Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)

[MikeGL]

So in conclusion Kasparov is wrong in his new book, black is not lost after 45.Ra6 and therefore Deep Blue 2.0 almost allowed Kasparov to draw with the awful 45.Ra6.

Agreed. Almost all strong branches including their leaf were analyzed to death. No
win for white after Ra6. SF8 + powerful hardware by posters on this thread
was thrown at this position and nothing comes up. Besides it was proven in
previous pages that SF8 was stronger than DB2, if even SF8 can't find
a win, how much more for the weaker Deep Blue II?

sorry, I forgot the engine of Lyudmil got +5.00 score against Leoni and +10.00 against Ignacio but those games were a clear draw, and even Lyudmil didn't apologize. Very long analysis gives wrong score, how much more garbage do we get for those 1 minute shootout?

[Rodolfo Leoni]

So in conclusion Kasparov is wrong in his new book, black is not lost after 45.Ra6 and therefore Deep Blue 2.0 almost allowed Kasparov to draw with the awful 45.Ra6.

Agreed. Almost all strong branches including their leaf were analyzed to death. No
win for white after Ra6. SF8 + powerful hardware by posters on this thread
was thrown at this position and nothing comes up. Besides it was proven in
previous pages that SF8 was stronger than DB2, if even SF8 can't find
a win, how much more for the weaker Deep Blue II?

.............

I remember Louis and Peter were here 6-7 years ago too, without monster hatdware. I never read an absolutely wrong post by them and I think they are acute observers. Hardware can help, but weapons aren't as important as men who use them...

[MikeGL]

So in conclusion Kasparov is wrong in his new book, black is not lost after 45.Ra6 and therefore Deep Blue 2.0 almost allowed Kasparov to draw with the awful 45.Ra6.

Agreed. Almost all strong branches including their leaf were analyzed to death. No
win for white after Ra6. SF8 + powerful hardware by posters on this thread
was thrown at this position and nothing comes up. Besides it was proven in
previous pages that SF8 was stronger than DB2, if even SF8 can't find
a win, how much more for the weaker Deep Blue II?

.............

I remember Louis and Peter were here 6-7 years ago too, without monster hatdware. I never read an absolutely wrong post by them and I think they are acute observers. Hardware can help, but weapons aren't as important as men who use them...

I want to get hold of that buggy engine and reproduce it on my machine,
because if one modifies an engine score just to prove a point in an argument then that is really way overboard and dirty tactic, IMO.

Sometimes I also wonder if we are really dealing with a carbon based human or an experimental chatbot AI designed to stir human emotions.


regards

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

So in conclusion Kasparov is wrong in his new book, black is not lost after 45.Ra6 and therefore Deep Blue 2.0 almost allowed Kasparov to draw with the awful 45.Ra6.

A correct summary, at least according to http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 18&t=64627 .

how could a single longer search be a correct summary?

you are certainly aware within that SF line, there are at least 30 mistakes.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

So in conclusion Kasparov is wrong in his new book, black is not lost after 45.Ra6 and therefore Deep Blue 2.0 almost allowed Kasparov to draw with the awful 45.Ra6.

Agreed. Almost all strong branches including their leaf were analyzed to death. No
win for white after Ra6. SF8 + powerful hardware by posters on this thread
was thrown at this position and nothing comes up. Besides it was proven in
previous pages that SF8 was stronger than DB2, if even SF8 can't find
a win, how much more for the weaker Deep Blue II?

sorry, I forgot the engine of Lyudmil got +5.00 score against Leoni and +10.00 against Ignacio but those games were a clear draw, and even Lyudmil didn't apologize. Very long analysis gives wrong score, how much more garbage do we get for those 1 minute shootout?

the only garbage are your tongue-in-cheek comments.

