.