Kramnik-Fritz 06 g3

"after Kramnik has blundered a mate in one"

Everybody here seems to consider this as a novelty, forgetting that 3 months ago he blundered a mate in 3 to Topalov.

By the way, nobody has noticed that those blunders, combined with Kramnik's fantastic chess understanding (the best chess understanding he has ever achieved probably) simply shows that he's in love. Being very clever and making gross mistakes is very characteristic of "in love" psychological states (don't you even sometimes finish married in such cases? ;o)

Other than both being mistakes, there's nothing similar in the two blunders. With Topalov it was a complex tactical position, complicated enough that Topalov missed it too. Leaving a mate in one on a practically empty board is practically another dimension.

Hmm, the love factor, often overlooked. Maybe this is why married players often get a boost. No more love to worry about?!

Morozevich once announced he was to retire. I asked a friend of mine (a GM) what he thinks about it and he told me "they say he's fallen in love" :)

Since Kramnik is -1 now I'm wondering if he choses another opening today. The catalan is quite solid but maybe not enough to create concret winning chances.
(?)

I think Kramnik will again try Catalan if Fritz10 lets him. He has studied this line, and it seems a good anti-computer strategy. Why change it, when he (as you said rushed) obtained an advantage with it.

If the Catalan was good enough in a must-win situation against Topalov and good enough to gain a winning position in game one, I’m sure it’s good enough now. I’d be surprised if we see anything else if Kramnik gets the chance. I’m a bit disappointed by the Fritz team’s decision to allow it. You’d think that, for example, the Grunfeld was both more interesting – bit of a change from Elista - and also a better choice against a human.

"Since Kramnik is -1 now I'm wondering if he choses another opening today."

I don't think it's time to panic, as there are four games left, and he's had the better positions in both games played so far.

As Mig said, the two blunders (vs. Topalov and vs. Fritz) really can't be compared. I am sure all of us here would need MUCH longer to find the (so-called) mate in three than the mate in one.

If Kramnik could come back from a non-existent
game point awarded to Topalov with him having the white pieces, he can certainly come back from a legitimate loss with black pieces.

Of course, it was with a human being with a plus score in match

and this is with a computer with match score even.

Of course, of course ...

Panic? Why would Kramnik panic?

He is thinking...

"Hmmm, I wonder when that check is going to clear for 500K?"

"Moet Brut or a fine Cognac tonight?"

"I wonder if Topalov is watching?"

"I wonder if Danailov is watching?"

"I wonder what it's like to be #2 in the world?"

"Hmmm, Ham in my sandwich or cheese?"

"I can't believe that dozen roses and box of chocolates was 100 Euros..."

"What a pretty sky today..."

:)

Yeah, Love Sucks Then You Die.

After Kramnik's last blunder this match is now "Daily torture"

Ok, everyone raise their hands who has never missed a mate in one against them....

[sound of crickets]

thought so....

Told you.

Curious. You really wouldn't have thought this was either the best territory for the computer, or the best way to raise public interest and obtain publicity for the match.

i've never missed a mate in one in a slow game. nor blundered a queen. or a rook. i've blundered a knight a couple of times.

Obviously, john, you have much to look forward to. Rest assured it is only a matter of time. Although personally, since we’re boasting, I think I too have stayed off the big ones, confining myself to a rook or two, pieces on four or five occasions, various of the little guys and the odd mate in three or so..

Anyway, que pasa in Big V-Deep F? It seems to the patzer eye that DF has simply mislaid a pawn for rather inadequate compensation.

Fritz 10 is GREAT:
It is THE computer program that found a mate in 1 against a reiging world champion !!!

And everyone here who has a rating over 2400, raise your hand...

Ok, I can still hear the crickets, probably because hand raising doesn't make much noise.

Why point out Kramnik's blunder again in the second sentence? Is there anybody reading this who is unaware of it?

Looking at the game after 23...b5, it looks very double-edged. I've no doubt that Fritz with white would beat Fritz with black, but there are all sorts of ways white as a human can go wrong. A fascinating game...

"Why point out Kramnik's blunder again in the second sentence? Is there anybody reading this who is unaware of it?"

You'd be surprised how often people land on blog posts from google searches, who might not be aware of things that seem obvious to us.

