Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 04:58:16 04/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2005 at 16:32:16, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 29, 2005 at 06:50:46, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On April 29, 2005 at 05:23:51, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On April 28, 2005 at 23:17:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 28, 2005 at 22:01:24, chandler yergin wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 20:30:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 15:17:13, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 14:12:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hsu didn't win. Deep Blue "won". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1. DBII lost in game one. Very badly. Kasparov's superior chess! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>2. Then Kasparov gave up a drawn game. He was very confused. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>3. Then three draws. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>4. Then Kasparov threw another game. He was no longer in the match since the >>>>>>>second game... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So, where DBII WON a single game? >>>>>> >>>>>>The _official_ history of the match has DB winning rounds 2 and 6, losing round >>>>>>1, and drawing the rest. What part of that is confusing? If you want to play >>>>>>word games and say that the 1-0 result in round two means black lost rather than >>>>>>that white won, fine. In round 1 DB lost, Kasparov didn't win. >>>>> >>>>>Could not the same thing be said about Game 6? >>>> >>>> >>>>That was my point. That was Rolf's claim in fact. It works both ways. But >>>>whether DB won a game, or Kasparov lost the game, the final result is _exactly_ >>>>the same... >>> >>>The final result is not exactly the same in the meaning that if DB won games not >>>thanks to stupid errors of kasparov then the impression of the chess players >>>could be that DB is better than Kasparov and after the match the impression of >>>the chess players was not that DB is better than Kasparov. >>> >>>Both mistakes of kasparov in the games that he lost are mistakes that kasparov >>>does not do against humans and both were result of not understanding the >>>machine. >>> >>>In game 2 Kasparov believed that he has no chance for a perpetual check because >>>he believed that DB could see it after getting the impression that DB saw >>>another perpetual earlier in the game because it was the only way that kasparov >>>could explain DB's move to himself. >>>The result was that he even did not analyze this possibility. >>> >>>In game 6 Kasparov played for a line that he was not ready to play. >>> >>>DB did not get a losing position in game 1 because of a stupid error so the >>>story of game 1 is different. >>> >>>The impression of the chess players after the match was that DBII was not better >>>than Kasparov at 1997 inspite of the results. >>> >>>Uri >> >>If you want to say that DBII played just 6 games and therefore nothing was >>proved - that's fine. That was indeed a horrible waste of resources. >> >>But this crap about game 1 being a "quality win" while games 2 and 6 were junk - >>come on. >> >>The "cleanest" game was game 2. Yes, there was an extremely difficult perpetual >>at the end that was missed by both sides, but aside from that it was a nice >>"positional" game. You can just pretend that Kasparov resigned two or three >>moves earlier. > >No > >There was no reason to resign in game 2 earlier. > >You resign when you believe that you have no practical chances and the game >proves that kasparov had practical chances earlier. > >I believe that kasparov resigned only because of the fact that the opponent was >a computer and he believed that the program cannot miss a perpetual after it did >not miss a similiar idea of very deep perpetual earlier(at least this is what he >believed because he had no different explanation for earlier moves of DBII) so >he even did not check if he has a perpetual and assumed that he has no chances. > >Uri Kasparov isn't very tough in bad positions. Maybe it's from lack of practice ... 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.