1 minute games are statistically significant, do you understand that, when a larger number is played?

what draw are you talking man, what draw?
take only my Qg4+ line;

after Qg4, hg4 wins for white in all lines
if Kf7 instead, Rc7 Rc7 dc7 wins for white
black probably holds only after Qg4 hg4 Ke6 Rd7 Kd7, by a thread and a miracle, but, take only even that very simple pawn endgame, take the different possible lines, and only 1 out of 5 or 6 draws for black, the other are all lost.

is that what you call an easy draw?
really?

for me, this position assessment is big white winning chances, or +-

take even Rodolfo line, Kd6 loses
Rd6 instead continues the game, but, again,
white wins 4/5 of all available lines there too.

is that what you call a drawn game?
really?

so that, when white wins in 90% of all cases, you can not possibly speak of an easy draw.

you might be certain Kasparov would have lost that game one way or another, as he even does not see the very engine-like Re8 reply early into the line.

so, your claim would be Kasparov, who analysed this position very thouroughly for his recent book, and played the game too, has an inferior assessment to Nunn, who did not play the game, analysed it some 10 years ago with much inferior software, and is a much weaker player than Kasparov?

really?

[MikeGL]

So in conclusion Kasparov is wrong in his new book, black is not lost after 45.Ra6 and therefore Deep Blue 2.0 almost allowed Kasparov to draw with the awful 45.Ra6.

Agreed. Almost all strong branches including their leaf were analyzed to death. No
win for white after Ra6. SF8 + powerful hardware by posters on this thread
was thrown at this position and nothing comes up. Besides it was proven in
previous pages that SF8 was stronger than DB2, if even SF8 can't find
a win, how much more for the weaker Deep Blue II?

sorry, I forgot the engine of Lyudmil got +5.00 score against Leoni and +10.00 against Ignacio but those games were a clear draw, and even Lyudmil didn't apologize. Very long analysis gives wrong score, how much more garbage do we get for those 1 minute shootout?

the only garbage are your tongue-in-cheek comments.

1 minute games are statistically significant, do you understand that, when a larger number is played?

what draw are you talking man, what draw?
take only my Qg4+ line;

after Qg4, hg4 wins for white in all lines
if Kf7 instead, Rc7 Rc7 dc7 wins for white
black probably holds only after Qg4 hg4 Ke6 Rd7 Kd7, by a thread and a miracle, but, take only even that very simple pawn endgame, take the different possible lines, and only 1 out of 5 or 6 draws for black, the other are all lost.

is that what you call an easy draw?
really?

for me, this position assessment is big white winning chances, or +-

take even Rodolfo line, Kd6 loses
Rd6 instead continues the game, but, again,
white wins 4/5 of all available lines there too.

is that what you call a drawn game?
really?

so that, when white wins in 90% of all cases, you can not possibly speak of an easy draw.

you might be certain Kasparov would have lost that game one way or another, as he even does not see the very engine-like Re8 reply early into the line.

so, your claim would be Kasparov, who analysed this position very thouroughly for his recent book, and played the game too, has an inferior assessment to Nunn, who did not play the game, analysed it some 10 years ago with much inferior software, and is a much weaker player than Kasparov?

really?

That's why I don't reply to most of your posts because
those were nonsense.

after Qg4, hg4 wins for white in all lines

Maybe you need to check at page 6 where Ignacio Santos played out your beloved Qg4+ line which just ends up in draw, you even claimed it was a +10.00 for white, when the draw was clarified by Ignacio, and your +10.00 just made out of thin air with no proof whatsoever.

black probably holds only after Qg4 hg4 Ke6 Rd7 Kd7, by a thread and a miracle, but, take only even that very simple pawn endgame, take the different possible lines, and only 1 out of 5 or 6 draws for black, the other are all lost.

Sorry but did the rules of chess change recently? where a multi-pv is required for a proof of a win. If the draw is a single line compared to 6 other lines which loses, that doesn't mean the other side lost. Take the below position as a sample. In your definition of a chess win, White is lost and black wins because the pv shows a single line only which draws. The draw is a single thread of a miracle while all the other line wins for black, so it is clearly winning for black? What kind of rubbish is this you are claiming?

