Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:22:20 02/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 22:58:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. False! The chances were high enough to win! Please read the variations on ChessBase. Rolf Tueschen > >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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 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.