Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 11:07:13 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 13:06:52, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 14, 2000 at 13:01:29, Bruce Moreland 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.
>>
>>Bob, you need to look at the game a little bit, I think. It was a normal
>>anti-computer attack, and anyone could have played the game perfectly from move
>>26 on. This was a 3 3 and white wa a human. He lost the other 7 games.
>
>My problem hits two ideas: 1. No tactical mistakes for 20 consecutive
>moves; 2. he finds a mate in 7, and follows it perfectly for the next
>7 moves. In blitz. It _could_ be a good human. But my intuition says
>"computer" was involved.
>
>It is only intuition of course... and it can definitely be wrong. I merely
>raised the spectre. I would want to see more games myself, before I would be
>willing to say positively...
>
>
I am a merely 2000 player and I would play Qg5 in a 1 0 game. That it happens to
be mate in 7 and all I have to do is capture all delaying mate pieces so be it.
Not hard to find 'perfect' moves like KxQ or QxR or PxN at all...:)
-Andrew-
>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>I haven't looked at it with a computer, but at the point white plays 24. f4,
>>he's out for blood, and the problem black has is avoiding getting mated on g7.
>>It looks like it's pretty hard to stop.
>>
>>>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...
>>
>>White's moves are all either forced or typical human moves.
>>
>>bruce
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.