Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:24:06 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 09:01:14, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Why I could be so sure? Because such positions are daily meat if you are a patzer in chess. Not that you then always won for the better side or vice versa. But you simply know it. Now Kasparov surely doesn't KNOW such positions but he knows, and that is the difference to patzers, th correct solution. But - here he had to prove it against a good defense. Not human defense but calculated defense. And such a defense you can't beat with simple strategies or such but only with hard calculations from your own side. That is why I am absolutely sure. Rolf Tueschen
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.