>>Yeah, Love Sucks Then You Die

So, it's not for nothing they call it "mate"!

Kramnik misses a mate in one, BFD.

500k guaranteed plus a French girlfriend.

Bon Appetit!

Kramnik has good reasons to make some blunders. He's world champion. He knows that now he's fully part of the chess legend, having faced - by far - the strongest opposition a world champion ever had to face to get and keep his title. He has made half a million two months ago, will make half a million within a few days, maybe a full million if he can focus just a little bit (avoiding mates in one ?), and if he wish he can play a match against Radjabov and get another million.
Then, he's in love. He's sleeping in the best hotels wherever he goes, blancpain will offer him soon a gold a diamond watch, his life went from pasta + coke to caviar + Dom Perignon. How the hell couldn't he blunder sometimes under such conditions?

Actually, I recall suddenly that both my IM team-mate and his opponent overlooked a mate in one last year, to the extent that they had to have it pointed out to them by spectators after the game. And another team mate survived just the other week when his opponent (also an IM, I think) preferred perpetual check to announcing mate in six with checks. You don’t have to be under 2400 to play extremely badly on occasion.

I suppose this is petering out now, is it? If Qxe5 Qxe5; Bxe5 Re4, and if Bxe5 Bf6; Bxf6 Qxe3; fxe3 gxf6. Pity; I had some hopes for humanity a move or two ago, but the thing has demonstrated its compensation rather impressively.

Or not, of course - 25...h6, eh? Is the creature playing for a win? And ...Rc2; is this going to get sharp, I wonder? Dangerous situation for a human; this is precisely the kind of position Fritzy plays much better than carbon-based equivalents.

I'd hate to be white here against a human, never mind a computer...
Should Kramnik bail out with a draw offer?
Would the machine accept?

Ah, Qb3 - not going to get sharp if Kramnik can help it, then. I had been thinking of Qd4. Qb3 should terminate proceedings in a draw fairly quickly, I think?

So was the pawn sacrifice by Deep Fritz (Black) n novelty or theory? I would have just saved the pawn with ... d5-d4.

Any player thinking here that white has any problem in this position should either try to improve his playing level, or avoid commenting chess positions. At move 28, white's position is still better.

White position is clearly much better. Black combined weaknesses on the kingside and on the queenside will lead them to defeat. The bishop is very strong on e5, while his opponent is clearly inferior. And black's seventh rank will be devastated soon.

Wow, Ruslan, could you be more wrong?

Black's kingside and queenside weaknesses? Strong White e5-bishop? Devastate Black's 7th rank?

27 Rd1 Rc2 28 Qb3 Qxb3 29 axb3 Rxe2 30 Bd6

Mig really should get this forum set up so that participants can take bets on observations of this last kind. Like the Griffins - any Victor Mollo fans here?

Deep Fritz: Ha ha! It's -my- turn to possess the 2-to-1 queenside majority!

Certainly wasn’t opening book, notyetagm, to judge from the times. Doesn’t mean it’s not theory, of course.

Where’s ovidiu, I wonder. I’m looking forward to his explanation of how Kramnik could have predicted the exact position we now see before the game.

Deep Fritz now has a 2-1 queenside majority, his f6-bishop commands the long a1-h8 diagonal to the queenside where his pawn majority is, and his e2-rook commands the 7th rank.

If anyone is groveling for a draw in this position it is Kramnik.

Time to shake hands. The game is a deadly draw.

31 ... a5

Here come the Space Invaders to seal Kramnik's doom.

Go Deep Fritz!

Yes, probably a draw but DF will squeeze for a little while.

The Black king can fly into the game on the light-squared a2-g8 diagonal while the White king is trapped on the first rank by the Black e2-rook.

Does this not help Black in the endgame?

Lovin' the live site courtesy of RAG. No charge, responds quickly, and you can leave it open in the background and it gives you a little "phoosh" sound when one of 'em moves. Kewl beans.

@Stonewaller Yes, the RAG chess applet is very nice.

33 ... a4 35 bxa4 bxa4

The Space Invaders keep coming.

It wouldn't be impossible for you or I to lose this ending as White, true. Say a4; ba ba; Rd7 a3; Ra7 a2; now Black's plan might be ...Kh7-g6 and ...Bf6, perhaps? Then he can play to take the king down to b2 and just win the rook. White needs to take some countermeasures about that, but one feels there ought to be some available, somehow.

