Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:22:55 05/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2004 at 07:15:31, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >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. I disagree that search depth is not important. The fact that 18-19 plies of Fritz was not enough does not mean that search depth is not important. 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.