< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 18 ·
|Nov-11-03|| ||jedlen: 33 Qxa7 Qf1+ and draw by perpetual check |
|Nov-11-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: I agree with bentengutama, it looks like the X3D team anticipated and prepared for Kasparov's g4!? in the Semi-Slav. They must have counted on Kasparov to play it again after using it so well against Deep Junior (the second game where he played g4!? and lost was due mostly to a tactical blunder and not an opening error.) By choosing the Semi-Slav, the team gets to safely prepare and play against the hand that Kasparov already revealed. |
|Nov-11-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: I agree (yet again) with some other people earlier- 30. b3 does seem like a good move, did <crafty> analyze it yet? |
|Nov-11-03|| ||drukenknight: ...yeah b3, I was looking at that for awhile and was hoping the commentators would have explained that. It is hard to analyze just looking at the board on tv, which is basically a wooden board, and you can barely see the back row. |
I had just tuned in at move 25 or so and had no idea what had happened up to then. It is hard to get a feel for the game at first glance, some interesting lines by the GMs would have helped to understand what was happening. Instead all I got was: "this is very dynamic" "he's very agressive" "I dont know why the computer is taking this long" "Unless it has found something that is not obvious to us...!"
Well gee why dont you tell us what that might be?
>>>I'm sure all of us, myself included, would have like to hear more analysis, but that is because we are chess addicts. Imagine how boring this would be if you were a non-chessplayer.
Why on earth would you be watching this if you did not play chess? Okay, it is possible that you might have a passing interest. But if that is the case, then there all sorts of way to explain the tactics.
Lots of modern books use colored arrows to show people how to think through a series of moves.
They have animation, is it so hard to ply through a string of moves to show what could happen?
I dont think it would be boring to illustrate by animation or color what could happen. I mean if you dont like that sort of analysis, why would you be watching in the first place???
>>Hearing neverending strings of moves would be completely pointless and monotonous.
Well see above. It is not monotonous, chess is an epic that is why it is more fun than Go. It has knights, it has ground troops, it has fortresses, it has flank attacks, it is a story.
You want to make it interesting? Illustrate the story!
>> I think what ESPN is trying to accomplish, and I agree with their decision, is to make the commentary simplistic yet interesting to increase the amount of people watching
It was simplistic to the pt. of childishness. I think the commentators were afraid their suggestions would be wrong.
|Nov-11-03|| ||drukenknight: Another pt. is that this more and more looks and feels like The Gary Show.|
Is it really some international sports event? or just something for the greater glory of Kasparov? I suspect the latter.
1) A true competition between man/machine would have several human players. Having 4 Gms go at it simultaneously w/ computer would be more interesting and more bang for the buck in terms of time spent watching.
Of course if all four players drew the computer, then this would lessen the achievements of Gary.
2) it is billed as the world championship, but that is a joke. THere was no competition to get to this pt. They make it sound like they had to pass through someplayoff to get here.
In fact it is an arranged match. Like Capa/ALkehine or whatever. It is two parties who have made a deal to play chess. It is not a tournament, there is no championship at stake. Not in the normal sense, whose was man/machine champion before? Deep Blue? What tradition does the event have?
3) who is agreeing to the draw? The programmers? The corporate executives? This is also curious. If a computer is smart enuf to make the moves, it should be smart enuf to accept/reject draws.
In this game, the perpetual might have been the natural result, I did not look at it that much. But still it is troubling when they just shake hands and we have no idea who exactly agreed to this.
The computer presumably has an evaluation of the position, is it negative or positive? I think it only fair to know what the evaluation is after they shake hands.
|Nov-11-03|| ||Bears092: The operator makes, accepts and declines draw offers, but he sees what the computers evaluation of the position is, so it's not like he's making the choice blind. |
|Nov-11-03|| ||hickchess99: when are the other games? |
|Nov-11-03|| ||Diggitydawg: Game 2: Nov. 13 1:00 p.m.
Game 3: Nov. 16 1:00 p.m.
Game 4: Nov. 18 1:00 p.m. (EST)
Looks like Chessgames.com won't be allowed to cover games 2 and 3. But you can watch it on ESPN-2 and on the official website: http://www.x3dchess.com/# under "watch live now"
The thing I didn't like about the ESPN coverage is that they didn't spend a few minutes interviewing Kasparov afterwards. <both Ashley and Seirewan missed the sack and mate if Gary had blocked w/ the 34 R(d)d2> Yeah DK, that was weird--two GMs and they didn't see it until much later.
|Nov-11-03|| ||refutor: <if a computer is smart enug to make the moves, it should be smart enuf to accept/reject draws>|
i wonder if it would make the same smart ass remarks to kasparov that fritz 7 does to me when i offer a draw..."i'm up one millionth of a pawn, i'd like to play on..." etc ;)
|Nov-11-03|| ||Drstrangelove: <both Ashley and Seirewan missed the sack and mate if Gary had blocked w/ the 34 R(d)d2> please explain, I don't see it either, but I don't feel bad considering GM Ashley and GM Seirewan didn't see it either (-; |
|Nov-11-03|| ||Bears092: according to CM9000....
