rcmaddox wrote:Nakamura could have drawn all four, but he prodded and pushed, looking for wins that were not there. Respect to Naka!
I don't think he had any chance at all ...
I didn't study the games in too much detail, but it seems to me he could easily have drawn the two games he lost by simply doing nothing.
I find it highly unlikely that in a perhaps historically significant match of man vs machine...he had chances to draw against a 3300 engine (possibly proving human can be equal to a machine), and simply threw them away.
If that's true, he's either incredibly conceited or a complete idiot...(both of which I doubt)
It was not human vs machine, but hybrid vs machine and human plus pawn versus machine.
rcmaddox wrote:Nakamura could have drawn all four, but he prodded and pushed, looking for wins that were not there. Respect to Naka!
I don't think he had any chance at all ...
I didn't study the games in too much detail, but it seems to me he could easily have drawn the two games he lost by simply doing nothing.
in retrospect, one can always go back and determine where he/she might have gone wrong...
hindsight is always 20/20
fact is: in this match he played chess, made moves, and lost
IMO, if he could have 'easily drawn' as you say, he really screwed up...
rcmaddox wrote:Nakamura could have drawn all four, but he prodded and pushed, looking for wins that were not there. Respect to Naka!
I don't think he had any chance at all ...
I didn't study the games in too much detail, but it seems to me he could easily have drawn the two games he lost by simply doing nothing.
in retrospect, one can always go back and determine where he/she might have gone wrong...
hindsight is always 20/20
fact is: in this match he played chess, made moves, and lost
IMO, if he could have 'easily drawn' as you say, he really screwed up...
FWIW, he said as much, and that he had had a huge advantage in the last game notably, but lost because he had pushed too hard for a win.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
rcmaddox wrote:Nakamura could have drawn all four, but he prodded and pushed, looking for wins that were not there. Respect to Naka!
I don't think he had any chance to draw the match ...
I find it highly unlikely that in a perhaps historically significant match of man vs machine...he had chances to draw against a 3300 engine (possibly proving human can be equal to a machine), and simply threw them away.
If that's true, he's either incredibly conceited or a complete idiot...(both of which I doubt)
Maybe he doesn't hold engines on a pedestal the way you think he should.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
rcmaddox wrote:Nakamura could have drawn all four, but he prodded and pushed, looking for wins that were not there. Respect to Naka!
I don't think he had any chance to draw the match ...
I find it highly unlikely that in a perhaps historically significant match of man vs machine...he had chances to draw against a 3300 engine (possibly proving human can be equal to a machine), and simply threw them away.
If that's true, he's either incredibly conceited or a complete idiot...(both of which I doubt)
Maybe he doesn't hold engines on a pedestal the way you think he should.
good point,
if so, the result of this match may serve to change his mind,
(hopefully along with the two 'titled' commentators who early in the match were laughing at SF)
Vladimir Xern wrote:The titled-player commentators are calling out computer engine programmers saying that they have taken too much credit in their creations' strength over humans when it's mostly been the inexorable progress of hardware speed. They're making fun of Stockfish's moves and evaluations during this King's Indian game. "Prove me wrong, programmers!" Despite getting stronger and faster, this same problem has been around for years and nothing has actually progressed.
At least he did draw one of the pawn odds games (3.) in very convincing - and realistic - master style.
The biggest problem for a GM in that specific setup is probably game number 2 with black, and without pawn odds. Maybe Rybka 3 was too optimistic in the moment before Nakamura opened the position (115...f5)?
rcmaddox wrote:Nakamura could have drawn all four, but he prodded and pushed, looking for wins that were not there. Respect to Naka!
I don't think he had any chance at all ...
I didn't study the games in too much detail, but it seems to me he could easily have drawn the two games he lost by simply doing nothing.
in retrospect, one can always go back and determine where he/she might have gone wrong...
Sure, but certainly in game 2 it seems pretty clear at which move he decides to go for a win instead of contenting himself with a draw. It might be that SF would have found some way to break open the position before reaching a 50-move draw, but I kind of doubt it.
In game 4 it might be less clear, but white being a pawn up I don't think SF would have minded a draw by repetition.
hindsight is always 20/20
So I don't blame him for going for a win instead of a draw. He only screwed up if he had been happy with a draw.
syzygy wrote:
So I don't blame him for going for a win instead of a draw. He only screwed up if he had been happy with a draw.
Well we disagree then...
I believe: if he had a chance to draw against SF
(no matter if called man vs machine, hybrid vs machine, human plus pawn versus machine, centaur vs machine plus rabbit's foot, or whatever)
he should have grabbed it.
However, he chose to play on and lost.
No matter how one sugar coats it, they are an over-the-board errors in judgement
...losing mistakes that cost him the match.
syzygy wrote:
So I don't blame him for going for a win instead of a draw. He only screwed up if he had been happy with a draw.
Well we disagree then...
I believe: if he had a chance to draw against SF
(no matter if called man vs machine, hybrid vs machine, human plus pawn versus machine, centaur vs machine plus rabbit's foot, or whatever)
he should have grabbed it.
However, he chose to play on and lost.
No matter how one sugar coats it, they are an over-the-board errors in judgement
...losing mistakes that cost him the match.
Hmmm, I think it was my point that he made over-the-board errors of judgement, i.e. he could probably have tied the match but he was overconfident. Your point was that he never stood a chance, i.e. tying the match would be beyond his abilities.
I may still be wrong about game 2 and especially game 4.
rcmaddox wrote:Nakamura could have drawn all four, but he prodded and pushed, looking for wins that were not there. Respect to Naka!
I don't think he had any chance to draw the match ...
I find it highly unlikely that in a perhaps historically significant match of man vs machine...he had chances to draw against a 3300 engine (possibly proving human can be equal to a machine), and simply threw them away.
If that's true, he's either incredibly conceited or a complete idiot...(both of which I doubt)
I followed the match, all 11 hours of it. Game 2 would have been drawn by either repetition or the 50 move rule had Naka chosen not to press. This was fairly obvious. The other loss was also petering out into a draw but Naka gambled and lost. If this was straight up chess, without assistance or odds, I'd agree that splitting the points is unlikely.
And we really don't know what the engine ratings are relative to humans. If Stockfish is really 500 elo stronger than Nakamura, we would expect Naka to score only 5 points out of 100 and I have to believe he would fare better than that.
Naka is not a "complete idiot" but his temperament is to fight and that was his undoing.
