|Nov-29-05|| ||TigerPawns: great stuff from kalifman. moves 23-30 were all rather treacherous, but he just danced the dance and met the threats without undertaking anything, knowing that every simplification brought him closer to salvation. it's a shame that this game got no comments while hydra's wins get all the attention.|
|Dec-29-05|| ||THE pawn: Well, from the beginning it looked like Kalifman was only aiming for a draw, opening with a closed queen pawn game and trading pieces quickly. Normally, I would say only cowards play like this, but it's surely well-played when it's against Hydra! I would say Kalifman was really impressive against the computer and looked like an expert against computers.|
|Feb-13-06|| ||MoranCho: Yes, Khalifman played very carefully
here. He might have been even more
careful and played 13 Qe2 rather
than Bb2, not even allowing ...b5.
Due to the exchange on 9, he would
have been able to play for an
|Feb-13-06|| ||Trouble: It's not out of the question for humans to draw the best computers for a long time to come. In fact I bet with the proper preparation any 2700 could force a draw in most games...Winning however is becoming increasingly out of the question.|
|Apr-30-07|| ||the idiot prince: Trouble: It's not out of the question for humans to draw the best computers for a long time to come. In fact I bet with the proper preparation any 2700 could force a draw in most games...Winning however is becoming increasingly out of the question.|
Why is this? I've looked over a handful of computer games so far, esp. Kasparov vs. Deep Blue and see a common theme: prudishness. The games are unexciting, boring, and lacking any real innovation. Is this the death-knell of chess? If computers can regularly beat humans now, then what does this say about chess itself - perhaps it's not the great "strategic" planning contest it once was thought to be, but rather a messy calculator instead.
|Apr-30-07|| ||gus inn: <the idiot prince> I have not the slightest worry that mankind will go on playing chess forever despite and also because of the comps.
Alone in the 3 first moves : 9million possible positions can arise !
And I think I understand your worries (?).
But till now Ive seen no concrete sign of a decrease in the interest of playing chess , concerning all levels.
And also superGM“s need to have positional understanding as well as to
get a wider understanding of this area(read : practice , studies), as this is a necesarry tool and a bridge to the path in of calculation(s).As calculations could be compared to seamen on a ship , whereas positional understanding / planning could be the map of navigation.
So calculation is not enough - though an extremely valuable tool , where e.g. the comps can teach us to go a little further down the lines.Perhaps allways room for improvement.(well , theres age , illnes and others).But it really seems that the brain is a sort of muscle which needs exercise.
And BTW , the comps can also show us that those welltrodden thruths of developing a chessgame also have room for improvement.Which also have been the case .
I hope it makes sense to you - and let us perhaps summarize : that chess is played by humans of flesh and blood , wherein lays our strenght and weaknesses and likely also the secret of why we play.
Cheers , gus inn .
|Apr-30-07|| ||Nasruddin Hodja: <ThePawn> While Khalifman didn't duck exchanges in this game, he didn't initiate them either. With the exception of the forced 25. Rxc8, all of the piece exchanges in the game were initiated by Hydra. If computers started to realize that they are not as strong vis-a-vis humans in the endgame as they are in middle game complications, they would be less likely to trade down into the endgame and would then become truly unbeatable, imo.|