Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:51:56 12/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2002 at 18:28:39, Sally Weltrop wrote: >On December 16, 2002 at 17:49:08, John Sidles wrote: > >>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=649 >> >>Kramnik says: >> >>> There were not so many games where [Fritz] played strangely. >>> In many games it was simply like playing a strong human >>> Grandmaster, it was absolutely normal, absolutely human play. >>> In game five Fritz played very well, better than any human. >>> It seemed almost equal, but it managed to keeping putting >>> on this pressure all the time, it kept finding these >>> very precise moves, not giving me a chance to get away. >>> ... >>> You can say Fritz is 2800, but you cannot measure >>> it by numbers really. It's very strong, it's very >>> very strong. But it depends on many things, especially >>> the opening. In some positions, if it gets its positions >>> you can make a draw or you can lose, two choices; you >>> can never win. In some positions its 3000. Maybe you >>> can suffer and make a draw. 10 Kasparovs and 20 Anands >>> wouldn't help you in these positions. >>> >>> So on the average you can say 2800 or a bit more, >>> but it matters what you get. If you get a position >>> like what I had in game five then no human can fight it. >>> But if you get what I had in game two then you have >>> a chance. It very much depends on the opening stage. >> >>I am old enough to remember CCC posts in which people >>argued about whether computers can play at grandmaster >>level (just three years ago!). What will things be like >>another ten years? > >u beat me to it. I was going to post this statement. it says it's over 2800? > >What is Deep Blue's rating then? This machine was certainly much faster & >stronger that Fritz OR was it? :.) I do not believe a word of kramnik. I believe that kramnik lost on purpose but I do not expect him to admit it. What he says in the interview simply does not make sense: "Objectively I think the final position of game six is losing, so I cannot say that I resigned in a drawn position. Maybe a computer won't find a way to win because it doesn't understand this fortress, but I cannot say I objectively missed a draw." I do not think that the final position is losing but even if there is a win that is very hard to find then resigning is a big mistake. It is not only that a computer will not find a way to win(this reason is good enough not to resign). I expect humans who understand the fortress to fail to see an idea how to win the game. It is not enough to undersatnd the fortress in order to win but you also need to find some plan to win. It is a clear mistake to resign even against humans. Kramnik is simply lying in the interview. His claim that the sacrifice can work against humans may be correct for weak humans but I expect strong grandmasters to find the right defence. His claim that he made only one mistake is also wrong. Kramnik had good winning chances against Fritz. Sacrificing the knight was probably one mistake and resigning was another mistake in the same game. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.