Author: j koss
Date: 21:17:25 11/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2000 at 08:51:22, Peter Skinner wrote:
>Here is the person's history on FICS, and as you can see, he is NOT a very
>strong player:
>
> Opponent Type ECO End Date
>48: - 1515 W 1859 Jasiaaa [ br 8 0] D00 Res Sun Nov 19, 09:29 CST 2000
>49: - 1511 B 1715 nyknick [ br 2 12] C00 Res Sun Nov 19, 10:23 CST 2000
>50: + 1520 W 1529 objna [ br 5 10] A40 Fla Sun Nov 19, 20:10 CST 2000
>51: - 1514 B 1642 Thorax [ br 2 4] C00 Res Sun Nov 19, 21:17 CST 2000
>52: - 1506 W 1509 NinthPawn [ br 2 12] A43 Res Sun Nov 19, 21:27 CST 2000
>53: - 1546 B 0 BOOOO [ lu 1 0] A13 Fla Sun Nov 19, 21:34 CST 2000
>54: - 2035 W 2525 LilKikr [ sr 15 1] D00 Res Mon Nov 20, 03:50 CST 2000
>55: = 2114 B 2518 LilKikr [ sr 15 1] A77 Rep Mon Nov 20, 04:18 CST 2000
>56: + 2264 W 2504 LilKikr [ sr 15 1] D18 Mat Mon Nov 20, 04:56 CST 2000
>57: + 2305 W 2108 NotSoCrafty [ sr 15 0] E10 Fla Mon Nov 20, 05:20 CST 2000
I dont know if anybody has gone to look at this LAST game but it is clear the
last computer CRASHED during the game.
NotSoCrafty (a GNU Chess engine) crashed after 5 minutes of play and was then
flagged after 10 minutes "thinking".
Was THAT cheating? I know who the player being called a cheater is, and he is
actualy very bright. :-)
(its me!)
I wouldnt be so quick to judge the man.
>Now notice that he was unable to beat another 1500 blitz player in a 2 12 game,
>which might as well be a "standard" game over ICS as it can last forever, yet
>was able to record a 2-1-1 record vs computers....
This isnt as suprising as it may seem. Given that 1 of the wins was because
NotSoCrafty crashed. The real record is 1-1-1.
>Here are the games, even the one my computer won...
>
>[Event ""]
>[Site ""]
>[Date "2000.11.20"]
>[Round ""]
>[White "???"]
>[Black "LilKikr"]
>[Result "0-1"]
>[WhiteElo "2047"]
>[BlackElo "2524"]
>[Opening "D00 Queen's Pawn: Stonewall Attack"]
>
>{Time control = 15 1 Engine book(s): ct.tbk }
>1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd3 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.f4 Bg4 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nbd2 Qc7 8.h3 Bh5 9.O-O
>Bd6 10.b3 cxd4
>11.cxd4 O-O 12.g4 Nb4 13.Bxh7+ Nxh7 14.gxh5 Qc3 15.Ba3 Qxe3+ 16.Kh1 Qxf4 17.Qe2
>Nf6 {
>jkoss resigns} 0-1
It looks like he (me!) tried to stonewall your computer and failed.
I assume your engine has anti-stonewall books and heuristics?
The stonewall is a common method of beating computers. It doesnt require heavy
tactical thinking to play the stonewall against a computer ill equiped to handle
such positions.
I tried a sac that might have worked on a human and resigned a few moves later.
>[Event ""]
>[Site ""]
>[Date "2000.11.20"]
>[Round ""]
>[White "LilKikr"]
>[Black "???"]
>[Result "1/2-1/2"]
>[WhiteElo "2525"]
>[BlackElo "2035"]
>[Opening "A77 Benoni: Classical, 9...Re8, 10.Nd2"]
>
>{Time control = 15 1 Engine book(s): ct.tbk }
>1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 g6 6.e4 d6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 O-O 9.O-O
>Re8 10.Nd2
>a6 11.a4 b6 12.f3 Nbd7 13.Nc4 Ne5 14.Nxe5 Rxe5 15.Bc4 Nd7 16.Bf4 Re8 17.Qd2 Ne5
>18.Bb3 Qh4
>19.Ne2 h6 20.Bg3 Qh5 21.Be1 Nd7 22.Qc2 Bb7 23.Bc3 Re7 24.Bxg7 Kxg7 25.Nf4 Qg5
>26.g3 Ne5
>27.Qc3 b5 28.axb5 axb5 29.Rxa8 b4 30.Qe3 Bxa8 31.Ra1 Bb7 32.Ra7 Qf6 33.Kg2 Kh7
>34.Qe2 c4
>35.Ba4 Bc8 36.Ra8 Rc7 37.Bc2 Qh8 38.Ra1 b3 39.Bd1 g5 40.Nh5 Nd3 41.e5 Nxe5
>42.Rc1 Kg6 43.g4
>f5 44.h3 Rc5 45.Ra1 Rxd5 46.Ra7 Bd7 47.f4 fxg4 48.Rxd7 gxh3+ 49.Kxh3 Rd3+ 50.Kg2
>Qa8+ 51.Kf2
>Qh1 52.Rg7+ Kf5 53.fxe5 Qh2+ 54.Kf1 Qh1+ 55.Kf2 Qh2+ 56.Kf1 Qh1+ 57.Kf2 { Game
>drawn by
>repetition} 1/2-1/2
In this game it looks like I only got lucky. I have a losing position and found
a perpetual check. 48. RxB was a surpise and I could see that I could not play
NxR because of Qe6+ forking king and knight. I played a few spite checks and
stumbled on a draw.
