Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:09:26 02/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2003 at 15:57:36, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 03, 2003 at 11:12:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >[snip] >>I see no logic in Kasparov's arguments. He lost to DB2 due to the stuff in game >>2 after that he was out of the match. Then in 2003 he plays a program over 100 >>times slower than DB2, agains loses and again begins to behave unconfortably. >>Although it's just a promotion for the Israeli program. He says that he was >>winning in principal all three games. > >He probably was winning. But that's how it is against computers. You have a >commanding position. You make brilliant, positional moves. You hone in on an >idea about which the computer has no clue. > >Then you make the tiniest little slip and some ultra deep combination costs you >one pawn and the computer grinds you into powder in the endgame. If that happened like that I would be happy, no question about it. But the truth is that Kasparov "saw" it (the better) and still played the weaker stuff. Excuse me if I begin to reflect. What is not yet conspiracy theoretizing. If you were talking about the forth game, then I wait until the comments come out. But already now I feel sad that Kasparov played such a nonsense. And hedgehog does NOT excuse all the repetitions. He almost invited to the b6 variation. Crazy. Rolf Tueschen > >[snip]
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.