Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 16:04:50 12/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2002 at 18:51:56, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Of course not ! >I believe that kramnik lost on purpose but I do not expect him to admit it. Very strong accusation my friend > >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 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.