Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:11:55 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2003 at 10:04:56, K. Burcham wrote: > >Hello Rolf. > >Very good reading from your posts on the first game, Rolf. > >I agree with your opinions. >I have posted here before about how everyone is so focused on code, bugs, kns, >position analysis, interface, search methods, etc., but our books have not kept >up to play consistently on GM level. I have spent time myself looking at some of >these books, all have bad moves that lead to losing positions. we just saw an >example in the first game. when Kasparov played his 13.d5, he knew if he made no >mistakes he had a winning position. I also have noticed that most here do not >spend time checking these book lines and then posting their results. >it seems there are only very few that manage the books of the top programs. >maybe they dont have enough time, maybe no money is involved in improving these >books. if so, then whatever the problem is that allows these books to play bad >lines---we can expect more losses of the same type. > >if a GM has the time, energy, and is motivated to do so----I can personally tell >you that there are many moves and lines in our top books that will produce a >loss against a GM that has studied these bad moves. > >now I fully understand why some here are very passionate about the GM not >getting the program before the game. > >kburcham Let's express precisely what is wrong with books. Books, like the known Encyclopedic Volumes from Belgrade have advantages and disadvantages. And in CC some disadvantages en plus. Books have only for amateurs the value of myth or / and truth. For GM this is simply the record of the past games. Now, even if you take a known GM like Joe Benjamin and let him fuzzle a whole half year with DB2's book then this book is still full of errors. This is simply because of chess. Now in CC you have the general difficulty of the adaption to the weaknesses of the program in dependence of the actual hardware. In this first game the fault is simply the assumption that Junior coud well find through this line on his own´, that is why the book was closed so early. Well, this is the general delusion in CC again. It is simply stupid or call it other names, to even think that today's progs are - because of nullmove or such - able to cope with players like these GM. I take every bet that Kasparov did NOT prepare this line. He simply had the advantage of the GM, who is able to find the crucial sides of such lines over the board in say 10 minutes or maybe 15. However you could never say that about a program. For two reasons. 1) Depth is not deep enough 2) Knowledge is Stone Age Chess -like In yesterday's game the second factor was more important. The program simply had no code to realise that the coming pressure of White on the b,c and d files would need the N on h5 in a better position. Against an amateur (or another program in a Wch) the Nh5 could have become a deadly tool for the attack. This is something you cannot calculate. You must know it. But with a couple of key examples until the endgame so to speak. Exactly what a GM has in his hands. But NOT one of the actual progs. Perhaps a little comment on Uri, who is not tired to repeat that Junior is stronger than Deeper Blue. And second, that K could not prepare on DB. Fact is that Deeper Blue never made such weak moves like DF and DJ. Even not in the first game in 97. And to the preparation. Also now K is not prepared in the sense of cooking a weak book. Simply because they could have changed it. In the case of Kasparov the main difference . and surely for true reasons - Deeper Blue simply was the greater threat. Kasparov could not know how strong it was. While he knew for sure that DJ is nothing compared to DB2. And that is very important and has nothing to do with preparing but self-confidence. Isn't it all about psychology? :) Rolf Tueschen p.S. Plese do not lift me in the subject lines of CCC, or do you want to say that this is now typical "lay rant"? <ggg> I know that I am a lay in CC. But many in CC may be lay in chess. ;)
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.