Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 14:34:01 05/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2004 at 11:01:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 10, 2004 at 10:38:17, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >kasparov just shuffles something on 3 rows and you call him lucky instead of the >machine plain stupid? Yes - of course you need to be lucky to just shuffle something on 3 rows ... ;) [some mild amusement] > >:) > >[lots of laughter] > >>On May 10, 2004 at 07:35:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On May 10, 2004 at 06:28:13, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>> >>>fritz3 beated deep blue in world champs 1995. >>> >>>rebel8 beated deepblue junior playing blitz against it in world champs 1999. >>> >>>And no it didn't move instantly deepblue junior. It used its time up very >>>wisely. >>> >>>It just didn't have a book, that's all. >>> >>>the moves played by deepblue are horrible. real horrible. >>> >>>now you try to convince me that those nonsense moves played by deep blue which >>>all have questionmarks are good? :) >>> >>>you're funny. >> >>They're playable. A lot of things in chess are playable - even if you'll never >>play them yourself. >> >>> >>>I happen to be FM and after intensive analysis i conclude that kasparov didn't >>>do a thing in game 1, but that deep blue committed suicide there with moves like >>>h6 g5 and another shitload of moves. >>> >> >>By the way even the endgame wasn't that easy to win. In fact Kasparov was quite >>lucky that at some point that it was winning, these types of endings will >>usually somehow dissipate into a draw. After nine "?" moves for one side and >>four or five "!" moves for the other I'd at least think the ending wouldn't be >>so interesting. >> >>Vas >> >>>>On May 08, 2004 at 20:25:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 18:55:16, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 12:14:42, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 11:51:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 10:50:57, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 07:18:27, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 04:34:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>You are absulutely right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>It is obvious that humans already solved chess so they know if a move is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>blunder or not a blunder so you can be sure that all the question marks are >>>>>>>>>>>>>correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>It is also obvious that the number of mistakes is what decides the game so if >>>>>>>>>>>>>your opponent did 2 mistakes you can let yourself to do one mistake like letting >>>>>>>>>>>>>him to force mate and you are not going to lose. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>:_( >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>You know, Uri, I have never seen you do anything but post how other people are >>>>>>>>>>>>wrong (never with any reasons of course). Many other people have noticed your >>>>>>>>>>>>unending flood of negativity. It is difficult to consider this post as anything >>>>>>>>>>>>other than a flame. It appears I am going to have to take off the kid gloves >>>>>>>>>>>>and dispose of you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Isn't it natural to only post if you disagree? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Anyway, I suspect Uri has a point. >>>>>>>>>>>It's not unusual for computers to play "unatural" moves, just think of the >>>>>>>>>>>Hedgehog Junior played against Kasparov. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>All the time the GM's were saying how strange Junior's moves were, how "it >>>>>>>>>>>showed no understanding of the position" blah blah blah. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>So please explain why Kasparov suddenly had to fight for a draw after 10 >>>>>>>>>>>questionmark moves from Junior! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>-S. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I never thought this day would come - but I agree with Uri here. :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Sports aren't about beautiful play. Sports are about winning. If someone is >>>>>>>>>>playing ugly, and winning, then it's your sense of aesthetics which needs to be >>>>>>>>>>reviewed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Computers have a long history of winning ugly. In the recent Fritz-Kasparov and >>>>>>>>>>Junior-Kasparov matches, the machines made many many more "mistakes" (according >>>>>>>>>>to human opinion) than Kasparov. But - if these mistakes aren't punished - are >>>>>>>>>>they really mistakes? Is it a mistake to leave Shaq wide open for three point >>>>>>>>>>shots? (Or send him to the line for "free" throws?) It's impossible to speak >>>>>>>>>>about objectivity here. You can only look at the results. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Vas >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Let's take a look at some of the moves the annotator didn't like: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[D]r2q1rk1/pp1n1ppp/2pbpn2/3p3b/8/1P1PPNPP/PBPN1PB1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 10 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Zappa plays the obvious 10 ...e5. Deep Blue played 10 ...h6. I won't call this >>>>>>>>>a bad move, but it's clearly a pass move. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That isn't very convincing. Did you look at _your_ PV? move 4? :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Order doesn't mean much to alpha/beta as it scores positions, not moves as they >>>>>>>>are played. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>First impression is that h6 and e5 transpose to the _same_ position... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I will accept that my 4 ply search plays pass moves some of the time :) Zappa >>>>>>>uses pure R=3 now, and perhaps the evaluation isn't quite good enough for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>anthony >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>In my opinion 10...h6 is not merely a pass move or waste of time. White may >>>>>>plan to push the g-pawn to g4 and drive the black bishop to g6 aiming to >>>>>>exchange his knight for the bishop later, playing the knight to h4. Thus >>>>>>10...h6 gives black refuge. Besides, the bishop positioned at h7 would be very >>>>>>useful later on, perhaps after the push you mentioned that Zappa plays right >>>>>>away, exerting pressure on the e4 square... >>>>>> >>>>>>Just an idea. One glance at the diagram... Caveat emptor :-) >>>>> >>>>>I tend to agree with Seirawan on this matter more, after h6 you can resign here >>>>>positionally with black. >>>> >>>>Aha, so it was Seirawan who is responsible for these ridiculous annotations. >>>>That would explain a lot. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but his many >>>>opinions shouldn't be confused for facts. >>>> >>>>It was quite funny to watch Seirawan during Fritz-Kasparov, game 4. Kasparov >>>>with black chose the QGA, breaking the old boring stereotyped rule that you >>>>shouldn't let computers play open positions. At this point, there would be >>>>several explanations: >>>> >>>>1) Kasparov has a different opinion about what computer can and can't do. >>>>2) Kasparov has a different idea about the QGA and where his preparation will >>>>lead him. >>>>3) Kasparov made a horrible opening blunder that even beginners should be able >>>>to avoid by following some simple logic. >>>> >>>>The next half hour or so were filled with explanations of why exactly you >>>>shouldn't give computers these types of positions. Followed by congratulations >>>>to the Fritz opening team for outfoxing Kasparov in the opening. It was really >>>>funny. >>>> >>>>Of course a few moves later of course the "danger" had passed, and it was clear >>>>who had had his way in the opening - once again. >>>> >>>>Chess is not easy, and there are many reasonable ways to play just about any >>>>position. It's silly to think that the one you like is the correct one, or the >>>>only one. >>>> >>>>Vas
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.