Author: Serge Desmarais
Date: 13:53:39 09/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 1998 at 01:47:53, odell hall wrote: > >> It is an interesting idea. Though, I do not share it. First of all, how would >>you measure that a chess program/computer is better than a GM against amateur >>players (A-class or experts). By the average number of moves in the games? From >>my personnal experience, it is just the opposite that I have seen! An expert >>player of my friends defeats one of the SSDF top program (Genius 3.0) about 1 >>time for every 3 games, while a Master I know wins about 2 times in every 3 >>games against the same program. I did make several draws against the same Genius >>3.0 program myself (an A or B-player) but NEVER against these 2 players, though >>I did not play a great deal of serious games against them. >> >> >> Also, it is not just their superior positionnal knowledge that makes the GMs >>what they are. It is also their superior opening knowledge, their superior >>tactical calculation's habilities, their superior ending knowledge etc. In >>tactical positions, they calculate more precisely and deeper than the weaker >>players (take a look at Kasparov's games, as well as those of Fischer, >>Anderssen, Murphy, Tal, Janowsky, Marshall, Spielmann, Alekhin). >> >> >> Computers are known for their exceptionnal tactical habilities : if a forced >>mate exists in their horizon, they never (almost) miss it! Same thing about if >>they can win/trap your queen or any other piece. Moves, to which several >>annotators have added one or several "!", just take a few seconds for modern >>programs to "discover" and prefer. >> >> >> But at long tactics or "true" sacrifices, computers aren't too good. In one >>game Tal sacrificed a piece against Smyslov. In the book (was one of a friend, >>so I don't have it here) Tal was giving Smyslov as being lost after the >>sacrifice. I have had Genius look at the positions from about game moves after >>the sacrifice and for several hours. Almost all the way, the program was seeing >>SMYSLOV as winning, until after about 10-12 moves, it SAW that Smyslov was lost! >>Then, I went back, letting the program "think" for about 1 hour on the position >>PRECEEDING the sacrifice. It was preferring the same losing move as Smyslov did! >>Here is another example : Bronstein playing a chess program (would have to >>search to fing which one) in an Aegon's tournament. Bronstein sacrificed a piece >>and blasted the program tatically! I tried the same position on my programs and, >>as I remember, they saw nothing good for Bronstein in that sacrifice, though >>later they admitted he was winning. What is fun in that is that Bronstein just >>took a few seconds (at most 1 minute) to make the winning sacrifice. After the >>game, he just said he KNEW it was winning and did not have to calculate >>anything! In fact, he had so much experience with such positions that his >>brain/instinct was telling him that it was winning! So, some GMs are so good at >>tactics that they don't need to always calculate everything when in familiar >>waters. I myself had a great win against Chessmaster 4000 in the first half of >>the 90's. It claculated a very pretty combination that took me by surprise and >>won one of the pawns on my castle : I hadn't even seen that! After that, >>tripling the pieces on the g-file and, I got the initiative and the advantage >>and managed to win! There was also a nice sacrifice I made against a weak >>computer Advanced Chess Challenger Voice), in 1984, that gave me the win. >>Accepting the sacrifice means losing : it takes 12 plies for Fritz 4.01 to not >>accept the sacrifice (though even for me, who is not even an expert, it is >>EVIDENT just at the first sight that it is not good at all to accept the >>sacrifice! >> >> The only way I see that a GM could have trouble against an amateur player is >>if he underestimate him, not paying too much attention to the game nor taking >>his opponent seriously. >> >> >>Serge Desmarais > > > >Hey Serge do me a favor? If possible could you post these games where an expert >level player beat genius 3.0 1-3 games and the Master 2-3 could you specifiy >what the time controls were and on what processor. I find it extremely hard to >believe that Gen 3.0 could get beat 1-3 games by an expert. I have personally >played my genius against both experts and masters and it has won nearly every >game!! My time