Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 05:04:22 02/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 19:34:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 09, 2004 at 18:39:43, Mark Young wrote: > >>On February 09, 2004 at 13:00:42, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 09, 2004 at 12:06:32, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On February 09, 2004 at 10:24:30, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 09, 2004 at 10:14:58, Mark Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 09, 2004 at 09:21:59, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 09, 2004 at 08:39:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On February 08, 2004 at 22:50:05, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If case you have not figured this out by now, my intent it to continue with >>>>>>>>>posting all 11 of the Nolot positions, dig up the game score from the actual >>>>>>>>>game -- post the orginal comments made by Pierre Nolot (original author of the >>>>>>>>>article where these positions were discussed) and Feng-Hsiung Hsu, Deep Blue >>>>>>>>>Inventor, who was preparing Deep Thought/Deep Blue for the match with Kasparov >>>>>>>>>that was to come in 1995 and took a keen interest in these positions. He >>>>>>>>>believed that if Deep Blue were able to solve these type of positions quickly, >>>>>>>>>Deep Blue would have a very good shot at defeating Kasparov. It is interesting >>>>>>>>>to see what today's software on fast hardware think of these positions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>So far these posts have gone very well and I appeciate everyone who has >>>>>>>>>particpated in this excercise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Nolot #3 is a semi-controversial position as there are many doubters that the >>>>>>>>>claimed winning move is truly a forced win. When one also considers the nearly >>>>>>>>>200 point in the ratings of the particpants, it easier to understand why the >>>>>>>>>favored player, GM Sergey Smagin, now 47, played the daring and very complicated >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>[d]r2qk2r/ppp1b1pp/2n1p3/3pP1n1/3P2b1/2PB1NN1/PP4PP/R1BQK2R w - - bm Nxg5; 3 >>>>>>>>f3g5 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I have studied it too and came to the conclusion that Nxg5 is a beautiful and >>>>>>>>very deep win. Nothing controversial about it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Please realise Feng-Hsiung Hsu has a rating of a 1000 points or so and his thing >>>>>>>>positional 2000 or so. He doesn't realize of course that black effectively is >>>>>>>>not playing after Nxg5. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hsu's rating is irrelevant for discussion about this position. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I did not study this position but these kind of posts is the reason that people >>>>>>>do not like you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You could claim that you believe that Nxg5 is better without becoming personal >>>>>>>against Hsu but unfortunately instead of comparing evaluation of positions after >>>>>>>Nxg5 and Bxg5 you chose to go for a personal attack. >>>>>> >>>>>>This is no more a personal attack then you saying GM Kasparov and GM Kramnik >>>>>>threw their matches to the computers. >>>>> >>>>>The point is that the claims about Hsu's level are irrelevant for the >>>>>discussion. >>>> >>>>It is not irrelevant. When talking about a chess position with no clear cut >>>>tactics a persons chess level and chess judgement are highly relevant. >>> >>>The main problem is that Vincent did not give explanation about the position. >>> >>>It is known that Hsu was never a good chess player so there is nothing new in >>>the things that Vincent posted and I see them only as attacking hsu(I think he >>>was better than rating of 1000 and Vincent as usually exagarate). >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>If you want to convince people that somebody is wrong about chess position then >>>>>the right way is to talk about chess and not to say that his rating is law. >>>>> >>>> >>>>>In the case of kasparov and kramnik match the question if they lost on purpose >>>>>is clearly relevant for the discussion about the level of chess programs. >>>> >>>>Not when one claims they lost on purpose without any proof what so ever. >>> >>> >>>At least in the case of kramnik the mistakes that were done are circumstancal >>>evidence. >> >>No it is not circumstancal evidence. Not when one can site many examples of both >>GM Kasparov and GM Kramnik making very shallow tactical oversites before and >>after their matches with computers. >> >>It is common to see players blunder like this when playing computers. This is >>not just true for GM Kasparov or GM Kramnik. >> >>The stress of playing a computer is the cause of most of these blunders. It is a >>different kind of chess then playing a human. >> >>Unless one can site proof that GM Kasparov and GM Kramnik cheated the public >>with fake a match. It stands as a baseless attack on both GM Kasparov and GM >>Kramnik. >> >>> >>>I usually do not do mistakes like that in tournament games. >> >>I don't have your games, but I would not be surprised if many could be found. > >I do not claim that I do not blunder and I do not claim that I never blunder by >something that computers need a short search to avoid. > >The point is that I usually do not blunder by something so simple like kramnik >did when computers needs one ply search to see that a move is losing a piece and >you only need to calculate 3 plies forward after your move(check escape >capture). > >Here is an example of one of my blunders that is slightly harder to avoid than >the blunder of kramnik. > > >[D]6rk/1p1Q3p/1qp2p1N/4p3/1p2P3/3P1PbP/2p5/5R1K b - - 0 30 > > >I played Bf4 and lost because of a forced mate when Qf2 was winning. >I simply did not see on time Nf7+ Kg7 Ng5+ Kg6 Qxh7+ Kxg5 h4# > >The main problem was that I did not consider Ng5+ because g5 was so protected >but you need to calculate 5 plies forward after Bf4 to see Qxh7+ to start to >suspect what is going on when Kramnik needed to see less plies forward to avoid >his blunder. > >I thought also about Qf2 in the game but did not see that it is winning and >again more than 3 ply search is needed to see the final result of it and I had >not unlimited time so I had to decide about a move. > >Uri Its pretty unbelievable to blunder at all in correspondence . . . anthony
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.