Author: Vladimir Xern
Date: 23:13:58 12/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2005 at 01:33:30, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On December 21, 2005 at 23:13:59, Vladimir Xern wrote: > >>On December 21, 2005 at 19:08:59, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>On December 21, 2005 at 12:47:14, Vladimir Xern wrote: >>> >>>>On December 21, 2005 at 11:36:22, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>>> >>>>>This game can hardly count as "orthodox" victory. >>>>>The win is solely based on very weak opening play by Rybka. >>>> >>>>Er, really? You mean to say that one side has to play worse than the other for >>>>it to lose? >>> >>>No, I mean to say exactly what I wrote. >> >>And what you wrote was an excuse for why my win "didn't count" so to speak. Read >>what you wrote again, then read what I wrote. :) > >No, apparently I wrote "didn't count as orthodox opening". >I'm sorry, this is not the same. Actually, you didn't write this in your first response, but let's say you did. Then we're just misunderstanding what Pablo meant by winning orthodoxly. I took it to mean to win other than by locking up the position (anti-chess) and winning on time, not necessarily having anything to do with orthodox openings. I also thought that if he meant winning in orthodox openings, he wouldn't have responded with a congratulations. However, if he *really* meant beating Rybka in an orthodox opening, then it's my mistake, and I'll try to do better next time. :) >>>And here I thought that's how every chess game was decided. And that >>>>since Rybka played a particular part of the game worse and lost, it still >>>>"doesn't count" as a legitimate win? >>> >>>Why not. Be happy with your legitimate win. :) >> >>Thanks, but nothing to be too happy over apparently. > >It is for sure nothing to be proud of, unless you are a below 2000 rated player. >Your opponent wasted 2 tempi in an already passive position: > >Bf8-b4+,Bb4-e7 is a tempo loss since c3 is a useful move. >Be7-h4+,Bh4-e7 is also a tempo loss. Yes, the win was relatively easy. Just close the position and break through at the appropriate time, exploiting the computer's chronic weaknesses. By the same token, Kasparov shouldn't be proud of completely crushing X3D Fritz in a similar manner in game 3 of their match. As I recall, the commentators didn't try to make excuses for Fritz's weak play, instead saying that since it played badly, it deserved to lose and eventually got punished for it. Sounds reasonable. Although, taken for what it is (a win vs. Rybka at fast time controls), I'm sure GM Berg would be proud to have one in his upcoming match with it. -Vlad
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.