Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:22:13 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 16:25:09, Amir Ban wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 12:10:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 16, 2003 at 07:59:54, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2003 at 13:06:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I disagree with the "played like a super-GM" player, however. I doubt you >>>>will find _any_ 2200 FIDE player that would play as badly as DJ played in >>>>the first three games, up until move 30 or so. Game 1 would not have been >>>>played by any 2000 player I know, myself included. So saying that it has >>>>super-GM positional understanding is _way_ _way_ offbase. Yes, it played >>>>good moves at times. But it also played _horrible_ moves at times. And I >>>>am not just talking about tactically horrible moves such as the blunders that >>>>Kasparov dropped on the board, I am talking about moves such as taking the >>>>g-pawn and getting exposed to a horrific attack. >>>> >>> >>>I can't agree with any of this. >>> >>>It would be good to back the statement that Junior played the "first three >>>games, up until move 30 or so" worse than 2200 with some concrete examples of >>>where a 2200 player would play better. The three games lasted 27, 30 & 36 moves, >>>so what does this mean at all ? >> >> >>Take game 1. I don't know of _anybody_ that would play like that, except >>for some computers. Totally lost. >> > >This is handwaving and doesn't answer the question > > >>Take game 2. Every GM criticized the idea of "winning the exchange" instantly. >>It took me (and other lowly humans) a lot longer to conclude "this looks very >>dangerous for white, where prior to accepting we all thought white had a better >>position. >> >>Take game 3. Taking the g-pawn to open a file in your own king's face. Did >>you hear _any_ IM/GM player that thought that was a good move? I didn't and >>we had _several_ on ICC. >> > >Why would they say it's a good move when it's the only move ? See more below. > > >>So in the first three games, the program voluntarily self-destructed, even >>though it did win a game due to a simple-to-see blunder by the opponent, and >>it managed to draw game 2 where it could have lost, even though it was clearly >>better in the opening. >> >>That's not to say that DJ didn't play well at times, but it did _not_ play >>"super-GM position moves" in _those_ games. Perhaps it did a few times. But >>a few times is not enough when playing a super-GM. >> >>> >>>The one example you give, of 10... Nxg4 in game three, is wrong. Taking the pawn >>>is the only move that does not lose quickly. I assume that what you prefer is >>>what crafty would play, which I see is 10... h6. I don't know if this is >>>apparent to a 2200 player, but 10... h6 11. g5 is hopeless for black. Crafty >>>does not even expect 11. g5. >> >>No. I suspect Crafty would do the same thing. Notice that I didn't say that >>I thought Crafty was better than DJ, because I _don't_. >> > >You did not get my meaning: > >1. Nxg4 is the only move here >2. Crafty doesn't play it but h6, a weak move > >Criticizing Nxg4 is more of a weak player's reflex than a serious comment. > > >> >> >>> >>>The picture you give of Kasparov missing won positions due to making "tactically >>>horrible moves" against an opponent who shows tactical resilience (while playing >>>like a positional patzer) simply did not happen in this match. Maybe you have >>>been watching crafty on ICC, but not Deep Junior in NYC. >> >> >>Sorry, but I watched _every_ game. I didn't get to see all of the last three >>games, but I watched games 1-3 from start to finish. If you are happy with the >>decisions it made, and if you are convinced it played like a super-GM in those >>three games, that's up to you. To my eye, and to the eyes of the GM/IM players >>that were analyzing on ICC, that opinion was not prevalent. >> >>> >>>Kasparov did not make any real blunders in this match, at least not the way I >>>understand "blunder" as a move that he and much lesser players would in normal >>>circumstances easily avoid. Kasparov's motives in describing his mistakes as >>>"fingerfehlers" are obvious, since if they were so, then they somehow don't >>>count and we have to count the games he lost as surely drawn, and those he drew >>>as surely won, but we don't have to buy that. >> >>Certainly he did. Game two comes to mind. He had a forced draw. He made >>a move that led to a forced loss. That is a blunder in _any_ book. (Ng6+ >>was the forced draw, Rh5 was an outright blunder.) >> >> >>> >>>To describe 32. Rh5 of game 3 as a blunder is a gross misrepresentation. It >>>misses a rather spectacular mate possibility. Not something that one sees in a >>>blitz game (not even Eduard Nemeth). >> >> >>No, but everyone saw Ng6+ instantly, and it only took a few seconds for GM >>players to say "oh no" after Rh5. (of course it took the comps a few milli- >>seconds to see Rh5 was bad). >> > >Did you actually look into the variation he missed ? Please play through it on a >real chessboard, then come back here and tell me it's an "outright blunder" and >the GM's would see it in a few seconds. The definition of "blunder" is "a move that changes the final result of the game." IE from a win to a draw or loss, or from a draw to a loss. This _obviously_ qualifies. Ng6 is an instant and forced draw unless black wants to return the favor and turn it into a win for white. So how can it _not_ be a blunder to lose when a forced draw was there??? Not in any definition I see for the word "blunder". > > >> >> >>> >>>Calling 25... Qa1+ of game 2 a blunder is really stretching it. Kasparov, by his >>>own words, worked it out to a forced win, but missed a rook check 18 ply down >>>the road. This is not a blunder but a hard luck story. Anderssen's combination >>>in the Evergreen Game was not as deep. Would we accept Dufrense saying "I was >>>totally winning but blundered and allowed Rd1" ? >>> >>>Amir >> >>I'm not sure I'd call that a blunder by Kasparov. Computers said Qa1 was an >>instant draw. While f4 was better for black. Whether it would win or not is >>unknown, and even Kasparov said that f4 also led to a draw, so that's perfectly >>ok, in m book. >> > >The computers said Qa1 was an instant draw ? Really ? You can leave a computer >overnight and it still won't get close to resolving that position. I wouldn't disagree, but yes, they _did_ say "draw". And we had _several_ providing analysis. Of course, whether it is right or wrong is another topic and since Kasparov said that f4 was also a draw, that is why I did not say Qa1 was a blunder. It didn't change the game result. > >Ok, I believe that you followed the match, but you were looking through very >peculiar glasses because everything you saw was simpler by several orders of >magnitude than it actually was. > I was "looking through the glasses" of several GM and IM players, plus listening to the chess.fm live commentary, plus watching the output of several different computer programs, most commercial but a few amateurs including Crafty... I don't think that was "simpler by several orders of magnitude than it actually was." I don't try to out-guess GM players very often, but I do listen to others do so, particularly when computer analysis backs up what they are saying (Ng6+ vs Rh5 is but one example.) > >>Even playing Bxh7 rather than g3 in game 5 was ok, because he gave reasonable >>justification (avoiding incredibly complicated tactics) for avoiding what was >>probably a win for white (according to recently published GM analysis, although >>the "final story" is not yet in...). >> > >It will be analyzed for quite some time more I guess, but we already have from >Kasparov at the closing ceremony and later that he believes it is sound. > >Amir > > >>My only comment was addressed at "super-GM positional play" by DJ. I saw very >>good play, particularly when it was in great trouble. But I didn't see >>"super-GM positional play" in many cases..
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.