Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:51:03 11/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2003 at 13:05:33, Uri Blass wrote:
>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
"common" is relative. I agree it doesn't happen "often". However, it does
happen more frequently than I would expect...
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.