Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:48:44 02/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2003 at 12:30:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Without the lines you would buy everything _Kasparov_ is telling you??? :) I don't follow you. We have found, also published here in CCC, lines with clear advantage for Black, Bob, that's a fact. Of course Kasparov doesn't want to appear as the sucker who missed another half point. Exactly you always wrote that he can't be believed if he's talking. I would say that this is just such a case. Even after f4 and then White h3, that is what Kasparov meant, Black is ok! Agreed it's not the same story as the draw in the second in 1997. Rolf Tueschen > >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.