Author: blass uri
Date: 01:05:17 11/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1998 at 19:52:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 11, 1998 at 04:25:06, Reynolds Takata wrote: > >>On November 10, 1998 at 17:19:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 10, 1998 at 10:29:12, Reynolds Takata wrote: >>> >>>>On November 10, 1998 at 03:47:08, odell hall wrote: >>>> No offense but i'm seriously doubting that those words have echoed in your >>>>ears, because Kasparov to my recollection said "if deepblue were to start >>>>playing TOURNAMENT chess, I personaly guarantee I will tear it to shreds". >>>>Would Kasparov tear it to shreds? Well who knows that's only conjecture. >>>>However, just as Kasparov may be drawing too big of conclusions from the >>>>match,you are as well. Especially considering the short nature of the match. >>>>Heck if Jan Timman had beaten Kasparov ina match or even Judit Polgar had beaten >>>>Polgar in a match, nobody and i mean nobody, would be claiming that either of >>>>those players were better than Kasparov. Another thing is that you are >>>>overlooking the POSSIBILITY of LUCK. I say this, because as a master i know >>>>that there is luck. An example, though i am only an average master, in the game >>>>that Kasparov resigned that was a draw. I saw the draw almost instantaneously, >>>>maybe a minute to check to make sure of it is all. As for everyone not seeing >>>>the move that's not true. >>> >>>I'll bet you didn't see the real draw... >> >>Well Bob you can bet all you want have a coke and a smile. >> >>because it is 30 moves deep. And it >>>took a bunch of people all night with computers and brains in gear to find this >>>. You might have "thought" it was a draw... But that's a long way from >>>"knowing" it is a draw. And I'm not trying to be insulting... but a bunch of >>>GM players didn't see it either... It's non-trivial... >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> In fact many players believed there was something. I >>>>wont forget I.M. Ashleys shock when it happened he says at the moment something >>>>to the effect "What? Kasparov is resigning?" In a very shocked voice. At that >>>>point many people just stopped examining the position. Further, 2 more of the >>>>games Kasparov was had winning positions(and blew) that most average GM's would >>>>have won, >>> >>>This is not a convincing argument. >> >>The above statement isn't an arguement. As for them being Winning positions you >>need to try to understand what is generally meant when players and Chess >>periodicals say winning. You can have mate in two and not win. The above is >>not only my analysis but MANY Grandmasters as well, you only have to look around >>for the confirmation of this, which include statements by Anand and Orlov. >> > >My point is that two things are happening here... 1. some GM players have a >lot of disdain for computers, having been exposed to micros and finding them >relatively unintelligent, excepting for fast time controls. And they assume >that *they* can analyze more deeply and more accurately. (more on this in a >minute). 2. these same players look at some positions and say "white is >winning..." and that's that. Care to look thru a good opening book and let's >do the following: I can pick *any* opening where the analysis is +- and you >have to play the white side of it, with a wager of $10,000 on the outcome. >You know what would happen there, correct? Because there are lots of such >annotated games where something *serious* was overlooked, and instead of being >+- it should be -+. > >The thing that most bothers me about the comments about game two of the DB >match is that *everyone* agreed that the computer should have played Qb6 and >won a pawn, with a probable win as the result. And they all agreed that a >very strong human might have tried Be4 instead. And *all* overlooked that >Qb6 leads to a draw. > >So what is convincing when they say that in game X, DB was lost, but it managed >to swindle a draw because Kasparov made a mistake. about what game are you talking? I remember that I read only about one game(game 4) that kasparov missed a win in the site of danny mozes. I think also that deep blue was lost also in game 6 after Nxe6 but I am not sure of it. 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.