Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:07:55 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 12:43:22, Côme wrote:
>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
You could well be right, one game is not a lot to draw conclusions from.
However, there is a mate in 7 near the end that is played perfectly by
the human. I don't see that from 1800 players, generally. Most overlook
mates in 3 unless they are obvious...
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.