Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:56:16 09/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2003 at 18:56:30, Mike Byrne wrote: >On September 15, 2003 at 09:11:25, emerson tan wrote: > >>I played a 24 game match between Shredder 6.02 and Hiarcs 7.32 with the >>following opening. >> >>1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.N1f3 h6 8.Nxe6 >> >>Time control was 40/4hrs + 20/2hrs + 2hrs to finish on a 1.8 Ghz processor. >> >>Shredder played all the white games and Hiracs all the black games. The score >>went 13-11 in Hiarcs favor. Only a couple of games were drawn. >> >>I choose Shredder 6.02 to have white because it likes whites position and >>without an opening book, it will play the 8.Nxe6 sacrifice. Also, Shredder has a >>positional learning. I choose Hiarcs for black solely because of its positional >>learning. Positional learning is important in this one opening match since it >>will be able to learn and improve its next play based on the same opening. >> >>Maybe 8.Nxe6 is not a forced win for white. Maybe Kasparov can study it and use >>it in some high profile match against computers since most of the programmers >>might put it in their books thinking its a forced win for white. > > >There is one hint that Joel Benjamin likes Nxe6 - since this move was not >calculated but in DB's opening book. Although not certain, I suspect to leave >this move in the opening book - they very much like the way DB played this from >the white side. As someone else mentione - top GM's are not playing h6. I read >(heard) somewhere that GK played h6 since Fritz never played Nxe6 against him. >Kudo's to the DB team for leaving this move in the book. I suspect if GK >thought this move (Nxe6) was in the opening book, he never would have played h6. > Do anyone believe GK would have played h6 against a top GM - not in my opinion. > Another example of GK changing his game, and perhaps too much, because he was >playing a computer. IMO, he would have much better and more interesting chess >if just played his usual game of attacking chess. The New York Times (May 13th >1997) said "The Chess litature has warned against that particular error (7.... >h6) since 1987 and everyone knows how to avoid it" There is another question: "did Kasparov try this and like the result when computers played Nxe6 against him during his training?" IE he obviously had some pre-computed traps ready for Deep Junior in the last match, with his g-pawn stuff. Do you think he thought that move was (a) strategically best against all opponents including human GMs; or (b) that move was strategically best against computers? I'm pretty sure it was the latter. That begs the question about h6. Did he (a) make a silly mistake? (b) not expect Nxe6 as a response; or (c) feel happy with Nxe6 or any other white move in that position, knowing the opponent was a computer? I think any of those are plausible, but I think (a) is the least plausible of the batch, knowing how he prepares and his memory ability. I've done this _very_ sort of thing against computers in the past. One favorite was a line against the Super Const. (we often used it in our chess club when we had a tournament with an odd number of players). I played openings that I would never play against humans, but which I knew led to wins against the computer, specifically the Supercon. Of course, had I planned such an opening against the Supercon and then sprang it on Cray Blitz, I would have known what was going to happen immediately. But it seems that Kasparov had very bad advice about the comparison of the 1997 Fritz program vs the 1997 DB2 machine that nobody knew much of anything about, other than "it was big and fast..."
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.