I suppose in my line above Ra7 wasn't a good move, was it - better to play Kf1 and prevent the rook from covering both e7 and a2. Then matters don't get that far.

Kramnik is down to 4 minutes for 8 moves. Very difficult for him now...

..Bf8, presumably now even Ra7 a3; Bxg7 Bxg7; Rxa3 is a draw. I don't see Black can do much after that, although it might make for a wearisome evening for any remainng viewers, since I expect Fritz would evaluate it optimistically. I guess that's where Vlad waves his hands around a bit and the programmers step in. You gotta feel for Fritzy when he gets switched off in that kind of situation just when he thinks he's winning.

@rdh: Well, Kramnik is getting paid a minimum $500,000, make him earn it by showing us -exactly- how to draw this kind of position.

Great game by Fritz up now. Qc8-Qe6 and positional pawn sacrifice for getting the initiative all the game.Impressive.

Well, this is what should happen each when Fritz gets to deviate first (b6 ?!) and thus doesn't let Kramnik to play out his home analysis (according to Fritz-10 !) which goes up to move 17 and results in an ideal anti-comp position.

Finally in this match a chance to see what DF-10 plays like.

Kramnik just sac'd exchange for a pawn to build a fortress with 38 RxBf8+ Kxf8 39 Bb4+.

lol..just as I was prasing it, it has went for a draw 37..a3

@Ovidiu: Yes, a very impressive game by DF, although it appears the resulting B+3P versus R+2P endgame will be a fortress draw.

Three more games like this from DF and Kramnik will lose the match 0-1.

In a reversal from the Kramnik-Topalov match, Kramnik may bitterly regret the first two games of this match where he gave away a whole point (win->draw, draw->loss).

If the White bishop gets to e3, is it a textbook fortress draw? Anyone here have Dvoretsky handy?

Kramnik has pulled a swindle !! -Adams did the same in his(only) draw with Hydra.

Rxf8! well done, Vlady

My word, Ovidiu, I hadn't realised you knew quite so little about the game.

What was your proposed alternative to 37...a3?

I don't have Dvoretsky to hand, but I can assure you that this is a draw and that there isn't any 'exactly' about it. I keep the king on g2 and the bishop defending f2 and pass - what's Black going to do about it?

Chessbase programmers shoud be reasonable
and stop it.

I guess that h4 was the final important move- Black shouldn't be allowed to play g5-g4 and then h4-h3.

A fascinating game.

I assume that as soon as it gets down to 5 pieces +kings, Fritz will see the draw??

Does it even matter? - White could just capture on h4, or indeed meet ...g4 with Kg2 and h3.

Impressive game by the machine, I agree with ovidiu about that.

The five-man tablebase includes kings, tg, so we won't get that far for a while. But as ovidiu says you'd think the programmers will step in shortly.

>What was your proposed alternative to 37...a3?
37..Re4 would have been just fine for win but anyway the 37..a3? 38.Rxf8! swindle was nicer.
It highlighted the typical comp weakness. Adams got his draw to Hydra in the same way.

1/2 - 1/2 finally

Bad endgame by Fritz with g6 and h5. Now White has a fortress. Nevertheless the endgame B+p against R is draw.

You think Black would have been winning after 37...Re4? Seriously?

Apart from anything else, let's say I play 38 Ra7+ and carry on attacking the bishop after your reply (38...Be7? 39 f3, of course).

You can’t fault Fritzy for effort, anyway – been thinking eight minutes over which 0.00 move to try here. I suppose Kramnik only needs to reach move 56 to cut it short by adjourning……

Game drawn after 44 Kg2.

A very nice dark-squared fortress for White, Be3-Pf2-Pg3-Ph4.

And another advertisement for the superiority of bishop over knight. The bishop can "lose a tempo", moving back and forth along the a7-g1 diagonal while staying in contact with the pawn chain base on f2.

A White knight, on the other hand, would not be able to move -and- stay in defense of the critical f2-pawn chain base.

Draw agreed. Fine game by the computer to put Kramnik on the defensive. But fine play by Kramnik to appreciate that the computer would grab the exchange sacrifice, which ensured the draw.

