< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 136 OF 136 ·
|Dec-10-06|| ||barbababa: <su24><Works just fine against mine.> Where does your Fritz make different move than mine?|
|Dec-11-06|| ||actinia: I'm not giving up yet on humans in the man vs machine battle. I have three reasons for this.
1) we could allow humans to have one takeback per game. this would mainly take away the huge psychological advantage computers have - that you can't make a single bad move against them
2) we could allow humans to team up... then it would be men vs machine(s) but the interesting dynamics would still be there
3) computers still have an obvious weakness: not being able to sense danger past a certain number of moves. I don't think this weakness has been fully exploited yet. In this sense computers may fall for a line that no human ever would.|
|Dec-11-06|| ||code13: "Didn't Morozevich have over a 2900 performance rating in some tournament in 2004? "|
Well Zsophia Polgar had a 2928 performance at Rome in 1989 when she was 14. So human players can have "spikes" of peak performance.
|Dec-11-06|| ||TrueBlue: mankind is OK, don't worry, it's just Kramnik who doesn't know how to play without going to the washroom. I would bet my house any day (if I had one) that Topalov can win against Fritz.|
|Dec-11-06|| ||chancho: <Trueblue:I would bet my house any day (if I had one) that Topalov can win against Fritz.> |
Didn't Vesko get beat by Fritz 6 in 2004? Or was it Fritz 5?
|Dec-11-06|| ||chessmoron: Fritz 8 - Topalov,Veselin (2757) [C03]
Man vs Machine 120'/40+60' Bilbao Esp (3), 08.10.2004
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 a6 4.Ngf3 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bd3 c5 7.c3 Nc6 8.0-0 g5 9.Bb1 g4 10.Ne1 h5 11.Nb3 a5 12.Nxc5 Nxc5 13.dxc5 Bxc5 14.Nd3 Ba7 15.Qa4 Bd7 16.Qf4 Bb8 17.Rd1 f5 18.c4 d4 19.Re1 Qe7 20.Bc2 h4 21.Bd2 Bc7 22.Bd1 Rg8 23.a3 a4 24.f3 gxf3 25.Bxf3 Ba5 26.Bxa5 Rxa5 27.Qd2 Qg5 28.Qf2 Rg7 29.c5 Kf8 30.Rac1 Kg8 31.Kh1 Ra8 32.Rc4 Be8 33.Bd1 Qh6 34.Nf4 Rd8 35.Rxa4 d3 36.Bb3 Bf7 37.Qe3 Qg5 38.Rd1 Kh7 39.Rd2 Qh6 40.Kg1 Qg5 41.Bc4 Be8 42.Bxe6 Re7 43.Rxd3 Rxd3 44.Qxd3 Nxe5 45.Qxf5+ Qxf5 46.Bxf5+ Kh6 47.Nd5 1-0
|Dec-11-06|| ||TIMER: <TrueBlue> If playing the match the aim is to get atleast one win, you are probably right Topalov can get a win against Deep Fritz. Winning a match is another matter. Unless he gets lucky and gets the win he wants at the start, maybe he might draw it out, but it would be a lot harder.|
|Dec-11-06|| ||percyblakeney: I don't think Topalov would get a worse result than Kramnik in a computer match, he played quite well back in 2004:|
|Dec-11-06|| ||TIMER: <percyblakeney> He came very close to beating Hydra and Junior according to the report.|
Also he would do better in a serious one on one match, where he would prepare soley for that one computer, and it being more of a 'serious' event like the Kramnik match against Fritz, not to mention all the extra advantages Kramnik got.
The computers are better though so we need a match to see, but I agree Topalov may not be as bad an opponent for the computer as people make out (like Kasparov actually would likely not have done worse than Kramnik too despite his normal style- remember his earlier drawn matches)
|Dec-20-06|| ||sharpnova: <lunacyfrog> "Take away just one bad move and in all probability the match is drawn."|
Nonsense :) Fritz won two games. You're very weak in arguing aren't you? :)
"Kramnik is a bit stronger than Adams. Fritz is a good bit weaker than Hydra. And still the computer trounced him. This was a hard trouncing."
Would anyone disagree that Kramnik is stronger than Adams?
