Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 13:49:18 01/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2001 at 14:37:00, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 04, 2001 at 12:20:41, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>On January 04, 2001 at 12:09:25, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>[Event "?"] >>>[Site "?"] >>>[Date "2001.01.04"] >>>[Round "?"] >>>[White "Rebel Century 3"] >>>[Black "van der Wiel, John"] >>>[Result "0-1"] >>>[ECO "B15"] >>>[BlackElo "2531"] >>>[PlyCount "118"] >>>[EventDate "2001.01.02"] >>>[SourceDate "2001.01.04"] >>> >>>1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 a6 4. Be2 b5 5. a3 e6 6. Nf3 Nf6 7. e5 Nfd7 8. Bg5 Be7 >>>9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. b4 a5 11. Na2 axb4 12. axb4 O-O 13. Bd3 f6 14. exf6 gxf6 15. >>>O-O Rf7 16. Re1 Nf8 17. Nh4 Qd8 18. Re3 Rg7 19. Rg3 Qe7 20. Qf3 Rxg3 21. Qxg3+ >>>Qg7 22. Qd6 Qd7 23. Qf4 Qg7 24. Nf3 Bd7 25. Qc7 Be8 26. Qd8 Bg6 27. h3 Qf7 28. >>>Bxg6 hxg6 29. Nh2 Kg7 30. Ng4 Nfd7 31. Qc7 e5 32. Qb7 Ra3 33. dxe5 fxe5 34. >>>Nxe5 Nxe5 35. Qxb8 Qf6 36. Re1 Rxa2 37. Qxe5 Qxe5 38. Rxe5 Rxc2 39. Re1 Kf6 40. >>>Kf1 d4 41. Re8 Rc4 42. Rc8 Ke7 43. Ke2 Kd6 44. Rd8+ Kc7 45. Rg8 Rxb4 46. Kd3 c5 >>>47. Rg7+ Kb6 48. Rxg6+ Ka5 49. h4 Rb3+ 50. Ke4 d3 51. Rd6 c4 52. g4 Rb2 53. g5 >>>Re2+ 54. Kf3 Re8 55. Rd4 b4 56. Rxc4 b3 57. Rc1 b2 58. Rd1 Kb4 59. Kf4 Kc3 0-1 >>> >>>Enrique >> >>A convincing demonstration that anti-computerchess played by a GM is still too >>much for todays programs. >>This opponent is indeed a very brave choice of the Rebel team. I think that >>there are many opponents with higher ELO, but easier to play for Rebel, - my >>deep respects to Ed for playing John van der Wiel. >>And btw a very interesting game ! >>Uli > >Hello Uli, >Can you give me some examples of "anti-computerchess" in this game? Which >moves/positions were "anti-computer"? It all looked very normal to me so please >help me to understand what John did that he would not do vs another human. >Regards, >Jim I think this was already answered very well by Vincent. I too was thinking of the opening line and then forcing a closed game where tactics doesn't play a role, so long range planning dominates and that's where a GM is far superior to a program. If I am not wrong, van der Wiel is an excellent expert of the Sicilian Dragon. I doubt that you will ever see him play this against Rebel. I also know from himself that he has a good knowledge about the usual evaluation terms in a chess program. For example, he invites the program to get some evaluation bonus for creating a passed pawn which will turn out to be a weakness far later. Uli
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.