Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:50:24 12/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2002 at 19:04:50, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >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 His responses do not sound like responses of someone who care about losing. I expect every good GM to see a game with one stupid tactical mistake as an horrible game and kramnik denies that he played bad games. I expect every player to see resigning as a blunder if there were practical chances to draw and kramnik denies it. GM's fighted long games with a pawn down or 2 pawns down against Deep Junior(8 processors) to get a draw. GM's usually know to play inferior positions and do not do stupid tactical mistakes because of some positional pressure(kramnik also proved that he can play inferior positions without blundering in the match against kasparov). We can understand one mistake but doing stupid mistakes 2 games in a row is too much. In game 6 there was more than one mistake. Nxf7 was a mistake and resigning was a mistake. I consider resigning as the bigger mistake and it is always better to resign too late than to resign too early. If a player is in time trouble then it is better to continue to play even in case of being a piece down unless the position is a simple technical win so time pressure is not a convincing accuse for resigning. 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.