A knight is also a draw, notyetagm, although it's harder.

@Marc Shepherd: Well, was the position winning for Black if DF had not played ... a4-a3?

@rdh: Thanks, didn't know that. So it's still a fortress with the knight, just a more difficult fortress when compared to the ease of the bishop fortress.

Just like both R+B v R and R+N v R are both draws but the bishop provides much better winning chances. I've seen strong players lose R+B v R but have yet to see such a strong player lose R+N v R.

Oh, nonsense, Marc. White just played sensible moves to hold a slightly inferior endgame. Wait until you see it annotated, or play it through with Fritz. I'll lay any odds none of the GM commentators suggest that Fritz ever had any serious winning chances in the R and B ending.

There's some story about Gazza and R & N - R. Either he played it out for ages and caused offence, or perhaps he actually won it. Possibly against Judit P, although I may be confusing it with the quitted-piece affair. I'm sure it's all in the database somewhere.

The paradigm fortress with the knight is knight g2, pawns f3 g4 h4 against, say, pawns h6/g7. Now Black can't do anything at all because the king can't approach and White just plays king moves. Of course you can't necessarily get this, but even without that you have to play quite a few bad moves to lose.

@rdh: I agree. Exchanging a small amount of material (R for B+P) to create a fortress is hardly a swindle.

For a swindle go checkout one of the Bareev-Carlsen games from the World Cup last year, in which Bareev was dead lost, played a !?!? move to give Magnus the chance to blow the win, and Magnus responded with a ?? move to do just that. Now -that- !?!? move by Bareev was a swindle attempt that succeeded.

RDH, my point is that I don't think Kramnik's objective for the day was to land in an inferior endgame, play correct defensive moves, and draw.

@rdh: I completely forgot that Kasparov-Polgar game in which Polgar lost the R+N v R endgame.

Polgar missed a stalemate trick that would have drawn easily (something like ... Rg3+! RxR stalemate), got her king stuck in a corner, and had to resign.

Only example I know of in which a strong player lost a R+N v R endgame.

I could not find a link to the English commentary. Was there one at the RAG website? The only audio link I could find was for the German commentary.

Thanks.

>@Marc Shepherd: Well, was the position winning for Black if DF had not played ... a4-a3?>

it wasn't any easy win, after 37..Re4 39.Ra7+ Kg8 40.Kg2 a3 41.Ba1 etc. it is hard to see how Black can make further progress only White that has to defend further and not let the Black K escape from the cage.

so, actually it was not a swindle but it a nice way to put an end to all potential troubles, one which stresses that Fritz is a comp and comps do what comps do.

There's one up on chessbase.com itself, notyetagm.

I'm sure it wasn't, Marc, but what I was calling nonsense was your 'fine play by Kramnik to appreciate that the computer would grab the exchange sacrifice, thus ensuring a draw.' He just played the obvious moves to make a draw; he'd have made the same moves against Topalov.

Yes, good point of Mig's: 25...h6 was a very computer-like move. They're great at seeing positions where there's nothing to do immediately and it's better to hold for the moment. Much the same as very strong humans are always excellent at 'keeping the tension'.

This is not an unsual endgame. A pro like Kramnik knows how to play positions like this, that's why he is a professional. I guess a key factor is to force the black rook to defend the a-pawn from the side. If the black rook is already on the a-file it's getting critical for White.

Not so, freitag - apart from anything else he didn't force the rook to defend from the side: the machine could have played 37...Ra2 if it wanted. The trouble then, though, is that the bishop has no stable home; it can be perpetually attacked and if the king defends it then the bishop is pinned and Bb4 or Bxg7 are both threatened. (the ending after ...Bf6; Bxf6 is a complete draw with the rook in front of the pawn: if it advances to a2 then the king getting to b2 does no good, and it it stays on a3 then White has rook takes a kingside pawn the moment the king wanders, and gets far too much play with his two passed pawns.)

But you're right that this is a very familiar position type and Kramnik would not have experienced any trouble at all in holding it. Indeed I imagine he would have experienced little trouble even with say, a minute on his clock to finish the game from move 35 or so.

I'm very bad in endgames, rdh ;) but I'm sure the position is draw, or the endgame books have to be re-written.
Yes, the unprotected Bf8 always gives white time to disturb black's plan and he can't make progress.

