Author: blass uri
Date: 03:57:15 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 11, 1998 at 08:24:20, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>In a german chess magazine the following game was published !
>Claus Carstens is known as a guy who plays very SHORT games against
>computers. Over the years he got many critics, because people said he
>would construct his games or that nobody can replay the games and they
>are not really played with the programs he says.
>I have tried to replay the game he printed with my k5/100 and gave it
>twice the time CC gave it.
>Despite 1...d5 i was able to replay all moves. My junior played 7 times
>or more 1...Nf6.
>
>Lets say Junior really played this game the way carstens says, still we
>don't know how often carstens took back one move, tried another line,
>took back the move again and this way constructed a game until the end.
>It is the problem with autoplayer-games. Even IF you can replay the
>printed games, you don't see how (e.g.) the opening book (of machine A)
>directed the programs into exactly the line, the opponent (program B)
>would lose, because it has been played before on the autoplayer of the
>company A and lost all other variations. And the game we see is the only
>game that was won.
>The same problem with Claus Carstens. He prints ONE game, but he maybe
>not publishes the games he tried before to get this game work.
>
>PLease : the annotation is from my k5/100, Carstens used a k6/200 .
>I was able to replay all moves, despite 1...d5.
>
>
>
>[Event "k6/200 40/120"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "1998.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "Claus Carstens"]
>[Black "Junior 4.6"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "D00"]
>[Annotator "Czub,T"]
>[PlyCount "37"]
>
>{3072kB, jun_book.ctg
>} 1. d4 {26} 1... d5 {2} 2. e4 {2} 2... dxe4 {
>-0.60/13 130} 3. Nc3 {247} 3... Nf6 {-0.56/15 0} 4. f3 {21} 4... exf3 {
>-0.72/14 177} 5. Nxf3 {8} 5... e6 {-0.77/15 177} 6. Bg5 {20} 6... Nbd7 {
>-0.77/15 692} 7. a3 {12} 7... Be7 {-0.94/16 392} 8. Qd2 {16} 8... O-O {
>-0.97/16 369} 9. Qf2 {17} 9... a5 {-1.12/14 306} 10. Qh4 {53} 10... h6 {
>-1.26/16 583} 11. Bd3 {4} 11... hxg5 {-2.81/15 209} 12. Nxg5 {108} 12...
>g6 {
>-2.54/16 473} 13. Qh6 {23} 13... Qe8 {-1.79/12 83} 14. O-O {14} 14...
>Bc5 {
>#6/12 446} 15. Rxf6 {16} 15... Bxd4+ {#6/18 381} 16. Kh1 {12} 16... Nxf6
>{
>#4/41 332} 17. Nce4 {16} 17... Bd7 {#3/49 53} 18. Nxf6+ {9} 18... Bxf6
>{#2/51 0
>} 19. Qh7# {11} 1-0
Junior's 11 move was a mistake.
It is a good test position
how much time does it take to computers to find a better move
like Nd5 or Re8
Genius3 and fritz5 can find Re8 after a long time.
I think 12...g6 is also bad
Junior suggested 13...c5 at depths 14 and 15 with the evaluation 0.00
expecting 14.Nxe6 and it did not see 14.Rf1 wins for white.
13...Qe8 losing faster than moves like 13...Re8 or 13...c5
Genius3 is faster than fritz5 and Junior in seeing 14.Rf1 or 14.0-0
gives mate for black
>
>Blackmar-Diemer-Gambit is a tough opening for ANY chess program. I guess
>you can kill almost any program with BDG.
>But this example does not really show us the STRENGTH of Junior. But it
>is a good example that TACTICS and TACTICS is not the same. The tactic
>that occurs in a game, and the tactics a program SOLVES in a test-suite
>is completely different.
>I will later this day post some winning games of junior I like.
This page took 0.03 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.