Would anyone disagree that Hydra is stronger than Fritz?
Oh my boy you have made a fool of yourself :)
<square dance> Cute. So since my profile shows that I dislike Kramnik you think someone shouldn't reply to me? Looks like bias in the favor of Kramnik to me! You're weak too. A good deal weaker actually.
|Dec-20-06|| ||whatthefat: <lunacyfrog: Take away just one bad move and in all probability the match is drawn.>|
<sharpnova: Nonsense :) Fritz won two games. You're very weak in arguing aren't you? :)>
<lunacyfrog> has a point. Had Kramnik been going into the last game 2.5-2.5 he would almost certainly played for a draw as black. As it were, we had nothing to lose, and he lost a sharp struggle. There's no denying the blunder was made and Kramnik was beaten. But don't underestimate the effect it had on the rest of the match.
|Dec-20-06|| ||square dance: <has a point. Had Kramnik been going into the last game 2.5-2.5 he would almost certainly played for a draw as black.> im not so sure. kramnik was due a 500,000 euro bonus if he won the match.|
|Dec-20-06|| ||square dance: <You're weak too. A good deal weaker actually.> weaker than what? |
<So since my profile shows that I dislike Kramnik you think someone shouldn't reply to me?> no, i dont think people should waste their time with you because you're a stupid troll.
|Dec-20-06|| ||whatthefat: <square dance: im not so sure. kramnik was due a 500,000 euro bonus if he won the match.>|
Ah really? Well in that case maybe not! :)
|Dec-26-06|| ||danielpi: This is pretty amusing. From the chessbase website description of Fritz 10:|
"A host of famous chess teacher provide instruction in more mundane subjects, like opening traps, middlegame strategy, or endgame skills."
One imagines that they meant to say the "famous chess teacher[s]" would make the mundane material <interesting>, but apparently they forgot where they were going with that train of thought.
|Dec-26-06|| ||slomarko: Maybe they should hire you to help them better formulate that train of thought. lol.|
|Jan-10-07|| ||positionalgenius: Idiots,Kramnik IS stronger than adams.Elo and the fact that he is world champion.|
|Jun-20-10|| ||rich187113: Fischer would beat Fritz!|
|Jun-20-11|| ||AVRO38: This match is historic because it was the first time a computer defeated the undisputed World Champion in a match.|
|Sep-24-11|| ||Everett: <AVRO38: This match is historic because it was the first time a computer defeated the undisputed World Champion in a match.>|
This would be an interesting kibitzer poll; who is considered the more "undisputed World Champion"?
Kasparov in '97 or Kramnik in 2006?
Let me start the process by voting Kasparov, clearly.
|Sep-24-11|| ||AVRO38: <This would be an interesting kibitzer poll; who is considered the more "undisputed World Champion"?>|
The fact that you need to put it to a vote proves that Kasparov was a disputed champion in 1997. Whereas nobody disputes Kramnik's claim in 2006.
In 1997 the title was split between FIDE and whatever front organization Kasparov was operating under at the time (there were so many I lose track). This is a fact of history that cannot be denied. In 2006 FIDE and the entire chess world, Kasparov included, recognized Kramnik as World Champion.
Therefore the 2006 match is the one history will remember as the first time a computer defeated the reigning undisputed World Champion in a match.
|Sep-24-11|| ||perfidious: <Everett> Good luck trying to make any sort of point with <AVRO38>; you have about as good a chance of winning an argument with God, even (or perhaps especially) when all the facts are on your side.|
The question of which of these champions was 'more' or 'less' disputed has little point for me, and has the unintended consequence of giving <AVRO> a strawman with which to do battle.
|Sep-24-11|| ||Everett: <perfidious> thanks for the heads up. I remain naive to some of these rabbit holes here at chessgames.com, and I appreciate you keeping me out of this one.|
|Sep-24-11|| ||perfidious: <Everett> Come over to my page and we'll have a go, LOL.|
The last two weeks or so, there's been some good conversation on my games page and it's pleasant indeed.
|Jun-07-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.angelfire.com/fl5/human_...|
My web page on these events, many of the links are no longer valid ... the official site has long since been dumped.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 136 OF 136 ·