One thing is clear:

Computers are still no match for humans - sure, with fatigue or unusual mating patterns (game 2), or maybe even very deep tactics, computers still win. But when it comes to real chess understanding, planning and static evaluation - they are no match for the top Grandmasters. Indeed, if you take away chess knowledge (programmed by humans I might add) and strickly search material gains (no knowledge except the rules) you have no better a player than a master at the highest processing speeds.

> Indeed, if you take away chess knowledge (programmed by humans I might add) and strickly search material gains (no knowledge except the rules) you have no better a player than a master at the highest processing speeds.>

the realtive value of the pieces (pawn=1, B=3 R=5, Q=10. etc ) is still "chess knowldege". It takes a beginner few weeks of play and defeats to get some point on the relative value of pieces ( usually he is told).

what you want is to let computers compute all until they do given moves on reason that if otherwise they will be checkmated.

There's one up on chessbase.com itself, notyetagm.

-- Posted by: rdh at November 29, 2006 13:41

Thanks, just found it.

"the realtive value of the pieces (pawn=1, B=3 R=5, Q=10. etc ) is still "chess knowldege". It takes a beginner few weeks of play and defeats to get some point on the relative value of pieces ( usually he is told)."

Very good point. Without those values a computer would be completely helpless, since it will not see a mate from the starting position. The machine would be like a man walking around in a dark room that is 200x200 miles searching for the light switch. It can be everywhere!

Mig, on chess.fm, you talk too much :o) There's nothing wrong with 10sec (let's say) of silence every 10min or so...

"the realtive value of the pieces (pawn=1, B=3 R=5, Q=10. etc ) is still "chess knowldege". It takes a beginner few weeks of play and defeats to get some point on the relative value of pieces ( usually he is told)."

Very good point. Without those values a computer would be completely helpless, since it will not see a mate from the starting position. The machine would be like a man walking around in a dark room that is 200x200 miles searching for the light switch. It can be everywhere!

That I seriously doubt. Just set all values to 1 and give him a few hours time to crunch through 10 highly tactical middle game positions and 20 complex endings. He'll have a very good idea after that...

freitag
> I'm sure the position is draw, or the endgame books have to be re-written>

it is draw albeit after 37..Re4 Fritz could have go on and "torture" Kramnik for a while but not likely that it would have succeeded. Not much play left and Fritz is prone anyway to 37..a3/38 Rxf8 kind of moves.

I'm not so into chess but I had played :
28 Bxg7
or is it wrong?

>That I seriously doubt. Just set all values to 1 and give him a few hours time to crunch through 10 highly tactical middle game positions and 20 complex endings. He'll have a very good idea after that...>

well, such kind of chess software still has yet to be written. Not that is difficult, it is already common place. For instace "Bayesian net" kind of softawre : spam filters as SpanBays software learn to distinguish spam by following you doing it and soon they get quite good :they get it right 99% of the time.
Or "neural net"-kind : it takes some 10 000 simulated neurons to teach such assembly to pilot a plane on a flight simulator by trial and error.
Genetic algorithms or Markov models would be another.

At any rate this would be something conceptually different than what Chessbase and the rest of chess programmers do. But it will likely be the next generation of "Fritzes".

"it is draw albeit after 37..Re4 Fritz could have go on and "torture" Kramnik for a while but not likely that it would have succeeded. Not much play left and Fritz is prone anyway to 37..a3/38 Rxf8 kind of moves."

Yep, Fritz does not understand that the position after a3 is even "more" draw than playing on with the material given. It thinks it can make progress with the rook against the bishop + pawn. Only better tablebases could stop Fritz of playing a3 ;)

freitag wrote

>Very good point. Without those values a computer would be completely helpless, since it will not see a mate from the starting position. The machine would be like a man walking around in a dark room that is 200x200 miles searching for the light switch. It can be everywhere>

yes that was my point. "materialistic chess" is, in fact, still postional chess but one which follows a primitive strategy to orient yourself; to make decisions "here which road to take ?" so as to get at the end of a labyrinth whose end is hell far awy from here.
We know that is fact mistaken in an absolute sense, the problem is that it still gets Fritz there in 99% of cases so you get
Hydra 5.5- Adams 0.5 scores.

