Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:20:30 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 15:08:28, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>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
As I said, you are possibly correct. The game you gave certainly supports
that. I'm not overly hyper about it myself.
Of course, losing 7 and then winning 1 also doesn't mean that the player
didn't cheat that one game. I have seen that happen as well...
>
>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.