Author: K. Burcham
Date: 13:15:04 11/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2001 at 15:14:06, Dann Corbit wrote: >Of course, you see the very same thing in computer verses computer games! yes true. but it my game analysis, my eval swings much more with GM or super GM games in comparison to comp vs comp games. a very high percentage of the GM games have large enough eval swings for move to be called a blunder. i am refering here to standard games not blitz or lightning. > >Ever watched a big computer chess tournament, and all of a sudden a program >discovers it is in drastic trouble because of some blind side in its eval? yes these are very interesting to analyze. my favorits is the deep junior vs shredder game with the 5 point jump by shredder, with shredder losing. but these are very few, except for endgame promotion to queen. > >I have nothing but respect even for IM's. Sune Larssen posted a game here a >while back: we all respect these accomplished players----this was not the point > >[Event "Sigeman & Co"] >[Site "Malmoe SWE"] >[Date "2001.06.18"] >[Round "7"] >[White "Berg, E."] >[Black "Hector, J."] >[Result "1/2-1/2"] >[WhiteElo "2474"] >[BlackElo "2546"] >[ECO "C34"] >[Opening "KGA"] >[Variation "Schallop defence"] >[EventDate "2001.06.12"] >[PlyCount "85"] > >1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e5 Ne4 5. d4 d5 6. Bxf4 c5 7. Bd3 Qb6 8. >O-O cxd4 9. Nbd2 Bf5 10. Nb3 Bc5 11. a4 a6 12. a5 Qa7 13. Nxc5 Qxc5 14. b4 >Qxb4 15. Bc1 Nc6 16. Ba3 Qxa5 17. Bf8 Qc7 18. Bxe4 Bxe4 19. Bd6 Qd7 20. Ng5 >f6 21. Nxe4 dxe4 22. Qh5+ g6 23. Qh4 f5 24. g4 Qe6 25. Rfb1 Ra7 26. Rb6 >Nxe5 27. Bxe5 Qxe5 28. Ra5 Qg7 29. Re6+ Kd7 30. Rae5 Kc8 31. Re8+ Rxe8 32. >Rxe8+ Kd7 33. Qd8+ Kc6 34. Re6+ Kc5 35. Qb6+ Kc4 36. Qb3+ Kc5 37. Qb6+ Kc4 >38. Qxa7 Qh6 39. Qxb7 Qe3+ 40. Kf1 Qf3+ 41. Kg1 Qxg4+ 42. Kf1 Qd1+ 43. Kg2 >1/2-1/2 > >Tell me if you can find a computer that recognizes many of the brilliant moves >of these IM's! i will analyize this game with two of my programs. will post later, number of moves programs can see in this game. > >More than comparing them against the computers (which is a *very differnt* sort >of brilliancy) let's compare them against ourselves. that is fine, if that is what you choose. but my curiosity is how the gm level compares to todays programs with the constant improvments in mhz. i prefer to see how many gm moves todays programs will choose, or whether the eval takes a wild swing indicating a threat for material loss or a bad position has been played by the gm. I think of Come, the >French kid who posts here some times. The guy has an absolutely brilliant eye >for what to do. Sometimes, I play against someone weak or a really feeble >program and feel like I'm pretty strong at the game. Then I play a truly >powerful opponent and get humbled. > >The ability even of an IM is awe-inspiring, to me. >The ability of a GM is frightening! >The ability of a Super-GM is mind-blowing. with these three discriptions of these three different levels, then what do you call your program play? > >To say, "Look! The computer found a stupid mistake!" does not mean that the GM >played incorrectly. Sometimes, it really does not see the fault of that path. i do not disagree with this "fault of that path". but almost always, when a program says you are 2, 3, or 4 points down, you are in big trouble. and most of these times, a gm cannot recover. in fact these guys are so good at knowing the trouble they are in, they usually resign when down this much. > >There is some analysis of the game above here: >ftp://cap.connx.com/pub/game-of-the-week/ > >Worth a perusal, in my opinion.
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.