What is your game 6 expectation?
Draw?
Win for Kramnik?
Win for Deep Fritz? 
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
- About Us
- Chess Improvement
- Chess Puzzles
- Chess Research
- College Chess
- General News
- Home
- Major Tournaments
- News
- Polgar Events
- Privacy Policy
- Scholastic Chess
- SPICE / Webster
- Susan’s Personal Blog
- Track your order
- USA Chess
- Videos
- Women’s Chess
- Contact Us
- Daily News
- My Account
- Terms & Conditions
- Privacy Policy
Topalov wins…..
Obviously Kramnik does not deserve the world title.
Kramnik wins, the match is fixed 3:3.
Based on what we have seen so far, I predict a draw.
If Kramnik would have put his heart into equalizing this match, it would have been a higher chance today playing with white that day after tomorrow with the black pieces. Although Kramnik is known to pull last minute surprises (against Leko for example), computers don’t have the type of psychological pressure Leko had.
Gabor
I expect draw,and the match will finish 3,5-2,5.Today i was chatting with the masters in icc,while we were looking the kramnik game…GMs understand very well the positions,but they cannot calculate so deep and so fast as the comp.Deep fritz is giving Kramnik too much chances…it makes me think that really Chessbase has not a good GM helping the programmers.In move 34,Deep Fritz plays Nh3+ for draw,as an stupid machine,because it is +0.00=,but Ng4+ was +0.01 for white(draw too) and gives kramnik 6 or 7 tactical problems to solve.The comp MUST PLAY TACTICAL,using all its force…i don´t know what are the Deep Fritz programmers thinking about,but for me Nh3 for draw is a blunder. 🙁
One anon said:
Topalov wins…..
Please, drop the Topalov issue. It’s over. Topalov didn’t win, simple as that. I did have the same suspicion (perhaps Kramnik was cheating), but the Topalov team failed to prove it, thus the story ends: Kramnik won, Kramnik IS the world champion. Just as Kasparov failed to prove that the Deep Blue team has cheated (interestingly enough, the accusation was the other way around: instead of computer helping the human [Kramnik], the human helping the computer [Kasparov]). The accusers can’t have it both ways without proving the accusation.
Gabor
So true, andorrano. Or you could say that it’s an evaluation mistake: the evaluation should not reflect “how much do I like this position”, but “how much do I like this position against Kramnik“.
I truly wish a win for Kramnik but considering how the games are going and being it the last game, realistically I would say a draw…
…..but hope is the last one to die…..
…..Go Kramnik !!! ….. 🙂
>>Topalov wins…..
Obviously Kramnik does not deserve the world title.
>>
LOL. OBviously. Kramnik only won 2 matches against Topalov, so Topalov must be better.
I propose this. Susan’s motto is “Lose with Dignity”, and nobody in the history of chess ever lost with less dignity than Topalov and his friends.
I’d like to propose a new nickname for him: Veselin Anti-Polgar.
Anon: Deep Fritz must play different moves if it plays against other program(then choose the best move) and playing with human beings,then it must play one of the best moves(if all are about the same),but the one selected must be the most tactical and most difficult for the person.And if Deep Fritz is not designed in that way is a PROGRAMMERS MISTAKE.
They must design the program to win all the possible games, and i dont see them working cleverly in that way.
Draw.
Kramnik doesnt think he can outplay the computer in complex positions,
the comp wont blunder in simple positions,
so another boring draw. Sad.
Kramnik cannot beat Deep Fritz; the best he can hope to do is draw. This match should have ended tied, but with the missed mate-in-one, it will be just another human loss in a man-machine match.
We need to stop having this kind of matches; it is past the point where a GM can hope to outcalculate the program, and it requires superhuman concentration and focus not to blunder at least once – and once the blunder occurs, the match is essentially over.
The only way to make these games interesting is to remove the opening book and endgame tablebases entirely, and force the program to calculate every move. We may see some interesting opening lines, and the humans will have a chance to steer the endgame into a known book win. Otherwise, this is like trying to have a weight-lifting competition with a forklift.
The only guy who could defeat the machine would be Mikhail Tal… people like these Drawniks will always lose. Tal would have blasted Deep Fritz by now and there would be a lot less 1/2 1/2 scores.
Gabor said:
>>Please, drop the Topalov issue. It’s over. Topalov didn’t win, simple as that. I did have the same suspicion (perhaps Kramnik was cheating), but the Topalov team failed to prove it,
>>
People can live with Kramnik’s guilt being unproven. What they can’t live with is that Veselin Anti-Polgar’s guilt ISN’T unproven.
Anti-Polgar cheated, pure and simple. It’s against FIDE Ethics Rules to make public attacks against players or sponsors, it’s also against the Rules of Chess to try to disturb your opponent. Anti-Polgar admitted in the Game 6 Press Conference that he’d over-reacted and didn’t believe his own charges, so any charges made after that point were deliberate attempts to disturb or defame.
