Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:31:34 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2002 at 19:21:30, John Merlino wrote: >On October 22, 2002 at 16:24:16, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Bob: >>You are putting another example of the very same thing I am saying. It is so >>human... you begin disdaining a little bit the opponent, you drop your >>habilities a bit, then they strike back, then you try hard again, then it is too >>late. >>But muy esential point with Rolf was that a GM, as humanm entity after all, is >>not made out of only of his best, sheer GM moments, but including this kind of >>lesser than best ocasions when he drop something and then it is too late. >>My best >>Fernando > >This may be also what happened with GM Larry Christiansen in the Chessmaster >match. Larry won the first game embarrassingly easily. He then tried to beat the >computer on his own terms (i.e. tactically, rather than positionally or with >anti-computer specifics, which is playing right into the computer's hands) in >the remaining games, probably because he just felt that, after the first game, >there was no WAY he could lose to this patzer program. The result was a 0.5-2.5 >loss in the final three games of the match, giving the computer the win. > >Or, as Josh put it many times in his audio classes, "play the position and not >the opponent". > >jm Nothing wrong with your opinion or PR, but scientifically spoken you are simply not right. Of course it begins already with Fernando. The insinuation that Kramnik is human and therefore not always at his best, is a hoax. Because if something were at stake he could well concentrate himself for 20 games or more. The computer can't hide its weaknesses. But if I'm paid for a win 1 million and a draw 800000 dollars and for a loss still 600000 dollars then it should be clear that this is not about a real fight but sort of PR. And the bad side of it all is the fact that going for 1 million would be called greedy. The games of the first half do prove that Deep Fritz against Kramnik is a joke. So the second half was Kramnik's tribut to his sponsors. Now you are going still a step further. You want to insinuate that the machines are already at even with GMs. Therefore GM should play the "position", not the "opponent". But in real that is exactly what would be stupid against machines. Larry did basically the same what Kramnik also did. He proved that he could win at will with positional play. The rest was for the company. How much money he got? What you underestimate is the class of some of the spectators also here in CCC. It seems as if you didn't know that the games could prove what's going on in a match. For instance if Kramnik had blundered against Kasparov with his Qc4 he would now sit in a mental asylum!! But here he was completely ok in the further presentation of his PR duties. Now it's up to you to make your own conclusions. ;) Rolf Tueschen
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.