Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:06:47 02/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2003 at 10:30:00, Amir Ban wrote: >5) Did you learn something about junior in this match or did it performed as >expected ? > > It's not possible to isolate the performance of Junior in this match from its >opponent: Garry Kasparov. We have had enough exposure to grandmasters in public >and test games and if Kasparov had been an ordinary GM, things would have been >quite different. But he was an unknown, and a scary one at that. My conclusions >about different aspects of the game are a bit of a surprise to me too: > > Opening preparations: Kasparov is no. 1 in this regard, Compared to whom? How can you know that? What are the reasons? Don't you know that Kasparov lost to Kramnik? Also in respect to openings? [Berliner...] He lost in 40/2 and also Blitz. > and he showed what >this means in game 1. However, Boris put up an excellent fight and in the second >part of the match it appeared that we were getting the upper hand. Why do you say "appeared"? How can you tear any conclusions from a show event? > > Tactics: Strangely enough, towards the end of the match I realized that Junior >is not outplaying Kasparov tactically. I have seen enough games against >grandmasters where this happened to realize that nothing of the sort is >happening against this particular opponent. For this reason I was less >enthusiastic about game 5 than others arguing that early complications lead us >nowhere. How can you say that when Kasparov did blunder so often now? And did you draw for that reason in the 6th game? Wasn't Kasparov a bit afraid? > > Positional understanding: perhaps even more surprising than tactics, Junior >was holding its own in positional play, It became obvious in certain games that JUNIOR has absolutely no sound positional ideas. > the best examples of which were games 3 >& 4. We have had our experiments in the past with so called anti-GM strategies >and with avoiding closed positions and everything else that according to >conventional wisdom is supposed to be unsuitable for computers and all these >were left in the wastebin for this match. > > Endgames: This aspect of the game was hardly discussed in this match. > > In the end Deep Junior played not only as strongly as a super-GM (a debate >that has been going in this forum for several years too long), but actually as a >super-GM. Let's take the following reflection. Just theory! If Kasparov was eager on the money and nothing else, then why DJ should be comparable in any respect, if you consider that Kasparov had an interest to let look his opponent, no matter who, as very strong? Since you don't know for sure in a show event, how can you make such revolutionary conclusions? >I've seen opinions expressed that the programs are 2500 in >understanding and 2900 in tactics, so you get an overall 2700 performance. I'm >not buying it. The same for some comments like "typical computer move" which in >some cases were so unthinking that they were seemingly generated by a computer. > > I believe that the two different ways of playing chess: human chess and >computer chess are starting to converge at their highest level. To be sure, the >programs are from time to time conceding their silicon origins, but in the same >way we humans must admit that when events exceed our understanding, then >something mechanical in our own thought processes reveals itself. It's not the time now to discuss all your theories, but could you tell us a few ideas about comp vs human chess? Is that already a real sport? Honestly I can see only masters who get a lot of money, but no competition. They have understood that the best result for the future money is a draw. But what has that to do with chess competition? 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.