34. Rdd2 Rxb2 35. Rxb2 Qxc5+ 36. Kd1
That gets a -3.48 rating as 3 pawns, a queen and a bishop easily overmatch 2 rooks.
|Nov-12-03|| ||drukenknight: Bears has the correct line. If 35 Kxb2 he gets mated. I was looking at that for a moment, thinking it was interesting but then I thought I must be an idiot, these guys would have mentioned it. |
They probably were not concentrating too hard on the game, I'm sure they would have seen it if they were playing the game themselves.
It maybe boring to the casual chess fan, but to hard core chess fans, that's the kind of stuff that should be pointed out.
if you have a chessmaster or whatever, what is the evaluation of the final position?
|Nov-12-03|| ||sierra: anyone points out what if 32. Rd2? It looks more promising. |
|Nov-12-03|| ||Diggitydawg: Sierra, very interesting: After 32. Rd2, Black is forced to move the Q off of the d-file. If 32…Qe8 (to defend the c and e-pawns), then white retains the initiative and can advance the h-pawn and increase the pressure of a minority attack. If Black decides to exchange Qs by 32..Qb6 33.QxQ a7xQ, then the black R is pinned to the backrank and white has a good position and winning chances after 34.Rxe4. I think it's a good suggestion, sierra! |
|Nov-12-03|| ||Diggitydawg: Also Sierra, if 32.Rd2 Bd5, white can play 33.Rxe4, and has the threat of moving the R to the 7th rank. |
|Nov-12-03|| ||zorro: This new Fritz didn't make such an impression on me. If they had prepared the semislav for the match, well probably they will have to reassess it: 12...Nxf2 was a bad move in my opinion. And also 11....Qf6 wasn't such a big deal. Maybe Kramnik was right when he said that contrary to common knowledge computers can't hold it tactically. The game was in the bag. All commentators at chess.fm and ICC put it that way. We shall see analysis. If I was to venture to say something, well, I already said that 30. b3 was probably one way to go safely, but I frankly didn't like 26. Qc5+ either. What is the point of this check? Sure, I see this create future back rank mate threaths for White, but I think there was something more urgent: Black was clearly coming up with ...Rb8 and ...Bxa2, uponwhich W resolved to lift his rook, which proved to be the major tactical factor. In my humble opinion White Queen was very well placed on c2 covering 1st and 2nd rank. W could have played 26. Kb1 and safely follow up with a k-side pawn assault. |
|Nov-12-03|| ||MoonlitKnight: I was hoping for 20.e7+. |
|Nov-12-03|| ||MoonlitKnight: Also, 24.f4 or 24.b1 looked to be more precise. I think Kasparov didn't manage to keep his patience and got a bit lazy at this point. |
|Nov-12-03|| ||drukenknight: Re the draw offer. Okay so they accepted this offer based upon the objective evaluation by the computer which regarded the position as even. But there are several other pyschological factors to consider:|
1) Time pressure. Kasparov had like what 10 minutes for the last 4 or 5 moves? Not bad pressure just yet, but enuf to be an issue. Was there any reason not to test Kasp. under time pressure in this situation? Wouldnt that be a win/win strategy for the computer. It still had like 40 minutes left on the clock. It could have run through a deep series of permutations with Kasp having only minutes to think.
The commentators did mention this issue, when 3Dfritz took like 8 minutes to make an obvious capture of the f pawn I think it was. Was that a deliberate deep calculation or just some grandstanding to make the game dramatic and/or help Gary with time.
If anyone else watched the broadcast at that moment, Seirewan I think it was said, that there was a possibility that the computer had seen some deep sack at that moment and maybe that is why. But then the other commentator objected saying something else and the other guy said "oh yeah right' or something like that. I cant remember precisely what htey said but it was funny the way the commentator just immediately took it back what he was saying.
Like; "Pssst! Hey buddy dont let the secret out."
2) Long term considerations. Make Kasp. play out the end game. Make him demonstrate the draw in 70 or 80 moves. THe computer does not get tired, and so to keep playing would certainly be in best interest of computer to wear him down.
3) Tactical. The computer is unlikely to overlook a mate in two or something like that. Make Kasp. play the end game out, he could make a mistake that the computer is not likely to make with the reduced piece count on the board.
|Nov-12-03|| ||AdrianP: <dk> The computer had to take the draw, after 37 Rd1 if the Q goes anyway other than e3, Kaspy plays Rd8+ followed by mate. After 37 Qe3+ R1d2, the computer can play e.g. Rd8 but then Kaspy grabs the c6 pawn. |
|Nov-12-03|| ||mack: <Arc> surely 33. Qxa7 Ra8 34... Bb3! not positive, but that looks pretty sound to me... |
|Nov-12-03|| ||DaMelch: Just an interesting sidenote, In Burgess's Chess book he tells the story of Kasparov playing a copy of Fritz 4. At one point it said to him 'You wouldn't happen to be Garry Kasparov, would you?' when K got into a great position |
|Nov-12-03|| ||billikid: it's all farce for the this hill billy show from the old man...all that for nothin...waste of my time..playin for a draw and i should consider this as worth my time? keep talkin about it coz u certainly join his boring skill |
|Nov-12-03|| ||MoonlitKnight: Fritz always plays what it thinks is the strongest move at the time, and human intervention is not allowed. Thus, the Chessbase team had to take the draw.|
<The computer is unlikely to overlook a mate in two or something like that.> The computer would never miss a mate in two, or even a mate in ten.
|Nov-12-03|| ||MoonlitKnight: I think Kasparov's major problem with Fritz is converting won positions into won games. |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 18 ·