Author: Côme
Date: 09:43:22 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 12:03:24, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 14, 2000 at 11:39:23, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>
>>On November 14, 2000 at 10:09:28, Kees van Iersel wrote:
>>
>>>I only want to show that computers can still loose games to persons who are
>>>much weaker. The difference is 761.
>>>How would kramnik perfome against a person with so much difference.
>>>Secondly if a computer would win everything who would be interested in seeing
>>>human versus machine games.
>>>
>>>
>>>[Event "ICC 3 3"]
>>>[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
>>>[Date "2000.11.13"]
>>>[Round "-"]
>>>[White "WICKER-MAN"]
>>>[Black "Rebel Tiger 13.0"]
>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>[ICCResult "Black checkmated"]
>>>[WhiteElo "1884"]
>>>[BlackElo "2645"]
>>>[Opening "Sicilian: Taimanov variation"]
>>>[ECO "B46"]
>>>[NIC "SI.39"]
>>>[Time "23:21:26"]
>>>[TimeControl "180+3"]
>>>
>>>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 Qc7 7. Bb3 b5 8.
>>>a3 Nf6 9. O-O Nxd4 10. Qxd4 Bd6 11. h3 Bh2+ 12. Kh1 Be5 13. Qe3 Bxc3 14.
>>>bxc3 Bb7 15. f3 O-O 16. a4 d5 17. e5 Nd7 18. f4 bxa4 19. Rxa4 Bc6 20. Ra1
>>>Bb5 21. Rf3 a5 22. Ba3 Rfc8 23. Bd6 Qb7 24. f5 a4 25. Ba2 Bc4 26. Bxc4 Rxc4
>>>27. f6 Qb2 28. Qg5 Qxa1+ 29. Kh2 Qh1+ 30. Kxh1 Nxf6 31. exf6 Rg4 32. hxg4 g6
>>>33. Qh6 a3 34. Qg7# {Black checkmated} 1-0
>>
>>
>>Hmm... yet another game that confirms Bob's hypothesis about the best programs
>>not yet being strong enough to challenge GM's. I had a strong feeling of deja
>>vu after going through it. It looked just like the many games I won against
>>the Super Conny, Mach III, Designer 2265, Rex Chess, Genius, Fritz, etc...
>>
>>Don't get me wrong -- I did lose the bulk of those, but the occasional win or
>>two, resembling the one above, would always bring back a dose of healthy
>>skepticism regarding my initial enthusiasm and estimates of the programs:)
>>
>>*** Djordje
>
>
>Another point. It is highly likely that the opponent used a computer here. I
>base this on a couple of things. Near the end, there is a deep mate. He played
>it _perfectly_. Which I don't think an 1800 player could do. If I were
>betting, I would bet that white is a computer.
>
>If I were to criticize moves, I would pick the following moves for black as
>suspect (from a human perspective): 11. ... Bh2+ seems totally pointless.
>23. ... Qb7 seems to be worse than pointless. This is a queen, not a bishop.
>I also don't like 24. ... a4. Advancing passers is often good, but the further
>they advance, the easier they are to attack and the harder they are to defend.
>White is attacking on the kingside. Black really doesn't need to waste time
>on the queenside just yet, when he has no pieces for defending the kingside.
>
>However, on the other hand, Tiger was playing a computer in human clothing.
>Nothing good can come of that, and drawing conclusions is harder. I would
>_never_ believe than an 1800 player can beat today's programs. yes, it might
>happen once in every 1000 games. But that is close enough to zero to instantly
>turn on warning lights when I see it. In this case, if you analyze the game
>with another program (I used Crafty) it couldn't find any improvement for white
>from move 18 on. Which is _very_ suspicious...
Hello !
I think you are wrong Bob.
from move 18 white moves are very easy to find at least for me :-)
I don't see where you see a deep mate ?
Best Regards
Alexandre Côme
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.