Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:49:48 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 13:51:22, John Merlino wrote: >On October 24, 2002 at 11:31:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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 > >You misunderstand me on almost every point. Well, that's because of my English I'm sure. It's the use of the sligthly wrong idioms I suppose. Because I can see now that we are not so far away from each other. For all the misunderstandings I can only excuse myself. At best you concentrate on the logical content of my postings and never on verbal juggling. most of the time I don't have a sense how a wording may sound to you inborns. ;) I want to thank you for the in detail answer.And let me give it back to you with a little compliment. You are really perfect in a completely normal presentation. And that in competion to the usual marketing for Fritz and Rebels. >First of all, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a >human to be "at his best" 100% of the time. Humans are flawed, therefore >Kramnik's level of play will ALWAYS fluctuate. Of course. But I think that such fluctuation could never cause too much damage to a player like Kramnik. Err - playing against "Fritz" I should add. > >Secondly, I DO agree with you entirely on the money issue, with the possible >exception of your claim that Kramnik played the rest of the match (after the >first few games) to please his sponsors. It simply could have been that he did >not care that much one way or another, given the fact that he knew that he >could, at least, draw the match with little effort/concentration. You see here that you also don't believe in fatal fluctuations. > If he wanted >to make it look like DF really did play up to Kramnik's level, I think Kramnik >would have made it look a little better, and not play major blunders to lose >games. This is a sophisticated judgement I never read before. Thanks. I can only fully agree. But that has also a reason. To me it looked nasty how Wüllenweber in the first place and others discussed the allegedly prepared Bf8 line. If I were Kramnik I would have thought that they might be crazy to even insinuate such nonsense as if I needed preps for such odd continuations. These debates had a single goal and that was deminoring the class of Kramnik! And hence he was no longer ready to let look Fritz like a real giant. Basically it's a double bind situation. Even for being blamed as the 'great preperator' Kramnik has been paid so fantastically that he might have swallowed his hydrochloric acid... :) > >Thirdly, I never insinuated that the machines are already even with the GMs; I >actually (intended to) insinuate exactly the opposite! Perhaps you misunderstood >me, or I didn't make myself clear. I'm happy that you give such a clear comment now. >I have been saying that one of the major >reasons that the computers have done well recently against the GMs is because of >the GMs simply being human, and not always being at their best, for whatever >PSYCHOLOGICAL reason. If the GMs (Kramnik and Christiansen) were able to keep >their concentration/interest levels high enough, I believe the computers in both >cases would have lost, and perhaps lost big! Ah well, I never read that from an official up to now. Only Bob Hyatt is repeating it over and over again. > So, I believe that, when both >players "proved that (they) could win at will with positional play", they both >got careless and/or lost interest, and decided to play around (and, maybe, as >Bob Hyatt put it, "make things interesting"). Yes. Although I agree with the appearance I doubt that it describes what's really going on in GM. NB I'm by lengths not a master myself but I think I can still imagine what it is because I play myself. First of all you must never think that Kramnik or Christiansen could ever miss the main thing in such a computer game. The main thing these master do is "seeing", "evaluating" and "calculating" if necessary what is in a position. Now the typical exhibition player would always like the unknown talent to go for a nice idea that is really in the position. He then could play a little game with him or her in the next crossroad. If the talent makes the right decision most of the time he will be recompensated by either a draw or in some cases a win. But note that's not happening to the surprise of the master! That is basically the human factor in such a show. I have watched (notplayed) such events and I could see that these masters always react witha certain - displeasure if he got the impression that some wanna-be experts try to bust his kindness, I mean experts behind the players. In such a case masters do never make presents. You know theses GM simply see if a move is in continuation of the specific player or suddenly a moon shot. Then they squeeze him to death if necessary in the final rounds when all must happen in high speed. So let me make this very clear. A simul exhibition game is a dialogue between the master and a talented amateur. If the amateur shows little qualities the master will allow that line and is ready to createa little masterpiece for the layman. However if it goes the way round and there is no real dialogue but only some gambling also assisted by some spectators masters are no longer willing to spend a point or half a point. Now take a computer. He's not so easily to be "read". He will always play at a depth level the normal layman must dream of till his death. That alone keeps the master busy! So there is no room for not so concentrated periods! The master has all under control, believe me! Take the Nxf7 sac. I am sure that Kramnik SAW (!!) that it didn't work. 100%! And he played it to demonstrate the computer's class for the spectators and potential consumers. In truth thecomputer was led by a loooong lead by Kramnik. Ok, that was the "blunder" (which it wasn't) for the "experts" and Qc4 was the blunder (which it impossibly was) for the beginners, the consumers of "Schweinehund" for instance. Those who get that light in their eyes if they could understand a little compination of depth 'two ply'! So I do not agree with you that these blunders were odd or too simple to be able to prove the class of Deep Fritz. Here you are a bit too much of an expert yourself. BTW I myself have proven why such a blunder (Qc4) is simply not possible for Kramnik. But that doesn't interest the "masses". Here you can also include a normal inexperience by Kramnik. He's not that old to be a master in sociology and psychology as well. Otherwise he would have found something different. However that ChessBase now "explains" how Kramnik grew more and more tired in the second half of the match, this is dishonest. > >Finally, as for the money that Christiansen got for the match, I honestly do not >know how much he got for the four games. This was strictly between him and our >PR people, and I was never told an actual figure (or whether or not he got more >or less for winning/losing). Honestly that should be the best way to deal with if and only if peoplelike you do not exaggerate such results into hyperbole and always point out what marvelous giants even average GM really are! For me the whole presentation during the 1997 event with DB2 and also now with Kramnik reveils a basic blindness of these company members and friends. There was no admiration for human genius, it was exactly what it is in terms of pure business. The human players were the paid slaves, so to speak, to make the PR for IBM resp. ChessBase. Ed Schröder always mentioned "his" players as well and put them into good shape, I think you also let Larry look good here in CCC what I could follow, but ChessBase is making an ugly caricature of Kramnik. They call him the "Iceman" - if you know what I mean. You remember that famous murder case in the USA? They described him as the player who trained for over a year now on Fritz... So that games 1 to 4 were just a previewed consequence... Shit! All the best to you! And keep us informed. Rolf Tueschen > >jm
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.