Today was draw anyway but 37..a3 kind of move stresses that the strategy is not correct but rather that it is enough in most of the cases.

The irony is that computers are always wrong even when their conclusion is right. They do what they do for the (in an abolute sense) wrong reasons.

"Computers are still no match for humans ... when it comes to real chess understanding, planning and static evaluation - they are no match for the top Grandmasters. Indeed, if you take away chess knowledge (programmed by humans I might add) and strickly search material gains (no knowledge except the rules) you have no better a player than a master at the highest processing speeds."

If you take away chess knowledge (taught by humans), Kramnik isn't any good either. Obviously computers "know" what they know from humans --- where else would it come from?

The fact is, the "chess knowledge" of the engines is getting better and better. It's funny to laugh at their mistakes, but Fritz can easily beat 99.9999% of the human race, and the last .0001% fraction is getting smaller all the time.

The Griffins, eh?

My nickname at university was HH.

Cheers,

Ceri (A GM at Bridge)

>If you take away chess knowledge (taught by humans), Kramnik isn't any good either. Obviously computers "know" what they know from humans --- where else would it come from?>

I have just posted that you can write software which afterwards that teaches itself just as humans do.
Leaving aside the question "but then who wrote the human code : Jesus or Darwin ?" the problem with Kramnik is that he has learnt too how to avoid playing by using the code "play Berlin, exchange everything, get the draw, and go watch the football game".

@Ovidiu: Yes, Kramnik now has a preferred type of position (queenless middlegame) that he seems to steer for in almost every game.

Dr. Lasker would eat him alive. He would give Kramnik his queen exchange but gain some other concession in the process. Just like he used to beat Janowski by letting him have his "precious" bishop pair.

notyetagm--

I can't imagine there are many non-grandmasters qualified to evaluate, across a century or so, the relative endgame skills of Lasker and Kramnik. I think it would make quite an interesting book or Chessbase article. Why don't you write up your research and publish it?

"The fact is, the "chess knowledge" of the engines is getting better and better. It's funny to laugh at their mistakes, but Fritz can easily beat 99.9999% of the human race, and the last .0001% fraction is getting smaller all the time."

Because the machines play with human input. But it's very easy to win against the best engine today if you have a machine that is ten years old, since a human player only needs the machine to avoid bad mistakes. I wouldn't have problems to win against DF 10 with the help of Fritz 5.32.

I visited the Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz match today and attended the third game.

I was able to make some 250 pictures with my DigiCam. I of course took the opportunity to make some pictures of the opening book displayed, so you can see for yourself, what information Kramnik gets in the opening book phase of the game.

You can see about 80 of my pictures at

http://www.flickr.com/photos/schwarti/sets/72157594397903848/

Have fun!

Andreas

Andreas,

Thanks for sharing.

"The problem with Kramnik is that..."

Other than his medical concerns, I'm not sure Kramnik has that many problems. He appears content with life, has an amiable-looking companion, a stable income, a job which he enjoys and he's the world chess champion.

Kramnik handled the devastating forfeit of a WCC game with incredible equanimity; what can he possibly care about the random opinions of the occasional internet gnat?

How ironic that those who criticize Kramnik for effortless, boring, trivial draws generally do so in effortless, boring, and trivial posts.

@ notyetagm

>Dr. Lasker would eat him alive.

I would hope so but I wouldn't bet. Players as Kramnik are actually difficult to play against. You can meet them at all levels, 1700-2700. It is a style, a (boring) character, of playing which I suspect it ultimately motivated by cowardice by practically it is very effective. Such characters duck every challange and defuse pre-emptively every tension and one may get defocused, aimless, --as Topalov got few times in Elista-- when playing against them.

Kasparov had problems against him. Granted Kasparov was going through rough times with his divorce, custody battles in court and ventures failing and maybe did not take Kramnik seriously
enough but nonetheless he had troubles playing against him.
Lasker too had troubles against Mr.Draw-Schlechter
who kept him to draw game after game in their match and Lasker pulled only in the last game something of a swindle to save the match.

