Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:30:24 02/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2003 at 11:22:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 > False again. I don't care _what_ "chessbase" publishes. Kasparov said "I later thought Qa1 was wrong and that I should have played f4, but analysis by my group later showed that f4 also led to a draw." That's good enough for me... I was watching the game in real-time, and I can certainly say that no program watching the game saw any big advantage for black after f4. Black might have been a bit "better". But "better" != "winning". > > >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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.