Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:19:41 10/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 11:26:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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". Ha the 'expert' is speaking here. In important matches the only few blunders i remember are also from a year or 10 ago, and most definitely not from Kramnik, and always in *big* time trouble. Kramnik had 15 minutes left here... So forget your online toying. Online games aren't earning money. You know that, and i know it. What i remember is something from the 80s. A match Kasparov-Karpov, where Karpov makes a mistake in the endgame. If i show you the position you will most likely call it 'every day blunder stuff'. You should realize how well these guys are playing always. They are not people who make a blunder in every game they play. They have for years nightmares when they blunder in a game without major time pressure. Kramnik had no pressure here. Apart from that, what's the last game you played 40 in 2 online? I can't remember any GM playing 40 in 2 online. Do you? > >> >>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 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.