Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 04:15:31 05/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2004 at 14:58:45, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >Kasparov-Deep Blue >Philadelphia (6) 1996 > > >The Opening has been a sucess for Kasparov. He has good central control, and >prospects of a gradual queenside advance. More importantly, there is no direct >plan for Black, so Deep Blue drifts for a few moves with disastrous >consequences. The bishop is already a little clumpsy on d7; I suspect a strong >human player would have sunk into thought, and devised a plan for deliverating >his game. > >[D]r2q1rk1/pp1bbppp/2n1pn2/3p4/2PP4/1P1B1N2/PB1N1PPP/2RQ1RK1 b - - 0 1 > >11...Nh5? >This over-ambitious idea met with strong disapproval from most strong human >commentators. However, Yasser Seirawan said "oddly enough, one well-known chess >computer scientist suggested that the move may well be OK, but it might need a >highly advandce program and computer in a few years' time to justify this move". >I suspect that this is a case in point of someone believing that a strong >chess-playing program is doing something profound, when in fact is just >crunching numbers, Few GMs back in 1996 felt that 11....Nh5 was anything other >than a bad move. This type of position is very difficult for any chess program. Sometimes, the engines will find some way to make a very strange move work, like 11. .. Nh5. Even in this case, it's not very good if a person is using an engine to help him understand the position. Note that search depth is not important here. For another example of this, see Kasparov-Fritz, X3D, game 3, where Fritz was doing 18-19 ply in the middlegame. There need to be some advances in the evaluation function. 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.