The only defense, the ONLY defense for him is to try to prove that Kramnik cheated even more than Anti-Polgar did. People think that if they can prove that, they can get Anti-Polgar’s reputation back. And in the world these people live in, the way you “prove” something that isn’t true is to just say it over and over.
You can see why they don’t stop just because you ask them to. Anti-Polgar’s reputation is gone. The only thing they can do is try to drag Kramnik down too. There’s nothing to lose, they can’t look any worse, so why not?
“The only guy who could defeat the machine would be Mikhail Tal… people like these Drawniks will always lose. Tal would have blasted Deep Fritz by now and there would be a lot less 1/2 1/2 scores.”
LOL. Tal had a terrible anti-computer style. In his heyday, he could easily have lost this match 6-0. His style was based on semi-sound moves that his human opponents couldn’t figure out in the limited time available. You don’t seem to know much about him.
After the Christmas gift of Kramnik to ChessBase in game 2, I’m waiting for a ChessBase gift to Kramnik in game 6. I will never buy any ChessBase product after this farce.
Draw. But MOST importantly, Fritz, blunder aside, has shown no superiority over Kramnik. None. The humans at the top have been adapting to chess computers. Human competitiveness has a longer way to go than most people think. Because humans have spent more time programming computers than humans have spent programming themselves for chess computers. The historical take on this match is that it is not over. As a matter of fact, it is not even clear.
Well andorrano, by modifying the evaluation function instead you get the advantage that Fritz can choose a bland move over a slightly tactical move if it sees that the bland move will force the game to be very tactical later. Also it allows more subtle tradeoffs, like trading -0.10 for a slightly tactical position, -0.20 for a tactical position, and -0.30 for a very tactical position.
andorrano: And where exactly are those tactical problems after Ng4+? I suppose Kramnik would find Kg1, now black must play Ra4. Now Rh5 with Rd5 next brings white fine advantage, while other logic move Bc3 still makes it 0,00. Kramnik sometimes allows mate in one, but don´t underestimate him that much.
Prediction: Draw.
I would love to see Kramnik try to pull out a win, but he’ll probably settle for a draw and state that the entire match would have been drawn except for his major blunder in being checkmated earlier.
>>After the Christmas gift of Kramnik to ChessBase in game 2, I’m waiting for a ChessBase gift to Kramnik in game 6. I will never buy any ChessBase product after this farce.
>>
Why not? It’s hardly their fault that Kramnik blundered. Take away that one move and we have a 2½-2½ score. That’s a pretty good result. I don’t know if it makes Fritz the best study tool for the average player, but for overall strength, there’s not much bad to say.
Kramnik is obviously the strongest human player ever to play chess.
Who could make such strong games against a machine? Other than Kasparov earlier, too bad Fischer never had a chance.
Did a woman play officially against a machine before?
All computers declined official challenges from Susan Polgar. Her style is much better against computers than all other women, including Judit.
Nothing to lose for Deep Fritz 10!
So go for something CRAZY! Make a wild position! Make this event has an interesting last game. It will be remembered forever.
Kings Gambit? Halloween Gambit? Any gambit will do! Get Kramnik out of book early! Go for winning. Kramnik is already fatigue, so let him do another blunder. Proof that DF10 could do something tactical! DF10 has proved that it could play strategically like Yasser Seirawan and Kramnik, but can it play TACTICALLY where it should be the best?
If This happened, 4:2!
LET THE BIRD FLIES AND THE FISH SWIMS, THEY WILL CERTAINLY SHOW YOU THEIR BEST…….
GM Yasser Seirawan said in the audio commentary that any other move than Nh3+ (for instance Ng4+) would have led to a wining position for Kramnik. Deep Fritz took a long time to make that obvious move, even the repitition, so maybe Kramnik was fishing for a programming weakness. A few moves prior to that Yasser also said ‘Kramnik is very unlucky, Fritz has not played the typical computer move that he might have hoped for’ or something to that extent. Personally i’ve been impressed with how well Kramnik has managed to salvage draws when his winning chances dissappear
Churchill said:
But MOST importantly, Fritz, blunder aside, has shown no superiority over Kramnik. None.
Perhaps not, but don’t forget what was the assumption for decades. That computers will NEVER beat the world champion (initially master, than grand master, than world champion, as computers improved). Assuming a draw Tuesday, it will be the second time that the world champion lost. Didn’t show superiority? Well, won, didn’t it (will win, if…). You try to get lucky against Kramnik (:-). Or millions of other chess players in the world.
Human competitiveness has a longer way to go than most people think. Because humans have spent more time programming computers than humans have spent programming themselves for chess computers. The historical take on this match is that it is not over. As a matter of fact, it is not even clear.
I am not sure what you mean. If you mean it is not over because there is one more game left, obviously you are right. If you mean that the human-computer issue is not over, yet it is over. Give and take a few more years, faster CPUs (like if IBM comes through with the over 100 Ghz CPU they are experimenting with), it will be totally over. What has been proven erroneous, that the computer will never be able to out-calculate human intuitiveness. Obviously it is a big advantage to humans (otherwise the issue would have been long over in favor of the computers), but its limitations are coming out as we speak. The intuitiveness fills in the gap between being able to calculate 1-3 moves per second opposed to 8-10 million. But it appears that that’s where the line is drawn.
