Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:01:14 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 08:16:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 31, 2003 at 05:01:20, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: > >>Kasparov once told that chess is 100% tactics. >> >>Well saying that after Rxg7 in game 3 white is better because he has the >>initiative is not a tactical reasoning and Deep Junior has shown to us that >>sometimes, supported by pure calculations, one can enter in a position like that >>on the board after Nh6. This looks like a position that only a "human patzer" >>would play, and still DJ held it against Kasparov. >> >>The lesson is that we can continue to use positional evaluations as a >>shortcoming to actual calculations, as any GM does in his "pattern-matching" >>scan of each position on the board. But computers can do better with 100% >>tactics. >> >>What I like of this match is that Kapsarov is playing almost as he does in >>trounaments, I hope he will not switch stile after this defeat. >> >>Actually I think that an anticomputer strategy is still possible, as the games >>by some minor player show, based on extreme-long term planning, but will work >>only sometimes, and other times you'll be the victim of your long term planning. >> >>bye >>Franz > > >This is all big nonsense. And I am sure that you would not follow your own guide >lines if you had to fight for your life. We_know_ for sure that the position was >bad for Black. How can you be sure about it? I am not sure about my knolwedge of which side is better. I believe that humans often have wrong knolwedge. I do not claim that in that case the opinion of humans that white was better is wrong but we have no data to be sure. 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.