Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:16:06 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 10:15:50, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 22, 2005 at 10:13:07, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 22, 2005 at 09:16:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 21, 2005 at 18:15:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >><snipped> >>>>Bob, you dont address the Benjamin issue. Why did Kasparov play that horrible >>>>variant in the Spanish Opening. It's a losing choice. Why did he play that? >>>>Because he wanted to prove how weak DB II really was? What's your opinion? >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>I believe that the answer is one of the two following ideas: >>> >>>1. He just screwed up by playing an opening he was unfamiliar with, he >>>transposed two moves, and lost as a result. >>> >>>2. He had tried that opening as black against Fritz, and won easily, and >>>thought the trap would work against DB. It didn't. >>> >>>Which is true doesn't matter. In neither case is DB at fault. You can blame >>>idea 1 on Kasparov's preparation and decision to play an opening he didn't play >>>much. you can blame idea 2 on his chessbase advisors. But he picked them. He >>>listened to them. It blew up on him... >> >>I think that Rolf Tueschen is talking about game 2 and not game 6 >>because he talk about the spanish opening that was played in game 2(see his >>words snipped in the beginning of this post). >> >>Note that I disagree with Rolf that the line that kasparov played in game 2 is a >>losing choice and I think it was good enough to get draw with black. >> >>Uri > >I mean good enough to get equality. >Kasparov lost the game but not because of the opening. > >Uri Yes, Uri, I meant the second game. However we must agree to disagree about the value of that opening line. Of course you are an experienced chessplayer but I have informational statement from a really great GM in chess that this line is already a losing one for Black, of course meant for human chess. The line is absolutely passive and holds no ressources ready for Black's counterchances. Absolutely none. That is why I asked Bob the question. Kasparov played an absolutely horrible line where White normally must win. Normally you do such a thing if you want to see what an opponent could achieve if you give him the whole board for initiatives. Indeed Kasparov came into a bad position and then he tried to outwit the machine with his superior chess knowledge. At that moment the machine suddenly played a couple of moves which were against a machine's ratio. And exactly this then caused the disbelief in Kasparov that all things went koscher on the IBM side... Let me repeat an idea from 1997. Kasparov tried to prove a certain cheating by showing inconsistencies in the machine's own play. I. e. DBII one time played with astonishing depth and THEN suddenly the machine couldn't foresee the events for two K moves, where the one would have clearly better, while the other led to a draw. Anyway. Whether that is a relevant question of research method by Kasparov - in my opinion the team and Hsu should have clarified things the way Bob always explained, so that their client in the experiment (Kasparov playing his good chess against their machine, whose chess they wanted to test!!) could have continued the show in good faith and fighting spirit. Instead they busted him with their plain insultive arrogance and stupidity, that a weaker machine than Kasparov should already win the merits of being the first machine of ever having beaten the Wch... From a serious point of view this was stupid and imposterous. And here all in chess agree. Except one...
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.