Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 23:26:32 08/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2000 at 21:43:38, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >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? I quickly ran them with a maximum of 3 minutes: Machied.eng >3:00 Jeff.eng 0:13 Exner.eng 2:04 Q3.eng 0:06 WA8.eng >3:00 Athlon 600, 128 Mb. So the number 1 (Q3) and 2 (Jeff) of the contest behaved as one may expect! Ed
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.