Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:05:56 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 07:56:58, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >As a careful scientist I can present the following results. The details of my >method must remain secret, but you are invited to read CTFfor example. > >The actual program against Kasparov for the first time in history played for all >the psyche of a concrete human opponent. We know that Kasparov believes in >magic. Numbers are very important for him as symbols for something coming from a >hidden world. So in consequence Kasparov believes in the super-natural of chess. >Now what DEEP JUNIOR has done in game three is giving Kasparov the perception of >a position that is completely lost for the computer side. In front of a castled >King Kasparov saw two Knights on f6 and h6. Not enough, he had an open g-file >against such a configuration! And his own King could still castle to the Queen's >side! Three officers were directed against Black's King-side. Queen and two >Bishops! The black King might have felt like Israel in front of the Arab World. > >But did Kasparov EVER have such a winning position against a human opponent? Of >course not because only patzers would play like that. And against patzers you >don't need your best chess. Here is the secret of the actual design of the >Israeli computer program. What would happen if Kasparov had to win such a won >position against precise calculations on the border of the allowed and possible >in chess? Is he prepared for such a challenge? Of course not! You are making one assumption that may turn out to be faulty: "The position was winning for white after g4 Nxg4". It looked dangerous for black. But "looks" don't win against a computer. Against a human, black might well have "folded". Just as surely as Kasparov folded near the end of the game. But a computer generally won't, and during the game no computer ever thought white was up by as much as a whole pawn. So it might just be a case of something looking dangerous but not really being dangerous. Computers are known for their ability to handle such positions very well, and the inherent problem in such positions is that quite often, there is a very fine line to walk as the position is played by both sides. Anytime you put a human in a position where he has _one_ good choice, and _lots_ of fair to bad choices, for many moves, the probability of a single mistake goes way up, and what we saw in game three happens. Ng6+ was a solid drawing move, but Kasparov either (a) missed it (which seems unlikely) or (b) he thought the rook move gave him winning chances, without enough time to really analyze carefully. Whichever reason really doesn't matter that much. If you are the world's best "minesweeper" you still take a chance every time you walk on to a minefield... > >So this is the answer how David could still beat Goliath. Big super powers have >to control a huge traffic of their own while little David must only concentrate >on the strategically weakest spaces and entities of the enemy. Perhaps we have >seen the birth of a new chess pattern. After the famous Nf8 position that often >can defend the whole Kingside for Black we have now the Nh6 position. This is >chess of the third thousand. It is worth more than three times Las Vegas. > >Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.02 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.