Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:21:49 02/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2003 at 08:35:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 01, 2003 at 22:02:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 01, 2003 at 12:48:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>So what? In _every_ game white starts off with a _clear_ "advantage". But >>it isn't always enough to win. Which may well have been the case here. It is >>one thing to have an advantage or edge. It is still another thing to convert >>that into a win. Often a single pawn is not enough, for example, and in many >>positions two pawns or even a piece is not enough. > > >But that is all true and also NOT the point. Because following that specific >argument chess as such should no longer be played because why should White try >to win if it's so difficult. > >You simply deny the iron rule in chess that without playing at all you can't >win. For the same logic you also do not forfeit because then you have lost for >sure. But if you play you still might save your game. > >Please let us be serious here. ;) > >Rolf Tueschen > Actually I was being serious _and_ consistent. Just because Kasparov had some tangible advantage in a game, does not mean he was _winning_. IE a dangerous-looking attack is not winning until someone finds a forced winning line. That hasn't happened in game two or game three yet, only in game one. > > >> >> >> >>> 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.