Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 12:08:28 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 14:10:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 14, 2000 at 13:26:31, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>Look at the game, he plays like a human.
>>
>>Moves 1-15 are a sit-and-wait Sicilian. If anything he's getting chased around
>>a little. His playing really solid in order to avoid having to deal with wild
>>tactics, but he let black crack his pawns.
>>
>>16. a4 is the first enterprising move of the game, unless you count 1. e4.
>>
>>16. ... d5 17. e5 is required unless you want to open the game up for the black
>>pieces, and it's an anti-computer move because it allows him to think about
>>bisecting the board.
>>
>>17. ... Nd7 18. f4 is necessary to protect the pawn unless you want to play Re1,
>>and f4 also continues with the idea of bisecting the board.
>>
>>18. ... bxa4 19. Rxa4 Bc6 20. Ra1. Maybe he could have put it on d4, which
>>might let him think about swinging it faster, but I'm proabably stupid. You
>>certainly can't claim that a computer picked 20. Ra1.
>
>
>But I can. :) I annotated this game with a margin of .01 and Crafty didn't
>comment on any move after 18. Which means it agreed 100%. Of course, I can't
>figure out how much time per move to spend, so I picked a pretty small number
>since this was blitz.
>
>At move 18, Crafty likes Ba3 better, score=-.24 vs -.76 for f4.
>
>After that, they agree.
I am not surprised that they agree, Bob. After move 18, every move is either a
response to a direct threat, a recapture, or a direct threat.
I'm appalled that people think that someone is a computer because they win a
game against a computer. Every move in the game could have been played easily
from a decent human perspective. White avoided heavy tactics and instead went
for blunt long-range stuff. White ignored q-side material when the attack was
on. It's ridiculous to question this based upon the result or the fact that
another computer could play this game.
Appended is another game played between these two opponents. This is a failed
attack by what is obviously a human. He is going for the Qg7# theme in this
game, too, but he wasn't able to keep the lid on and Tiger whacked him.
I am not one who thinks that suggesting someone is using a computer is some sort
of personal attack, but but I think the accusation is very much unwarranted in
this case.
bruce
Move WICKER-MAN Caissac
---- ---------------- ----------------
1. e4 (0:01) c6 (0:00)
2. d4 (0:02) d5 (0:00)
3. Nc3 (0:01) dxe4 (0:00)
4. Nxe4 (0:01) Nf6 (0:00)
5. Nxf6+ (0:08) exf6 (0:00)
6. Bd3 (0:02) Qxd4 (0:04)
7. Nf3 (0:03) Qd8 (0:00)
8. O-O (0:03) Be7 (0:02)
9. Re1 (0:05) O-O (0:04)
10. Bf4 (0:03) Bg4 (0:04)
11. h3 (0:10) Be6 (0:04)
12. Qe2 (0:11) Bc5 (0:05)
13. Nh4 (0:13) Qb6 (0:05)
14. c3 (0:15) a5 (0:13)
15. Rad1 (0:08) Bxa2 (0:10)
16. Nf5 (0:04) Be6 (0:00)
17. Qg4 (0:15) Bxf2+ (0:04)
18. Kh1 (0:03) Bxf5 (0:03)
19. Qxf5 (0:06) g6 (0:00)
20. Qxf6 (0:18) Nd7 (0:02)
21. Qe7 (0:27) Bxe1 (0:01)
22. Bc4 (0:13) Qc5 (0:04)
23. Rxd7 (0:21) Qxc4 (0:05)
24. Be5 (0:14) Qf1+ (0:05)
25. Kh2 (0:02) Bf2 (0:04)
26. h4 (0:04) Rae8 (0:04)
27. Qf6 (0:07) Qg1+ (0:00)
28. Kh3 (0:02) Qh1+ (0:05)
29. Kg4 (0:16) Qxg2+ (0:00)
30. Kf4 (0:02) Qg3+ (0:02)
0-1
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.