Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 18:43:38 08/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2000 at 01:45:22, Ed Schröder wrote: >On August 08, 2000 at 17:37:44, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 08, 2000 at 16:29:59, walter irvin wrote: >> >>>On August 08, 2000 at 10:33:34, Peter Hegger wrote: >>> >>>>Hello, >>>>This has probably been done to a certain extent already. I'm wondering how the >>>>games of the old masters, i.e. Morphy, Steinitz, Tarrasch etc...stand up under >>>>the scrutiny of today's best computers. Are the games still as clean and >>>>brilliant as they seemed to be a hundred years ago? Or have they been found to >>>>be error ridden relics of days gone by? >>>>I'm wondering in particular about the "evergreen" and the "immortal" games. >>>>Also, Bobby Fischer's "game of the century" against Byrne. >>>>Thanks for any help you can give me. >>>>Best Regards, >>>>Peter >>> i think you will find that the computer almost always out does the master in >>>key positions .computers crush just about all players in tactics . >> >>I disagree. >>They are better in short tactics but humans are better in long tactics. >> >> i guess the >>>the big question is could the computer reach a key position vs morphy ect >>>??????????? i think there are some old masters that had styles that a computer >>>just could not deal with 2 that come to mind are nimzovitch and petrosian .they >>>were masters of the closed position game .i think they would have laughed at >>>computers .on the other hand tactical masters like marshal morphy ect would have >>>got sliced and diced . >> >>Here is one winning moves of morphy >> >>[D]r1bq1rk1/ppp3p1/7p/3P2n1/2PQ1p2/1N5P/PPP2PPK/R1B2R2 b - - 0 1 >> >>Morphy won by Nf3+ >>programs need a long time to find this move because they cannot see deep enough. >> >>They may suggest other sacrifices that are less convincing because white can >>avoid accepting them. >> >>Uri > >This one indeed takes a lot of time. I am sure others must be able to beat >the Rebel time easily. Saved this one in my database, nice to have. > >Rebel Century 2.0 = 51:39 >Rebel Century 3.0 (beta) = 42:47 > >Awful times. > >Ed > > >00:19 10.00 -1.32 1..f3 2.Bxg5 Qxg5 3.Rg1 Rf4 4.Qe3 Qh4 5.Nd2 fxg2 6.Rxg2 Bd7 >7.Qg3 Qf6 >00:32 10.01 -1.27 1..Bxh3 2.f3 Bf5 3.Bxf4 Bxc2 4.Be5 Rf7 5.Rae1 >00:42 10.03 -1.23 1..Nxh3 2.gxh3 Qh4 3.Rh1 Qxh3+ 4.Kg1 Qg4+ 5.Kf1 Qf3 6.Rg1 >Bg4 7.Rg2 Qe2+ >01:48 11.00 -0.72 1..Nxh3 2.gxh3 Qh4 3.Rh1 Qxh3+ 4.Kg1 Qg4+ 5.Kf1 Qf3 6.Rg1 >Bh3+ 7.Ke1 Rae8+ 8.Be3 Bg4 9.Rxg4 Qxg4 >08:00 12.00 -0.30 1..Nxh3 2.d6 Ng5 3.Re1 Ne6 4.Qd5 Qxd6 5.Qxd6 cxd6 6.c3 >21:01 13.00 -0.34 1..Nxh3 2.Nd2 Qh4 3.Nf3 Qh5 4.Kh1 Ng5+ 5.Nh2 f3 6.Rg1 Bf5 >7.Bxg5 >43:39 14.00 -0.42 1..Nxh3 2.Nd2 Qh4 3.Nf3 Qh5 4.Kh1 c5+ 5.dxc6 bxc6 6.Nh2 >51:39 14.05 -0.42 1..Nf3+ [g5f3] >01:02:42 14.05 0.65 1..Nf3+ 2.gxf3 Qh4 3.Rh1 Bxh3 4.c3 Rf5 5.Bxf4 Rxf4 6.Qe3+ >b5 > > >00:06:15 12.00 -0.27 1..Nxh3 2.d6 Ng5 3.Re1 cxd6 4.Kg1 > g6 5.Bxf4 Ne6 6.Rxe6 Bxe6 7.Bxh6 (105) (0.00) > >00:18:40 13.00 -0.34 1..Nxh3 2.Nd2 Qh4 3.Nf3 Qh5 4.Kh1 > Ng5 5.Nh2 f3 6.Rg1 (409) (0.00) > >00:34:45 14.00 -0.40 1..Nxh3 2.Nd2 Qh4 3.Nf3 Qh5 4.Kh1 > Ng5 5.Nh2 f3 6.Rg1 fxg2 7.Rxg2 Bh3 > 8.Rg1 Rf5 (1257) (0.00) > >00:42:47 14.17 -0.40 1..Nf3+ >00:50:06 14.17 0.65 1..Nf3+ 2.gxf3 Qh4 3.Rh1 Bxh3 4.c3 > Rf5 5.Bxf4 Rxf4 6.Qe3 b5 (2567) (0.00) > >00:56:24 15.00 0.52 1..Nf3+ 2.gxf3 Qh4 3.Rh1 Bxh3 4.c3 > Rf5 5.Bxf4 Rxf4 6.Qe3 b5 7.Rae1 > bxc4 (3038) (0.00) Ed, How fast does Rebel Century with the best tactical personality settings (from your contest) do on this problem? Any faster than your times posted above?
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.