Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:28:22 10/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2002 at 13:25:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 22, 2002 at 12:07:28, Uri Blass 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... >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>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_. >>> >>>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... >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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... >> >>More bad moves? > >Yes. Kasparov played one move that was considered bad, uniformly, by everyone. >the h6 move in game 6. Kramnik made at least one horrible move, losing a piece, >and then Nxf7 was an unsound sacrifice and must be considered "bad" as well... I don't think it is FAIR to call a speculative sacrifice "bad" if it turns out, some moves later, that it didn't quite work out. That would be like saying that "speculation" itself is "bad." Speculation involves risk. Is it "bad" to play moves which involve risk? Clearly, the refutation of the speculative Nxf7 did not occur immediately. I like to say that the refutation was "beyond Kramnik's horizon." Incidentally, someone [Hyatt?] pointed out that the refutation may have been beyond Fritz's horizon too. It was suggested that the outcome was a matter of "luck." But "luck" is like "risk." Both luck and risk are inherent in speculative sacrifices. I am unwilling to say all speculative sacrifices are "bad" if they are ultimately refuted. [Unless, of course, someone is willing to pay me $700,000 to say it!] Bob D. > > >>1)I do not think that we know to count the number of bad moves that the players >>made and we first need to define what is a bad move. > >I consider "bad" any move that changes the expected game outcome. From a win to >a >draw, from a draw to a loss. > > > >> >>2)It is clear that Kramnik played more games than kasparov so he had more >>opportunities to blunder so comparison of the number of bad moves is not fair. >> >>Uri > >Two more games. 33% more games. He could be expected to make 33% more bad >move is he "played as badly as Kasparov". He made 100% more, yet he received no >criticism for "patzer play"... > >That was my point... Whether he is better or worse than Kasparov is a different >issue >altogether and I'm not particularly interested in the answer to that...
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.