>He would give Kramnik his queen exchange but gain some other concession in the process. Just like he used to beat Janowski by letting him have his "precious" bishop pair.>

sounds likely. One may recall here a famous Lasker-Capa game in a "must win" situation for Lasker. He knew that Capa wanted Qs-swaps and simpler postions so Lasker went for...exchange Ruy-Lopez, played 5.d4 , traded Qs and continued with an f4-f5 anti-postionally leaving a backward e4 on open file ..suicide chess but Capablanca got throughly confused by such play, missed some chances, and ended under mating attack in a complex middle game...lol !

>Kramnik handled the devastating forfeit of a WCC game with incredible equanimity>

He asserted himself as WCC by a "devastating forfeit". McEnroe winning the match after a "devasting" (3-1) tie-break.

McEnroe only made a point by winning against Borg in Wimbledon 1981. But he never manifested his status as number one.

>McEnroe only made a point by winning against Borg in Wimbledon 1981. But he never manifested his status as number one.>

could be but saying that somebody won a match by being "devastating" (3-1) in tie-breaks sounds as joke

in the Elista match it was Topalov who played the better chess and made that match memorable (even a bit too much so with the help of Danailov)

Thank you very much, Andreas. Far better than many "professional" photos I have seen of this event.

The fact is, the "chess knowledge" of the engines is getting better and better.

I agree. Now the real challenge--and I'm partly joking, but only partly--is to make a machine that will not merely play chess, but which will (if you'll pardon the pun) take the initiative in playing chess. A computer with not merely chess knowledge but what could only be called the desire to play--now that would be an achievement.

Ceri Evans: Are you indeed? In that case we have met; indeed when I was learning the game we even partnered one another at the Young Chelsea once (how this came about I can't imagine). You made, as it seemed to me, a mistake in defence, and then to my surprise blamed me (a little abruptly if truth be told, but this situation is trying for the stronger player) for having failed to prevent it. You were right too: a useful lesson. I am not a GM as I never bothered registering master points, but I did learn to play reasonably in the end.

Ovidiu: you are experiencing language difficulties; greg K did not say that Kramnik's victory was devastating, but that the forfeit must have been devastating to Kramnik.

You really should buy a book of Kramnik's selected games, by the way. You might then come out with slightly less twaddle.

Andreas: thanks. I assume the pics showing Fritz's analysis are only available outside the auditorium somewhere? Or can the live audience see them on a screen, even though Kramnik can't?

I suspect insofar as there was any psychological element in 2000 it went the other way: I can't imagine Kasparov underestimated Kramnik; it was obvious throughout the 1990's that Kramnik was the big danger to him, and indeed Kasparov had said himself he thought Kramnik would be his successor. One can see that prediction, and the belief behind it, making it a little difficult to play.

I must say, freitag, I fancy you would have grave difficulty in winning against Deep Fritz with Fritz 5.32.

Topalov certainly deserves credit for his entertaining play in Elista.

But how is it possible for the loser of a chess match to have played better than the winner? The extreme case: what if Topalov had won Elista 1-0 with eleven draws:
--Topalov narrowly winning one game and
--Kramnik having the initiative (near wins, missed wins, etc.) in eleven drawn games

In that scenario wouldn't you say that Topalov had played better chess?

Since chess doesn't have much of a "luck" factor, can't you safely say that the winner of a chess game played better in that game. And the winner of a match played better in that match?

Yes, rdh, I do think freitag's comment is very optimistic. I wonder where people get these notions.

Oh, and buying a book of Kramnik's selected games doesn't help at all. Playing through them is the next step, but there again, no progress is guaranteed. Earnest and willing toil is the only way for lesser mortals. I know. (Did it at an age when I enjoyed it. Long time ago. I was never a good player - as I define one - but I did acquire an appreciation of beauty and competence in chess that serves me still.)

"play Berlin, exchange everything, get the draw, and go watch the football game".

2000 called, it wants its bromide back. Ovidiu you are the equivalent of a chernev book. Enthusiastic but at the end of the day facile, and ultimately wrong.

Did someone actually mention McEnroe on a chess blog? You cannot be serious......

Not the first time McEnroe was mentioned here. I'm wondering why the Greatest, Muhammad Ali, was not yet mentioned here ...

