Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:25:13 10/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 13:19:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. Not in every game I have seen. I saw a GM think for 20 minutes, with plenty of time left, and he made a move that forced him to give up his queen to avoid a mate the very next move. It happens, regardless of your hand-waving. > >Kramnik had 15 minutes left here... > >So forget your online toying. Online games aren't earning money. Vincent, I was talking about Las Palmas a few years ago. GM vs GM. Not online vs a computer. Please read first, and then respond, rather than writing stuff that is unrelated to my point in any way... > >You know that, and i know it. I know that GM players make ugly blunders in real games vs other GM players, even after thinking 20 minutes. Kramnik dropped a piece after a long think against Fritz. It happens. > >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. Never said otherwise. But they _do_ make basic blunders on occasion, and not only when in dire time trouble either... > >They are not people who make a blunder in every game they play. So? Kramnik didn't make a blunder in every game he played vs Fritz either... > >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? I wasn't talking about GM vs Computer, as I said. Crafty was simply giving analysis as ICC relayed live games from events like Los Palmas (los or las, I don't remember)... > > >> >>> >>>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.