Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 18:17:19 09/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2003 at 19:56:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. IMO, Kasparov did not play h6 by accident. http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/games/game6/html/move10a.html just click forward to see the live commentary made during the game "MAURICE ASHLEY: Capturing on e6 instantly and Kasparov shook his head for a moment -- " Game 6, black 10...Kd8 Commentary for black move 10: GK MOVE: ...fxe6 DB MOVE: Bg6+. GK MOVE: ...Kd8 MAURICE ASHLEY: Kasparov is shaking his head as if something disastrous has happened, his king being chased around the board. Is it possible that Kasparov has played incorrect theoretically? YASSER SEIRAWAN: Yes, he has. He blunered. What he did is he transposed moves. What I mean by that is this position is quite well known, and you had witnessed me playing the move Bf8-d6. The idea being that after Bd6, it's standard for white to then play Qe2, and then after h6, this sacrifice Nxe6 doesn't work because black has the move Kf8 later. MAURICE ASHLEY: You mean after Nxe6? YASSER SEIRAWAN: Capturing the knight, there's the check, the king can go to f8. But playing h6 one move earlier, the sacrifice that we've now seen, h6, is possible. As far as I recall, there was a famous game between Granda Zuniga, Grandmaster from Peru, vs. our very own Patrick Wolff. And it was a very difficult game for black to play and it became recognized that the move h6 was wrong. And Gary, assist -- Garry, as you saw his reactions, the moment that Deep Blue played Nxe6 so very quickly and reached the position they now have on the board, he was in just terror, distress. Because he's -- he recognizes that he's fallen for a well-known opening trap. MAURICE ASHLEY: Is this over? Is it that simple? MIKE VALVO: No. MAURICE ASHLEY: I mean he's up a piece for a pawn. YASSER SEIRAWAN: Right. " MAURICE ASHLEY: His king is in a sorry state right " Seirawan speculated that he transposed the moves h6 and Bd6 (plausible), setting the stage for Nxe6. The instant move Nxe6 tells you it was a book move. But I believe he deliberately played h6. Did Kasparov ever comment on why he played h6? Seirawan called h6 a "blunder" so that is one GM's view of the move. Here is Ashley's repsonse a few move later "ASHLEY: How is this possible, Yaz? I know we often try to play different openings to fool our opponents, but how could the "best by test" in the world, Garry Kasparov, make such an academic blunder? I'm trying to understand it. This guy's knowledge is encyclopedic, much less -- for him to play so basic and so wrong." and Yaz' response "YASSER SEIRAWAN: And indeed Garry spoke about that yesterday. He spoke about his memory as being one of the best chess memories in the world. One of the things that -- and in fact I find most upsetting about this particular position is, if Garry Kasparov were to lose today's game, it's entirely conceivable this whole sacrifice and so on is just in Deep Blue's library, opening library, and it's done nothing -- it may turn out it won't even have to play an original move if Garry chooses one of the variations that it has been programmed as a win for itself. Which would be very unfair, not only to the Deep Blue team and its research, but to Garry Kasparov as well, because all he's doing is losing to analysis by his own colleagues." I agree with Yaz - GK lost this game because of DB's opening book and his move h6. more comments "MIKE VALVO: That's what we came to see. We didn't come to see him trying to trick the computer. We came to see him take the computer head on, and I had hoped that he would do it in this final game, he would realize that up to now it hasn't work, this is the time he has to do it, he's pulled all his tricks, now let's go with our strengths, your strengths to my strength. MAURICE ASHLEY: Is he so terrified by Deep Blue and what it might know that it's just completely thrown him off his game? YASSER SEIRAWAN: It seems -- " GK simply did not play his game. > >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.