[d]3qrrk1/pbpppp2/1p6/7Q/8/8/5nn1/K7 w - - 0 1

Code: Select all

0.00	1.Qg5+ Kh8 2.Qh6+ Kg8 3.Qg5+				
-27.81	1.Qh2 f5 2.Qh5 Rf6 3.Kb1 e5 4.Qe2 Ng4 5.Qa2+ Kh7 6.Qb2 N2e3 7.Qc1 Be4+ 8.Kb2				
-28.7	1.Qe5 Ne4 2.Qh2 Ng5 3.Qe5 f5 4.Qb2 e6 5.Qc1 Qf6+ 6.Kb1 Be4+ 7.Ka2 Bd5+ 8.Kb1 f4 9.Qxc7 Ne3 10.Qxa7				
-61.43	1.Qf5 e5 2.Qxf2 Qh4 3.Qc2 Qd4+ 4.Qb2 Qxb2+ 5.Kxb2 Kg7 6.Kc3 e4 7.Kd2 Kf6				
-61.43	1.Qe2 e5 2.Qxf2 Qh4 3.Qc2 Qd4+ 4.Qb2 Qxb2+ 5.Kxb2 Kg7 6.Kc3 e4 7.Kd2 Kf6				
-63.56	1.Qb5 e5 2.Ka2 Qh4 3.Qxd7 Qc4+ 4.Ka3 Qc5+ 5.Kb2 Qd4+ 6.Qxd4 exd4 7.Ka3 Ne3 8.Ka4				
-63.56	1.Ka2 e5 2.Qf5 Qh4 3.Qxd7 Qc4+ 4.Ka3 Qc5+ 5.Ka2 Qd5+ 6.Qxd5 Bxd5+ 7.Ka3 Nd3 8.Ka4 Bc6+ 9.Ka3				
-63.64	1.Qh6 e5 2.Qd2 Qh4 3.Qxd7 Qd4+ 4.Qxd4 exd4 5.Kb2 Kg7 6.Kb1 Kf6 7.Kc1				
-64.44	1.Kb1 e5 2.Qe2 Qh4 3.Qb5 Qe4+ 4.Kc1 Qe1+ 5.Kb2 Qd2+ 6.Kb3 Qd5+ 7.Qxd5 Bxd5+ 8.Kc3 f5 9.Kd2				
-64.44	1.Kb2 e5 2.Qf5 Ne3 3.Qh5 Qe7 4.Kb3 Bd5+ 5.Kc3 Qa3+ 6.Kd2 Qb4+ 7.Ke2 Qg4+ 8.Qxg4+ Nexg4 9.Kd2				

This position is a black win according to Lyudmil's chess knowledge because only by a thread can white hold a draw, and all other remaining lines would win for black. This is why i didn't reply on this nonsense post of yours at page 6, now we are at page 14.

so, your claim would be Kasparov, who analysed this position very thouroughly for his recent book, and played the game too, has an inferior assessment to Nunn

I didn't claim this, all I know for sure is that the people posting on this forum have more modern, more powerful hardware than Kasparov or his publisher or publishers clerks. If Kasparov can confirm he has more than 7 people with powerful hardware who analyzed this position thoroughly then I might change my opinion.

regards

[Guenther]

Very long analysis gives wrong score, how much more garbage do we get for those 1 minute shootout?

1 minute games are statistically significant, do you understand that, when a larger number is played?

You really did understand nothing and even perverted it to the worst.

You mix up statistical significance for producing engine ratings with analysing positions?? (and not the first time)
That is the biggest joke ever made here. A position can only have 3 results and no shootout
even at 1 hour games will slightly resemble an analysis.
It seems you simply don't know what an analysis is and how it can be acchieved.

This makes all threads about analysis with your participation an unpleasant tragicomedy.

EOF forever...

[Rodolfo Leoni]

take even Rodolfo line, Kd6 loses
Rd6 instead continues the game, but, again,
white wins 4/5 of all available lines there too.

is that what you call a drawn game?
really?

Here, only first line is true. It's not nice to see own words perverted in order to be right. Better if you use your own arguments. A war just ended and I'm not willing to start another for some silly reasons.

[rabbits23]

Your comments on women are fatuous and unfair. I know a lot of men who
are unpredictable. America has one serving as its President.
rabbits

[Rodolfo Leoni]

Your comments on women are fatuous and unfair. I know a lot of men who
are unpredictable. America has one serving as its President.
rabbits

I thought it was clear the attempt to make some humour there. On my side, I know a lot of serious, trustworthy and reliable women.