Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:47:00 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2003 at 16:21:54, Matthew Hull wrote: >On February 18, 2003 at 16:16:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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. > > >I think his statement includes slow time controls as well, not just blitz. So >my original point holds, I think. Cannot be because such games are simply not happeing on ICC. But Bob can speak for himself. Bob? > >Matt > > >>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 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.