Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:54:19 02/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2003 at 22:34:23, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote:
>On February 02, 2003 at 21:27:47, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>>On February 02, 2003 at 18:18:03, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote:
>>
>>>On February 02, 2003 at 11:59:02, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 02, 2003 at 10:22:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 02, 2003 at 08:48:41, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On February 02, 2003 at 01:11:31, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On February 01, 2003 at 23:41:56, Will Singleton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On February 01, 2003 at 22:03:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On February 01, 2003 at 15:33:24, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On February 01, 2003 at 12:31:13, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On February 01, 2003 at 01:58:53, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On January 31, 2003 at 22:58:54, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Only because _black_ made the mistake, turning a winning position into a drawn
>>>>>>>>>>>>one, with Qa1 instead of f4.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Nothing to date says "f4 was winning." Kasparov certainly said that his team
>>>>>>>>>>>found that f4 was yet another way to draw...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Can you post a link when kasparov said it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The only place that I remember that I read that claim was in a post of Amir Ban
>>>>>>>>>>and kasparov did not say it based on the post but only a member of kasparov's
>>>>>>>>>>team.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>He said kasparov reported that his "team" and discovered that f4 was also a
>>>>>>>>>drawing move. I have no reason to doubt his statement, myself... He was
>>>>>>>>>there...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Here is a link for that post and the content of the relevant part
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?280166
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>{After the game Kasparov blamed this move, and said f4 wins. He repeated this at
>>>>>>>>>>the press conference minutes later. However, half an hour later a member of his
>>>>>>>>>>team told Shay that they analyzed f4 and found it is a draw (25... f4 26.h3)}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>OK... that seems conclusive enough for me...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mig quote:
>>>>>>>>"Kasparov wanted this on the record and repeated several times that he had
>>>>>>>>outplayed Junior completely in all three games and could be leading 2.5-0.5 or
>>>>>>>>even 3-0 if he had managed to finish off his good positions."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Will
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So? That supports the fact that f4 would not have won. Otherwise he would have
>>>>>>>said "had I played f4, I would have won that game easily." If that was his
>>>>>>>agenda...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Objection! If he had said that, he would have talked too much about the show
>>>>>>character of the event! And that is not his agenda for 500000$$ US just for the
>>>>>>show and even more for the games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I see no real point to discussing "assumed motives" that can't be proven or
>>>>>disproven...
>>>>
>>>>You better should see that the point is real. In fact "motives" is the term,
>>>>"assumed motives" is redundant! You certainly don't want to doubt that
>>>>psychology is a real science? ;)
>>>>
>>>>Of course you can prove motives or disprove them. I think that the motivation in
>>>>show events and World championships is different! All IMO of course.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>Isn't there a pattern here? players from strong IM to very strong GM losing?
>>> I could see if the comps were scoring 40or50% in the IM to lower GM ranks and
>>>then to see Super GM playing like this I would question more, but I do not feel
>>>all the other GMs were "inspired" to do this. It is possible Kasparov is, But I
>>>do not think he is playing a computer that is 300 points below him.
>>
>>No insult meant, but have you experience as a scientist, experimental scientist?
>>Yes, there is a pattern, but what does he tell you? What are the causes? You
>>simply conclude "superiority" of comps? That would be sub-optimal reasoning.
>>It's not that easy. I have different hypotheses. Just think about the complex
>>"show event". Is that a real competition in your eyes? Surely not.
>>
>>Let's not get crazy in such discussion, but we could debate for weeks and would
>>still not find the final truth. It's just an evaluation on the base of
>>experience. Money is corrupting indeed. And show events are no serious
>>competition. The conclusions then are something to everyone themselves.
>>
>>Rolf Tueschen
>
>I do not believe computers to be superior. I believe they are 2700+ GM strength
>Tactically only. I feel alot of GMs play into their strengths for the exciting
>game it produces to please the public, some i believe do not.
But who? Give me a few of these "some" as example. Nobody does it! And it's a
very trivial law. Those who probably wouldn't do are simply not invited.
The actual chess programs and their strength. Something you can't define with
show events! People who have extreme difficulties to understand that, would be
bad in science. Also - people who distribute Elo numbers after each little 6
game (show) event played by a new updated version of a chess program must have
extreme difficulties to even understand the basics of science. And finally we
have even experts with the necessary education but who are handicapped by their
economic interests. This is leading to extremely mendacious behaviour. We all
know that a chain is only as strong as its weakest member. Who could seriously
doubt that? But in computerchess that happens every day! People create a huge
confusion just to tweak the truth. And the truth is that because chess programs
have weaknesses even a 1700 player wouldn't have, they can't be - by definition
- Grandmaster or beware Super Grandmaster, they are not even International
Master - - - _IF_, and only if the mentioned groups would be in a serious
competition with such an _individual_ chess program and NOT always with a little
bit tweaked new and unknown version. It's a very premature and almost childish
perception of chess that is always being used to justify this tradition in CC,
namely that in chess human players did ALSO change and twist and tweak not only
their chess opening or other technique related informations but also their
personality on a daily base. This is a thinking based on fantasies of chess
players who never had the chance to play chess themselves on certain principles
at all. Because otherwise they knew how deeply we are conditioned with our
habits and personality. And therefore the combination of operator defined
personality with always new definitions in each new version is a form of
gambling but not serious chess competition. Because the operators simply enjoy
when a human player had bad luck with his false assumptions. This is highly
childish behaviour because by definition no player, no matter how strong, is a
clair voyant. And only children have fun when they hide behind corners or trees
and can't be discovered by the searcher. So, to sum up, the gambling principle
in CC and the indifference of human chess masters in general, do not allow to
define the strength of chess programs on master level. No matter how many show
events will be paid and played in future. Because my thesis is still standing:
If chess masters would seriously challenge chess programs (with certain sub-1700
weaknesses) they would crush these programs in pieces and only allow the Elo of
probably 2300 or 2400 at maximum. Competition Elo. Not show events or imbreeding
numbers out of comp events. And I hold that thesis although I know how deep the
actual progs can calculate. But a continual human competition would exactly
dissect the unbelievably stupid and fatal (because not to correct or heal)
weaknesses. I won't claim that this could produce nice chess games. BTW that is
exactly the reason why GM hate to play any form of anti-comp chess. But real
competition would change that.
> I do Believe Money can corrupt. I also know there is alot more to everything
>that the eye and mind can see and think of.
I think you answered what I wanted to know. A scientist (experimental direction)
does also know, that much is still unknown, but you sound as if you could be in
danger to make a religion out of the unknown, when in reality it's simply the
future development. And true, some questions are simply without answer in
science. For instance, why I am not a twin brother of Kasparov and when I will
be World Champion in motorsport and why people feel safer with pseudonyms in
CCC.
:)
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.