Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:05:33 11/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2003 at 12:56:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 14, 2003 at 09:04:24, Amir Ban wrote:
>
>>On November 14, 2003 at 06:31:21, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On November 13, 2003 at 21:31:33, Amir Ban wrote:
>>>
>>>>On November 13, 2003 at 16:57:42, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On November 13, 2003 at 16:54:11, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>[Event "Man vs Machine"]
>>>>>>[Site "New York"]
>>>>>>[Date "2003.11.13"]
>>>>>>[Round "2"]
>>>>>>[White "Fritz X3D"]
>>>>>>[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
>>>>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>>>>[ECO "C66"]
>>>>>>[PlyCount "77"]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 d6 5. c3 g6 6. O-O Bg7 7. Nbd2 O-O 8. Re1
>>>>>>Re8 9. d4 {White last book move} 9... Bd7 10. d5 Ne7 11. Bxd7 Nxd7 12. a4 h6
>>>>>>13. a5 a6 14. b4 f5 15. c4 Nf6 16. Bb2 Qd7 17. Rb1 g5 18. exf5 Qxf5 19. Nf1 Qh7
>>>>>>20. N3d2 Nf5 21. Ne4 Nxe4 22. Rxe4 h5 23. Qd3 Rf8 24. Rbe1 Rf7 25. R1e2 g4 26.
>>>>>>Qb3 Raf8 27. c5 Qg6 28. cxd6 cxd6 29. b5 axb5 30. Qxb5 Bh6 31. Qb6 Kh7 32. Qb4
>>>>>>Rg7 33. Rxe5 dxe5 34. Qxf8 Nd4 35. Bxd4 exd4 36. Re8 Rg8 37. Qe7+ Rg7 38. Qd8
>>>>>>Rg8 39. Qd7+ 1-0
>>>>>
>>>>>Another reason why Kasparov should have closed the game with 17...f4, reducing
>>>>>the chances of such blunders. One thing Kasparov needs to learn is that against
>>>>>computers you play differently. Illia Smirin's games at KasparovChess are
>>>>>excellent examples of the correct anti-computer strategy.
>>>>
>>>>But grandmasters never make such mistakes. Even masters don't.
>>>>
>>>>If they fell for elementary tactics once per even 100 games, they would fall for
>>>>more complex tactics twice per game. They don't.
>>>
>>>1)A player can fall into elementary tactics once per 100 games without falling
>>>to complex tactics more than once per 50 games.
>>>
>>>I do not see how you get your conclusion
>>>
>>>2)The question is not only how many plies is the tactics.
>>>
>>
>>Of course it is. Deep ply tactics are not obvious and intuition and calculation
>>to be detected. Not so for single ply tactics, which are seen at a glance.
>>
>>
>>>It may be the question for computer but not for humans.
>>>The point in this case was that white threated nothing before the mistake of
>>>kasparov and the rook at f8 was defended twice so other moves also did not allow
>>>Fritz to use the same tactics.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not a strong player, but I saw throughout the game that if there's anything
>>for black to watch out for it's a sacrifice on e5. It's not as if this was a
>>deep & mysterious sacrifice on a7.
>
>What _I_ would like to see is the board thru the X3D glasses. I've used
>those things (not that particular brand) and I personally hate them. If
>you have not seen them, the monitor alternates showing two different frames
>and the glasses act like "shutters" letting the left eye see the left image
>then closing while the right eye sees the right image.
>
>I found it _very_ tiring. And one has to wonder if the 3D display tended to
>somehow "hide" the tactic to weary eyes. I have no idea why he agreed to use
>the things, other than that the company that makes them is a sponsor for the
>event. But for anyone that has ever tried them, it is _not_ pleasant IMHO.
>
>SEGA used to make a video game that used this same technology, but it was
>horrible, because it used a normal TV which doesn't refresh often enough to
>prevent terrible eye-strain and headaches. I suspect X3d is refreshing at
>least double a normal TV, which means at least 60-80 frames per second,
>alternated. That was the speed of the last such 3D display I tried. It was
>cute, but _not_ for hours. I found that after 30 minutes my head was hurting
>any my eyes were suffering. I discovered that my eyes are trained to vary
>their focus based on depth. But not on a 3D device. It is really a flat-
>plane image that you watch, but the alternating frames simulates the 3D
>effect. But your eyes try to adjust focus as you look at the "back" of the
>board, and then they have to correct. And that caused me a lot of eyestrain
>and eventually a headache.
>
>I won't begin to claim that was the problem here. But it certainly _could_
>be a problem. Otherwise everyone there saw instantly that Rook takes (or
>even bishop takes) won a piece. I just can't imagine how he could overlook
>that. However, I have seen a GM overlook a mate in 2 and have to give up
>his queen to avoid getting mated, so it _does_ happen. But the mate in 2
>was much more complicated than the tactic yesterday...
>
>I suppose the old "meat makes mistakes" is still a truism.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Playing a computer is not relevant. Junior played about 100 games against >2000
>>>>players and nothing like this happened.
>>>
>>>The question is in how many games there was an opportunity for a similiar trap
>>>when one or two ply mistake is a natural move and the reply is not something
>>>that Junior threats before the mistake but a capture that is a bad capture
>>>against other moves.
>>>
>>
>>You can lose any game instantly by succumbing to a fork, pin or whatever without
>>there being a previous threat.
>>
>>If this happens to you, you don't get to be a master.
>
>I don't agree. I see even GMs overlooking forks and pins. They just
>don't do it as often as 2000 players.
If we are talking about 2000 players and not about blitz time control then
overlooking forks and pins is not common even for 2000 players.
Uri
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.