Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:48:37 12/17/02
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 but even a FM can see that Kramnik played a lousy opening on purpose and he knew it. Kramnik is opening the position where he can't open it. This is well known at FM level and probably below that level too. Despite that Kramnik opened it. I always get the question why i didn't follow all games, but after hearing kramnik got paid $1 million in advance for the match (don't forget it was delayed by a year that match and kramnik would have earned big money otherwise elsewhere); this message reached me during that match; i was no longer interested when i saw how kramnik did anything to get the match from 3-1 up kramnik (by default boring play) to 4-4. I remember how people posted how boring the games were here even, a forum where not too many real chessplayers are (mostly nerds who don't even know how many zero's are behind a million as they go claim things about the number of zero's following the dot being unsure). Then Kramnik gave away a piece for free in the match. I wondered why Kramnik didn't get upset about giving away that piece. Comments i received from the Kramnik team was that he simply didn't care about losing a point. It is amazing what happened after that. For sure is that 4-4 is an ideal result to put pressure onto Kasparov playing the Junior team. So in the end this boring match didn't matter anyway. We saw that Kramnik is better in endgames than anyone or anything else on the planet. We already knew that. We saw that kramnik is unbeatable when having the white colors. We already knew that. We saw that when he needed to lose a point he did it by opening the position in a way from which everyone knows it is not possible to do it. Despite that he still made it an exciting game, which is a clear quality of Kramnik and not so much the earning of the computer. It is not a big coincident that Kramnik created a big spectacle 1 day after the day where even the world press reported that the match was boring. Let's just hope that Kramnik didn't tell before the match to some other russians that it would get 4-4; in which case those russians have earned loads of money on betting at the 4-4 result. Chessbase can't influence during the game the program Fritz. Nothing unfair there. It's kramnik who made it 4-4, let's be clear about it. Fritz got 4-4 at the mercy of Kramnik, not vice versa. The alternative were another 4 boring games. 2 wins with white for kramnik and 2 boring draws with black. You sure you would have want to watch that? >> >>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.