Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:47:42 03/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 1999 at 04:17:27, Paulo Soares wrote: >On March 05, 1999 at 23:27:27, KarinsDad wrote: > [snip] >> >>Hard to say whether the programs are helping him. His good performance could be >>due to him studying for over a year in preparation for a world championship >>match that never occurred (and whether programs helped him significantly there >>can only be answered by him). In his last tournament, Kasparov won it by .5 of a >>point and drew most of the top players. He is playing extremely well (especially >>in Linares), do not get me wrong. However, he isn't quite the dominating player >>that people are making him out to be. They are looking at one tournament and >>making quick judgments. Only time will tell. >> >>KarinsDad >> >>>He and its team should be finding very complex variants, >>>that adapt to its style of aggressive game. >>>The idea that I have is the one that <cz1l1>Kasparov<cz1l0>, for his talent, >>>adapted >>>better to the new reality of the chess than the other players. >>> >>>Best regards, >>> >>>Paulo Soares, from Brazil > > >Karinsdad, > > Words of Kasparov in the interview in the end of the tournamant >Hoogovens/99: > > "I like working on chess with the computer. >I can go into positions I wouldn't have dared play before. I do a >lot of work and thanks to the computer, I just know the outcome of certain >positions. In my game with Kramnik today, for instance, I knew beforehand >that the ending was drawn. So I knew I could use this line. A few years ago, >I didn't even dare take a look at this variation." > > I understand that with these words he affirms that the chess >programs are indispensable. I intencional placed the part of the >interview where he speaks of the game against Kramnik. He was playing >to drawn, for two reasons: he would be the champion and, evidently, >he respects Kramnik. > I think that his preparation for the match for the world >championship must have helped, you have reason, but until point? >One match against an only adversary is well different of a tournament. > In the match of Hoogovens, Kasparov made 10 points in 13 >possible, with 8 wins, 4 drawns and one defeat. Anand made >9.5 points, with 6 wins and 7 drawns, and Kramnik 8 points, 3 wins >and 10 drawns, the numbers shows an excellent resulted. Yes, but Kasparov had a loss in that tournament whereas Anand and Kramnik did not. Yes, he did win the tournament, but if the computer helped him out so much, why did he not win it by more than .5 (or even by 1 in an attempt to beat Kramnik?)? I do not disagree with you, I'm just more cautious about forming an opinion this early about how helpful the computer program is to him. > I do not agree when you write "Only time will tell ", >therefore Kasparov is the best player of the world since 1984. Actually, Kasparov has been considered the best player in the world since 1985, but let's not quibble. He is extremely consistent in winning matches and tournaments, but compared to people like Capablanca or Fischer, both of whom had about twice as many wins as draws during their strong years, Kasparov has about the same number of wins as draws against his contemporaries (i.e. his record isn't as good). Now, if his record starts improving in the next few years as compared to his previous record, then you would have supporting evidence for your (and evidently his) contention concerning the use of chess programs. > Based in the words of Kasparov, I would say that already >we are living a new historical phase of the chess, a chess where >new variants, some upper-class complex, appear with more frequency >in the games, a chess where Kasparov, that of course has his >games analyzedes to the extremity, has more easiness to create new >alternatives,because the dynamism that is proportionate for the >computers. Yes, but living in a new historic phase of chess has happened throughout history. If Bronstein would not have won decisively with the black pieces in his historic game in the King's Indian Defense, that defense may have not been played seriously by GMs until 10 or more years later (most considered it inferior previous to that). I am only pointing out that the results of two tournaments are not sufficient to determine how effective the use of programs are (regardless of what Kasparov says). Is his good performance due to him studying for over a year, or due to him using a chess program? If, for example, Kasparov loses the next 3 tournaments in a row, what does that say about his use of programs? I'm not trying to be a naysayer here, I'm just saying let's wait and see. KarinsDad :) > >Best regards, > >Paulo Soares, from Brazil.
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.