Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 11:45:29 06/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2005 at 14:30:11, Robin Smith wrote: >On June 22, 2005 at 02:42:34, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>On June 21, 2005 at 22:48:47, Robin Smith wrote: >> >>>On June 21, 2005 at 18:39:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 21, 2005 at 16:13:31, Robin Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 15:30:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:19:44, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:11:23, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:04:37, Ted Summers wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>To sum it up " He played a drawish opening in a tactic way. " Not a good idea >>>>>>>>>when computers are able to hang with the best and proving themself as better >>>>>>>>>than humans in open tactical positions. However I still think GM Adams can pull >>>>>>>>>it together and Win or Draw this match. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[D] r2q1rk1/1pp3pp/p2b4/nP1p1p1b/2PPn3/3B1N1P/P1QN1PP1/1RB1R1K1 b - - 0 17 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Having reached this position, we seemed to be watching the beginning of the end >>>>>>>>>for Adams in the first game but hopefully not the match. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>C4! was a killer positional shot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>c4 was a good move, but hardly a "killer". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It seems clear GM Adams missed this move when he played Na5. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Perhaps Adams miissed it, but it hardly seems "clear", since Black is still OK >>>>>>>afterwards. His loss happened later. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-Robin >>>>>>The problem here is that the kingside is already a bit open. One does _not_, as >>>>>>a human, allow the computer to open _both_ sides of the board in the same game. >>>>> >>>>>Agreed. But that had already happened _before_ black played Na5. Hydra was >>>>>forcing the position open on the queenside even before Na5 and there was already >>>>>no way for Adams to stop it. >>>>> >>>>>>It invites a debacle such as this. Of course, he made a couple of tactical >>>>>>errors around the point where the rook on C8 was hanging, but he was already in >>>>>>the wrong kind of position... >>>>>> >>>>>>All the comps were suggesting the same moves as played by Hydra, so there was no >>>>>>real surprises from the white side, just black making an error here, an error >>>>>>there, before long he fell off the rim of the canyon. >>>>> >>>>>Adams clearly made a mistake, Rc7, but from a pure chess point of view it is not >>>>>clear to me that he had made any other mistakes prior to this, and I find people >>>>>saying things like he "played like a 2300 player" and "an error here, an error >>>>>there" etc most disrespectful, all the more so since he didn't make the kind of >>>>>gross blunders other super GM's have made against computers. Of course everyone >>>>>knows he did not end up in the type of position that is comfortable to play >>>>>against a computer; but it is easier for a determined player with the white >>>>>pieces to create an open and messy position than it is for black to keep it >>>>>closed and positional. >>>>> >>>>>-Robin >>>> >>>> >>>>He was guilty of a different type of blunder. Namely of playing 1. ... e5 >>>>against the computer. That was blunder 1. Why enter an open position? >>> >>>Because 1...e5 has been Adams defense of choice for 15 years. He knows it like >>>the back of his hand. Perhaps it is unfortunate for Adams that 1...e5 is the >>>defense he knows best, but that is a fact. If he had played something else >>>people would have been complaining "Why did Adams play an opening that is not >>>his main weapon of choice". Adams lost because Hydra is stronger, plain and >>>simple >> >> >> >>> >>>>Would you consider a baseball pitcher that pitches fast, high and outside to Babe Ruth >>>>to be "a professional player that made a small mistake" or "a professional >>>>player that made a bad blunder?" >>> >>>I consider baseball analogies irrelevant. >>> >>>>The usual idea is to play to your opponent's weaknesses, not his strengths... >>> >>>Right. But the usual idea is _also_ to play to your _own_ strengths. Adams >>>strength is 1...e5. He sometimes plays 2...Nc6 but in this game played the >>>"drawish" 1...Nf6. A good choice and an opening he knows very well and not a >>>"blunder" by any stretch of the imagination. >> >>Nonsense, this wasn´t a good choice at all. >>The human is superior in developing long term plans. >>Therefore it was outright stupid to play the Petroff defence > >One more thing; was it "outright stupid" for Kasparov to play the Petroff (and >win) against Deep Blue? Was it "outright stupid" for Anand to play the Petroff >against Fritz (and draw), Deep Blue was much weaker at that time, the same applies for Fritz. If a top player plays Petroff Defence against Hydra he has maybe a ~1% chance to win the game and most probably a >50% chance to loose. Isn´t the Sicilian Najdorf for example much better in this regard? Michael in a blitz game no less? How many "outright stupid" >GMs are there? > >-Robin > >>Michael
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.