Gabor
It will be another draw.
The match would have been 3:3 had it not been for the blunder.
Overlooking that, it shows that certain humans can hold their own against the machines. We may not be able to calculate at the speed that they can, but we are obviously capable of the same analysis if we continue to keep getting the same result, a draw.
Not impressed at all with Fritz… Rybka would have blown Kramnik out… as it will Fritz once they play the two… The latest version of Rybka is rated over 3000 about 200 points above fritz.
>>I’d like to propose a new nickname for him: Veselin Anti-Polgar.
Proposition not accepted. A new proposition:
Veselin Anti-Cheatnik
Draw. It’ll be a repeat of Game 2, minus the blunder. Kramnik will not risk another loss, and will default to the same style of play that ground the last couple games down in 2002.
I do want to echo gabos – Topalov lost. Deal. Chess is a world of pique and divas, but this is well past absurd. And even if it wasn’t, Kramnik would still be a better math against Fritz than Topalov or even Kasparov – it’s a little hollow given Game 2 of course, but he remains the most error-proof GM in history. Against a computer that can go as many plys deep as Fritz, that’s perhaps the critical element.
Still, a draw. He won’t risk a loss, he’ll get to a safe position where it’s almost impossible for him to lose minus a blunder, but he won’t be able to prevent a draw.
i expect Kramnik to go to extraordinary lengths to win (which is exactly what i would do and dont blame him …what does he have to lose? he’s already losing) and thus lose the game in its complications. 4-2 Deep Fritz
Draw.
I believe that there are only two modern players who have any chance against computers : Kramnik and Leko. Recent match between Adams and Hydra is a serious fact. Some might argue that Hydra is a monster which is capable of analyzing 200+ million positions per second and it is stronger than Fritz. I think that it is very difficult to come up with that conclusion. Rybka for example analyzes a lot less positions per second than Fritz yet it’s rating is 200 more than Fritz’s. Programs working on distributed architectures (Deep Blue, Hydra etc) mainly suffers from not being able to share/update hash tables properly. Being an amateur game programmer myself, I know how important hashtables are. If you don’t utilize hashtables you end up analyzing the same positions again and again. It is an analogy to a program not utilizing alpha-beta pruning.
I can not say much about players who never had a chance against strong computers. But I would not bet on Tal playing against Deep Fritz 🙂
Sincerely.
Quite franky I have not been impressed by Fritz 10 – Game 4 showed the deep insight that Kramnik has in the game; while the computers’ have improved in raw calculations I have my doubts if they have in understanding the game…They got the syntax alright but the semantics?! It is like getting a ‘person’ able to compose shakespearen literature without understanding them …
…so I as what is the point of continuing these matches? I think in the future they should opt for Advance chess:
e.g
Kramnik/Fritz10 vs Topalov/Junior
We would have the best of both worlds
3-3 and the machine retains the title of world champion ;o)
Either draw or Kramnik win.
The GM’s are frightened to play tactically which means games are dry and uninteresting. None of the tension associated with human matches.
Any future man vs. machine match would be best played as Fischer random.
Game ends in a draw. Fritz 10 wins the match.
I don’t understand why some people are giving Kramnik such a hard time about losing to Fritz 10. Simply not losing, though not as wonderful or glorious as a clear win, is still quite an accomplishment for any person battling a program such as Fritz 10 (he still should be playing Rybka or another program better than Fritz).
Computers are simply better than humans. Only an elite few of the very best GM’s can compete for a draw. Recall how GM Adams was destroyed by Hydra (was it hydra?).
It’s just a matter of a few years and even the best GM’s will be unable to obtain a draw against the best programs.
Perhaps computers in the not-too-distant-future should play odds games against the best GM’s (maybe a pawn and a move or pawn and two moves).
Adams was destroyed so badly by Hydra becouse he didn’t adapt to anticomputer play.
He didn’t lost 5.5-0.5 becouse of the Hydra’s sheer calculating power but becouse he played against it like it was another human.
Poor,dumb sucker.
If Kramnik is “better” than Fritz, then he would be winning. Stop claiming that “anti-computer” play is the secret. Get real! He’s losing and that’s all there is to it.
Computers are better. Giving the human odds would be interesting. Kramnik might…just might be able to win with a pawn and a move or some other odds.
Rybka would not lose to the 5 best living players (including Kasparov) today.
Team play…that’s an interesting concept.
>> It is like getting a ‘person’ able to compose shakespearen literature without understanding them …
Or monkeys composing literature by randomly pressing keys. It’s proven to be possible. Check ‘the infinite monkey theorem’ which is a result of the second Borel-Cantelli lemma.
Why drag Topalov’s name into this? Is he part of this match? Relevance?
Let him rest and enjoy a vacation through the holidays and next year we’ll see what he’s really made out of.