Author: Mark Young
Date: 10:05:24 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1998 at 12:00:58, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>Here is another example HOW EASY king attacks are, and how quiet they
>happen. I guess humans would not OVERSEE and make these heavy mistakes.
>But chess programs still make these major positional blunder moves.
>Although no tactics is involved, the blunder-moves give away the game.
>
>
>[Event "k6/200 60/60"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "????.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "CSystem Tal"]
>[Black "Genius5"]
>[Result "*"]
>
>1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 g6 4. e3 {here CSTal was out of book} Nf6 5.
>d4 cxd4 6. exd4 d5 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8.
>Qb3 Nxc3{last bookmove of genius5} 9. Bc4 {+0,97} Nd5 10. Bxd5 e6 11.
>Bxc6+ bxc6 12. O-O Qb6 13. Qc3 Bb4
>14. Qc2
>Ba6 15. Rd1 O-O 16. Ne5 {+1.25} Rfd8 17. Kh1 c5 {?? Whaaat ? c5 is
>suicide. how can the bishop b4 defend the
>hole on g7 ?!? Genius5 played this move with increasing evaluations and
>scored +0,90} 18. a3 {cstal sees the mess
>and evaluates +2,14} Ba5 19. Bg5 Rd5 20. Bf6 Qb5 {Genius is smelling
>something. Much too late. Score goes up
>and down. Fail low for Rc8 -1.33, Qb5 was played with -0,48. This is of
>course too late.} 21.
>Qc1 {cstal says +3,23} Bd8 22. Ng4 {+3,80} Qe8 23. dxc5 Rxd1+ 24. Qxd1
>h5 25. Qf3 {+3,25}Rc8 26. Nh6+
>{+3,75}Kh7 27.
>Bxd8 Kxh6 28. Bh4 Kh7 29. b4 Bb5 30. Rd1 {3,90} *
>
>The rest of the game is not important. White needs many many moves to
>win the position. I want you to show how
>easy Genius was outplayed due to the fact that simple things and patters
>have been overseen.
>There is NO - really NO tactics in it. Just easy moves of
>king-attacking.
>
>In the same way Mr.Carstens killed Junior 4.6, he killed the other
>Paris-champ.
>Again - we don't know how many times he took back moves or played
>alternatives. I don't care about this. We cannot prove that he betrayed.
>Because we don't see what he hide. So we see only what the result is
>(same problem with autoplayers, we don't see the games the autoplayer
>did NOT play because it knows the line is a loss). We can replay the
>result, but this does not give any evidence that the game was not a big
>betrayel.
>I hope some of you would one day understand this easy fact. And not
>claim day over day that since we cannot prove betrayel, we can 100% say
>there is no betray in xyz. Thats nonsense. We cannot prove ANYTHING in
>this world. This is the fact. And the fact that a side has no evidence
>does not show anything. It does not show that he guy/company is guilty ,
>nor the opposite. But using these stuff about proving or not proving in
>a discussion about morals is just ignoring the fact that we cannot prove
>reality, because ANYthing in reality is IDEA.
>Even today nobody knows how gravity works. There are lots of theories.
>But no theorie works 100%. There is no gravity out there. And can be
>proved.
>World dows not work this way, and chess or computerchess is the same.
>We cannot prove, what we cannot see. How do you want to prove that
>Carstens faked the game by playing dozens of efforts before he got the
>games ? You can't ! So how can you exclude he betrayed ? You can't. So -
>how can you exclude the autoplayers cheat ? Only because you have no
>evidence ? But than world is a grat betrayel since ANYTHING in the world
>cannot be proved !
>
>
>[Event "40/120 k6/200"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "1998.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "Claus Carstens"]
>[Black "Virtual2 "]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "D00"]
>[Annotator "Czub,T"]
>[PlyCount "47"]
>
>{3072kB
>} 1. d4 {0} 1... d5 {0.07/14 11} 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5.
>Nxf3 5... Bg4 {This is the so called Teichmann-variation. Also not the
>best
>defense against BDG. Computers often play this defense because they like
>the
>bishop on g4 pinning the queen. } 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 c6 8. Qf2 e6 9.
>Bg5 Nbd7
>10. a3 10... Be7 {You see the pattern. Exactly the same structures as in
>the
>first game vs. Junior. Virtual2 plays the same moves, not understanding
>1 % of
>white's plan. } 11. Qh4 O-O 12. Ne4 h6 13. Bd3 hxg5 14. Nxg5 g6 15. Qh6
>Qe8
>16. O-O Bd6 17. Rxf6 Nxf6 18. Rf1 Bf4 19. Rxf4 Qd7 20. Rh4 Qxd4+ 21.
>Rxd4 Rfd8
>22. Rh4 Nh5 23. Qh7+ Kf8 24. Qxf7# 1-0
>
>Again: todays computer programs, no matter if world microcomputer
>professional chess champion or
>microcomputer chess champion. Also the today's machines cannot hide
>their big weaknesses.
>They have NO idea about positional-topics. And tactics is really not the
>problem.
>If all chess games are 100 % tactics (what is often told here) - where
>is the tactics in those games here ?
So what you are saying is that their is no tactics in this game. So even
if the program could see all the way to checkmate from move one it still
would have lost this game.
Because their is no tactics. Because like you think Positional and
tactical understanding are two different things. And not 2 sides of the
same coin.
>And why were the programs unable to handle the topic ?
>No - their problem is not tactics. And tactics is not the most common
>CONTENT when it comes between human vs.
>machine (or cstal vs. machine ) games.
>
>I would like to discuss about those things, instead of discussing about
>FINDER positions and making silly lists
>which program is faster than another finder. because we don't really
>measure strength. We measure how fast their
>searches are. This IS a PART of the strength, but most often not the
>same as the real strength.
>
>Please don't throw tactics and FINDING-key-moves in ONE melting-pot.
>Also don't believe a "king-attack-position" that is found by
>fast-searchers is really a king-attack-position.
>Most often king-attacks are very quiet, and easy. They were NOT seen by
>search. Gandalf and other programs have
>specialized to find them without search. I think this is a good idea,
>since humans (if not badly influenced by
>"advisors" are still capable to attack ).
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.