Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: German Kishon's relevations about DEEPJUNIOR

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 19:58:54 01/31/03

Go up one level in this thread


On January 31, 2003 at 18:45:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>On January 31, 2003 at 18:40:15, Eduard Nemeth wrote:
>
>>On January 31, 2003 at 11:05:56, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>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...
>>
>>I believe that Gary not draw to play wanted and therefore Rh5 played. The cause
>>lies in my opinion into game 2. There Gary has one win line missed and thus
>>wanted it into game 3 to _absolutely_ win!
>
>:)
>
>Yes, Eduard, aber Bob versteht ja gar nicht, daß Garry in Nummer 2 gewinnen
>konnte. Er glaubt, daß Garry echt Glück gehabt hat gegen DJ noch diesen Remisweg
>gefunden zu haben... <grins>
>
>Yes Eduard, but Bob only sees that Garry could draw in Game Two, but not win.
>Bob thinks that Garry was lucky in finding a way out in Game Two when DJ was
>almost winning. <g>
>
>Rolf Tueschen
>
>

I don't believe I ever said "he was lucky in game 2".  He made an incredibly
deep sacrifice offer that I'd bet he was sure the computer would take, and it
led to a position that gave black lots of chances.  But white made no mistakes
and the chances were all "vaporous" and the draw ensued.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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 0.05 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.