Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:16:32 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2003 at 15:31:59, Matthew Hull wrote: >On February 18, 2003 at 14:56:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 18, 2003 at 12:12:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 18, 2003 at 03:11:09, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On February 17, 2003 at 11:29:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 17, 2003 at 01:54:24, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 16, 2003 at 21:45:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 16, 2003 at 21:01:43, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>So you _think_ that is why the computer took the pawn? Rather than just >>>>>>>>>"taking a pawn?" BTW most programs would have played that move. Do you think >>>>>>>>>they _all_ understood what was going to come down that file as a result of >>>>>>>>>their _voluntarily_ opening it up to win a pawn??? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I don't. At least not mine... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't quite see the relevance of your this. >>>>>>>>You gave Nxg4 as an example of a horrible move, I argued that its not a horrible >>>>>>>>move. I guess you still think Nxg4 is horrible? If so, we agree to differ. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think that in general principle, Nxg4 is _bad_. If it _happens_ that it is >>>>>>>the >>>>>>>best move here, so be it, but I'd bet that a program thinks that black is >>>>>>>better, >>>>>>>and that's wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>I bet that it does not think that black is better. >>>>>> >>>>>>Even an old version(Junior7) gives advantage for white. >>>>>>My program(Movei) also gives a small advantage for white and likes Nxg4. >>>>> >>>>>I am talking about "black is better after Nxg4 than after another move." IE the >>>>>score goes _up_ for taking the pawn. >>>> >>>>...Nxg4 is likely the best Black has there. ...h6 is just weak. As was O-O to >>>>begin with. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>programs are not perfect but against kasparov even GM's can get a bad position >>>>>>in the opening. >>>>>> >>>>>>If the program played the opening like 2500 and the rest of the game like 2900 >>>>>>then I think that it is not wrong to say that it played like a super GM. >>>>> >>>>>Yeah, but do you think it played "the rest of the game like 2900"??? >>>>> >>>>>I don't. Again, games 1 2 and 3 could have been all losses, easily, and should >>>>>have >>>>>ended 2.5-.5 at least. That's "super-GM" level chess? Particularly after >>>>>looking at >>>>>game 1? >>>> >>>>DJ had a super-GM result. Obviously it didn't play like a human super-GM, but >>>>what matters is strength, not style. >>> >>> >>> >>>I believe I said that. The point is "super-GM stamina" mixed with less than >>>super-GM >>>tactics and positional play. But the stamina issue has seemed to be far more >>>important >>>than I would have imagined, after watching the DF/Kramnik and DJ/Kasparov >>>matches. >> >>I have no _proof_, but I hold the following thesis: it was a chess show event. >>Couöd you doubt that? Kramnik and Kasparov drew because of future events and the >>best possible advertisement for the chess companies and sponsors. uebner already >>drew Fritz. Bareev drew Hiarcs! I don't buy the stamina issue. You cannot prove >>it either. But I know from other chess show events like simuls that GM lose or >>draw against "good talents" , yes. But never such a prominent figure became GM! >>Know what I mean? If such a Major draws, he also has a performance of a GM. But >>never could I read that the Major or film star so and so played on a GM level! >>Such hyperbole came up with CC... :( >> >>Hey Bob, I know that you are among those who are relatively careful, don't take >>me wrong. But now you are a bit speculative on the stamina issue. Did you ever >>hear of the famous 24 hours Blitz tournaments in Germany? So far about stamina >>of chessplayers. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > > >Not too long ago, Bob indicated that there were no GMs on ICC able to dominate >Crafty. I would think that play on ICC has nothing to do with money or "show" >issues. For me, this is evidence that programs have reached a parity point, >with their advantages offsetting GM advantages. Pardon me? You are confusing Blitz and tournament chess time schedules. Sorry. Cool down my friend. Always think twice before you answer my messages. I am very _dangerous_ in tactics. :) Rolf Tueschen > >Therefore, it is not difficult for me to take the recent "show" results at face >value. Other speculations really don't help clarify anything and have the added >defect of accusing someone of corruption without proof, which is another >negative thing we could all do without. > >Matt > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Another criteria for super-GM chess (IMHO): In which game did the comp have any >>>>>sort >>>>>of initiative out of the opening? Perhaps in game 5 after the sac, and even >>>>>that is not a clear >>>>>good move as most seem to think it loses. >>>> >>>>That's a highly debatable assertion. Perhaps at the moment of the game most >>>>people thought it loses, I think the consensus has switched to it being fine for >>>>black. But then, I thought it was fine for black to begin with, so maybe I'm >>>>biased. ;-) >>> >>>You mean the Bxh7 game was fine for black? I still believe white wins that. >>>Perhaps time and analysis will answer the question definitively. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>If you look at the 1997 match, DB2 >>>>>played clearly >>>>>strong chess and had an initiative in several of the games. Game 2 comes to >>>>>mind as a game >>>>>with only one flaw, that of Kasparov resigning when he should not have. But >>>>>Kasparov was >>>>>defending the entire game. In which game in _this_ match do you see that >>>>>happening? >>>> >>>>I'd say that DJ was very impressive in game 4, when Kasparov played the hedgehog >>>>setup. GK could easily have lost that game (Bxe5). >>> >>>I don't think _either_ player did particularly well there. DJ just held on >>>longer. Both >>>it (and Kasparov) did more than a few tempo-chucking moves that most thought >>>were >>>wastes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>And I >>>>>don't particularly assess DB2 as "super-GM" stuff myself. Very strong. Very >>>>>consistent. Just >>>>>like Deep Junior. >>>> >>>>DB, too, had a super-GM result. >>> >>>Sure it did, and for the same apparent reason (stamina) although if you look at >>>games >>>1,2 and 3, DB played strong chess in every game. It didn't "luck into anything" >>>by the >>>opponent playing a grossly ugly move out of the blue. Game 2 really comes to >>>mind >>>as _looking_ like a game played like a super-GM. >>> >>>> >>>>Dave
This page took 0.01 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.