Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:19:59 02/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2003 at 10:21:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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_. Yes, you are correct, you are right, you are consistent, you are sympathetic! But you don't understand the chess truth that you can't be _winning_, if you don't play! BTW the text of an older rock song. Excuse me that I must insist. But as you know I even contradicted Marilyn vos Savant! I did NOT say that he was winning. Because he stopped playing. But what I say is: ROLF: If Kasparov had played on he would have won Game 2 and drawn Game 3!ROLF >IE a >dangerous-looking attack is not winning until someone finds a forced winning >line. That's right! And sure nobody can't find a forced winning IF he stops continuing to play! Because then he only draws or loses. Both options were already chosen by Kasparov in the past. Rolf Tueschen > >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.