@greg kostner

>In that scenario wouldn't you say that Topalov had played better chess? >

no, the opposite

>But how is it possible for the loser of a chess match to have played better than the winner? >

Not better, only not worth watching/playing beyond result. It is an effective style which brings success OTB but, at the extreme, such games are worth only being informed on the result.

about Kramnik, he (unlike his worshipping fans) is aware of himself but not interested in changing anything "I became a very boring person as you know, so my chess is also very boring nowadays.” www.chesscafe.com/text/review536.pdf

but what is the point of arguing when the devotion and blindness of rdh and mondo to kramnik is second only to that of religious people.

I suspect all we can learn from that remark, ovidiu, is that Kramnik has a better sense of humour than you.

you are predictably suspecting what you would like to be true, nothing new here

LOL rdh well said

The Kramnik fan club in action. If Leko would have their match suddenly all sorts of "deep reasons" would have been discovered in his game and draws and rdh would recommned his 9 memorable games to everyone.

rdh--

Perfect.

>Perfect

remarkable I would say, rdh is in good company

http://www.doggers-schaak.nl/?p=620&lp_lang_view=en

Oops, meant to say: here is an interesting article on Man vs. Machine matches:
http://www.doggers-schaak.nl/?p=620&lp_lang_view=en

thx for the article machinehead

>no surprising opening novelties, three little endgames, interesting but not of lasting value, and one blunder which every true chessplayer will understand with a slight feeling of shame.>

oh man, you should read Mig's bloggers here, repeatedly so until you start seeing the depths of Kramnik's game.

>It looks as thought the Fritz-programmers are not even interested in what their program itself thinks>

correct, this match is a joke as Kaparov had it, not a real contest. It serves to advertise both competitors. The problem is that without odds given to Kramnik it could have not been held, or if held the result could have been a 5.5-0.5 catastrophe for Kramnik. Something of no advertisement value for him so he would have refused to play.

>And suddenly I get this evil thought. It’s not the Machine that needs an opening book, but Man!
The opening book is just about everything Kramnik can still hold on too!>

well yes, Kramnik needed to be sure beforehand that he will get the simple positions in which he can play with good chances.

It is an "opening odds" match. With this bit of trick CBase got to stage another "exciting" Man-Machine-match (and make it seem as a real for a while until one gets the tricks).

@ rdh: "Andreas: thanks. I assume the pics showing Fritz's analysis are only available outside the auditorium somewhere? Or can the live audience see them on a screen, even though Kramnik can't?"

The live analysis can only be seen on Mathias Feist's screen. I was able to take pictures from the balcony, using highest zoom available on my camera.

Kramnik can't see the eval line, because he is not allowed to walk around the table to look at the screen, which, after the opening, is turned in the direction of Mathias Feist only.

Andreas

Ah, thanks, Andreas. Excellent. So if Kramnik does win, Ovidiu, or certainly some of Topalov’s more eccentric supporters, will be able to add to their absurd squawking about odds the claim that an assistant of Kramnik’s must have been spying from the balcony with binoculars and somehow signalling Fritz’s inmost thoughts to him. That’s a relief: be a bit dull for the poor things otherwise.

“You'd be surprised how often people land on blog posts from google searches, who might not be aware of things that seem obvious to us.”

In that case, why not also point out that Kramnik is the World Champion, in case somebody googles the words Deep Fritz? The blog is designed for and written as if it aims at people who are in the swing of things and the prominent and extra mention of Kramnik’s blunder came off as unnecessary.

"The blog is designed for and written as if it aims at people who are in the swing of things and the prominent and extra mention of Kramnik’s blunder came off as unnecessary."

Are you kidding? It's the difference in the match so far. How could a preview post for Game 3 (the first game after that blunder) NOT mention it?

There is actually little analysis of the incident, but its placement in the article is very prominent, specifically stating that it was a "mate in one". It's a throw-away comment that without analysis is just a shot at Kramnik.

You are so, so high. Incredibly high. Way up in the sky high. As if pointing that out could be insulting or inappropriate before the next game, especially when stated so plainly. You Kramnik jihadis really make yourselves look silly sometimes. Crying about such obvious and trivial statements of fact make it hard to listen to you about anything so you cripple every argument you make in the future with these strawmen.

This Kramnik jihadi sees nothing wrong with the article.

rdh: Nothing less, nothing more as always!

Mig,

I hope the many times I have attacked Kramnik in this blog don't make it hard to listen to the occasions when I feel you take an unnecessary shot. Especially when the matter has already taken up more space than it deserves.