Later on in your message you say your engine was never really ahead. If your
engine was never really ahead why did I go for a perpetual? It seems to me if I
was using a computer and it thought it was ahead (as would seem likely if your
engine thought itself ahead) it would not have settled for a draw.
The answer is I didnt use a damn computer.
>[Event ""]
>[Site ""]
>[Date "2000.11.20"]
>[Round ""]
>[White "???"]
>[Black "LilKikr"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[WhiteElo "2114"]
>[BlackElo "2518"]
>[Opening "D19 QGD Slav: Dutch Variation"]
>
>{Time control = 15 1 Engine book(s): ct.tbk }
>1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.O-O Nbd7
>9.Qe2 Bg6 10.Bd2
>O-O 11.Ne4 Bxd2 12.Nexd2 Qc7 13.Rac1 Bh5 14.b4 e5 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Rfd1 Rad8
>17.h3 Nxc4
>18.Qxc4 Rd6 19.g4 Bg6 20.Nb3 Rxd1+ 21.Rxd1 Be4 22.Nfd4 Bd5 23.Qc2 Ne4 24.Nf5 Rc8
>25.Nbd4
>Ng5 26.f4 Nxh3+ 27.Kh2 Ng5 28.Nb5 cxb5 29.Qxc7 Rxc7 30.fxg5 Rd7 31.Rxd5 Rxd5
>32.Ne7+ Kf8
>33.Nxd5 bxa4 34.Kg3 a3 35.Nc3 f6 36.gxf6 gxf6 37.Kf4 Kf7 38.b5 Kg6 39.Na2 h6
>40.Nb4 a6 41.b6
>Kf7 42.Kf5 a5 43.Na2 Ke7 44.Kg6 Kd6 45.Kxf6 Kd5 46.Nc1 Kc4 47.Ke5 Kc3 48.Kd5 a4
>49.Kc5 Kd2
>50.Na2 Kc2 51.Nb4+ Kb2 52.Kb5 Kc3 53.Kxa4 Kc4 54.Kxa3 Kc5 55.Kb3 Kxb6 56.Nd5+
>Kc5 57.Ne7
>Kd6 58.Nf5+ Ke5 59.Nxh6 Kf6 60.e4 Kg5 61.e5 Kxh6 62.e6 Kg7 63.g5 Kf8 64.g6 Ke7
>65.g7 Kxe6
>66.g8Q+ Kd6 67.Qc4 b5 68.Qxb5 Ke6 69.Kc4 Kf6 70.Kd4 Ke6 71.Qc5 Kf6 72.Ke4 Ke6
>73.Qc6+ Kf7
>74.Ke5 Kg7 75.Kf5 Kf7 76.Qd7+ Kf8 77.Kf6 Kg8 78.Qg7# { LilKikr checkmated} 1-0
This one is great! It shows your engine sacrificing a knight for two pawns and
then losing the endgame.
I think your engine made a bad choice.
This was a standard game where your engine had ample time to see that 26..Nxg6
was a tactical error and gave up the knight for 2 pawns. Your engine incorrectly
evaluated the -position- to be worth more than 1 pawn.
I don't think you are claiming that this move is not a blunder. It IS a blunder
but at the time I thought I was dead meat. I spent nearly 1 minute pondering
this position but my moves were more or less forced through most of it after
that. The only real option/brilliancy I had was Nb5 which quickly regains the
material. Your engine forced the win on me from here on out. And through most of
it I thought I was losing.
>I am blocking out his name, as I am not totally sure, but I doubt that I am
>wrong in the fact this "person" cheated. He is also a former admin of FICS, so
>it is actually very doubtful they will do anything to him if proven to be
>guilty.
I'm not sure how you would prove me guilty based on the games your engine played
against me. I lost 1 game and got lucky the other 2 games.
Your engine did not play at 2500 strength.
Were you doing stuff in the background? Heavy cpu load? Playing Quake 3?
I am sorry your ego is hurt.
>By his history, you can tell he is a weak player, yet it rated 800
>points higher in standard games, but is not established.
Let me tell you a little bit about my chess play. I am not strong tactically. I
overlook simple combos and even flat out drop pieces. I know this about myself
which is why I try to play either safe positions are go for a dominating attack
(usualy involving a sac near the enemy king)
In spite of my tendency to OVERLOOK things, I manage to win a game or two every
now and then.
>His previous best in
>standard was 1905.. but has not been at that level since 1998.
>What do you think?
I think there is reason to consider that I -may- have cheated but I also think
there is ample reason to give me the benifit of the doubt.
Any tactical gems produced in my games are purely on accident. Any positional
gems (although I dont really see any in any of the games here) are mine and mine
alone except where inspired by chess books.
>Btw, Lilikr(C) is a Rebel Tiger II on a PIII 500 using 96m hash tables, and
>regular book. In the draw, and loss, my Tiger was really never ahead..
In the draw your engine was clearly ahead materialy and positionally. In the
loss your engine blundered.
(anybody want to run crafty, CM, or fritz on the position where his engine
blundered with 26..Nxg6?)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.