controls were game in 30 and the processor was a 486/100mhz !!!! I don't have the actual game scores, I am sorry. The expert was Eric Wenaas (rated 2234 in the province of Quebec's last list and so will soon get his master title --our ratings are FIDE equivalent and you must add up between 100 1nd 200 points to translate it in USCF) and he did show me one of his win against Genius 3.0 : it was a Ruy Lopez and he was Black, attacking on the Queen-side. Genius 3 was using the original book, which is quite small, and when out of its opening library, it played its knight on g3 (with the other one on f3) and was never able to get something running on the king-side. Wenaas had a 486 computer at that time, though I don't remember the MHz count. It was possibly a 40 moves in 2 hours game, but no less than a 1h30/mate game. The master is Valentin Prahov, rated 2244 here in Quebec. He was the president of the Quebec's Chess Federation for a while. He told me about his results against Genius when he was at my home analysing one of my games (against Genius) with me. He did not actually show me the games. Here is one game I won against Genius 2, running on my 486/66 MHz, 2 megs hash (which was the maximum for Genius 2!) in Windows 3.11. The time control was 40 moves in 2 hours and then 20 moves an hour. Genius 2 is not a lot weaker than Genius 3. I am actually rated over 1680 in Quebec, which would be between 1800 and 1900 on the downgraded USCF list. I was not much weaker then, than I am today. [Event "Friendly game"] [Site "?"] [Date "1995.10.10"] [Round "?"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Serge Desmarais"] [Black "Genius 2.0-486/66"] 1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Nge2 O-O 6. f3 Nc6 7. a3 Na5 8. Ba2 Nc6 9. Be3 e5 10. d5 Ne7 11. Qd2 Bd7 12. O-O-O a5 13. g4 b5 14. h4 b4 15. Nb1 bxa3 16. Nxa3 Qb8 17. h5 Qb7 18. Ng3 a4 19. Rh2 Rfb8 20. c3 Ne8 21. Qg2 gxh5 22. Nxh5 Ng6 23. Nxg7 Nxg7 24. Qh3 h5 25. Qg2 hxg4 26. fxg4 Ne8 27. Bg5 Nf4 28. Bxf4 exf4 29. Qh3 Kf8 30. Qh4 f3 31. Rf1 Qa6 32. Rxf3 Qa7 33. Rhf2 f5 34. Qg5 Ng7 35. Qf6+ Kg8 36. gxf5 Rf8 37. Qg6 Be8 38. Qg5 Rf7 39. f6 Bd7 40. fxg7 Qxf2 41. Rxf2 Rxf2 42. e5 Rf1+ 43. Kd2 Rf7 44. e6 Rxg7 45. Qe3 Rg2+ 46. Kd3 Be8 47. Qf3 Rxb2 48. Bc4 Kg7 49. Qg3+ Kf8 50. Ke3 Ra7 51. Qg5 Rb3 52. Qf6+ Kg8 53. e7 Rxc3+ 54. Qxc3 Kf7 55. Qd4 Rb7 56. Qe4 Bd7 57. Nb5 Rxb5 58. Bxb5 Bxb5 59. Qe6+ Kg7 60. e8=Q Bxe8 61. Qxe8 a3 62. Kf4 a2 63. Qa4 Kf7 64. Qxa2 Kf6 1-0 Now here is a draw (though I thought I was winning at the time and there could be winning chances for White, but I still have to analyze it from A to Z!) I played against Genius 3.0 (using the original book and minimal hash --384 kb without the X option--). It was running on my 486/66MHz and both sides had to play 40 moves in 2 hours and then 20 moves an hour. (I am mainly against the ALL MOVES in X time controls : a player should always have the possibility of getting more time for more moves I would play blitz and lightning chess games when I am not in a mood to play chess (headache, after drinking beer etc.) and so I give no importance to these kind of games, whoever play them). [Event "Friendly game"] [Site "?"] [Date "1995.??.??"] [Round "?"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Serge Desmarais"] [Black "Genius 3.0"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 b6 6. Ne2 Bb7 7. f3 c5 8. Qc2 8... Nc6 9. O-O Qb8 10. a3 cxd4 11. exd4 Bd6 12. f4 Ne7 13. Ne4 Nxe4 14. Bxe4 Ng6 15. b4 Rc8 16. c5 Bxe4 17. Qxe4 Bc7 18. Bd2 d5 19. Qe3 Re8 20. a4 Qd8 21. b5 bxc5 22. dxc5 Rb8 23. Nd4 Bxf4 24. Qf2 Bxd2 25. Nc6 Qh4 26. Qxf7+ Kh8 27. Nxb8 Rxb8 28. Qxa7 Be3+ 29. Kh1 Bf4 30. Rxf4 Qxf4 31. c6 31... Rf8 32. Rg1 Ne5 33. Qc7 Qe4 34. Qd6 Qf5 35. h3 Nc4 36. Qc5 Rc8 37. b6 37... Nxb6 38. Qxb6 Qc2 39. Rf1 h6 40. c7 Rxc7 41. Qxe6 Qe4 42. Rf8+ Kh7 43. Qf5+ Qxf5 44. Rxf5 Rd7 45. Kg1 d4 46. Kf2 d3 47. Ke1 Re7+ 48. Kf2 Rd7 49. Ke1 Re7+ 50. Kf2 Rd7 1/2-1/2 My opinion is that Genius is easier to play against for amateurs than other programs, because it has a quiet style of play. Note that I said EASIER in a sense that meant that the games would be longer before the balance would tilt in Genius favor ; I never meant WEAKER. Anyway, this to say that if I made other draws with Genius 3, I was never able to draw against good masters in tournament games (maybe a psychological blocking? hehehe)... Serge Desmarais
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.