Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:24:17 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 15:28:22, Bob Durrett wrote: >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... Don't worry Hyatt has not played chess for like 40 years. Otherwise he would see about 5 major blunders in each game in kasparov-deepblue.
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.