Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:38:26 05/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2001 at 17:37:34, James Robertson wrote:
>On May 26, 2001 at 17:32:13, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On May 26, 2001 at 17:02:19, James Robertson wrote:
>>
>>>Wow! This was a really cool. Insomniac has never before even drawn with Shredder
>>>in a tournament game.
>>>
>>>Hardware: Shredder used a dual 800 to Insomniac's Athlon 1300mhz.
>>>
>>>James
>>>
>>>[Event "CCT3"]
>>>[Site "chessclub.com"]
>>>[Date "2001.05.26"]
>>>[Round "3"]
>>>[White "Insomniac"]
>>>[Black "Shredder"]
>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>[TimeControl "2700+10"]
>>>
>>>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bg5 h6 8.
>>>Bh4 g5 9. Bg3 Bg7 10. Be2 h5 11. Bxg4 hxg4 12. O-O Bxd4 13. Qxd4 f6 14. Nd5
>>>Nc6 15. Qe3 Be6 16. Nb6 Rb8 17. c4 Kf7 18. Rad1 Qg8 19. Nd5 Rd8 20. b3 Qg6
>>>21. Nc7 Bc8 22. Rfe1 Rhf8 23. Qb6 Ne5 24. Nd5 Nc6 25. Rd2 Rd7 26. Nc3 Qg7
>>>27. Rd3 Rfd8 28. Red1 Qf8 29. R3d2 Qg8 30. Qe3 Qh7 31. Nd5 Re8 32. Nb6 Rdd8
>>>33. c5 Qg6 34. Qe2 Kg8 35. Kf1 Kh7 36. Nxc8 Rxc8 37. cxd6 exd6 38. Qxg4
>>>Qxe4 39. Qd7+ Qe7 40. Rxd6 Kg7 41. Re1 Qf7 42. Qxf7+ Kxf7 43. Rd7+ Re7 44.
>>>Rexe7+ Nxe7 45. Rxb7 Rc6 46. Ke2 Ke6 47. Rc7 Rxc7 48. Bxc7 Nd5 49. Ba5 Nf4+
>>>50. Kf3 Nd3 51. Ke3 Nf4 52. g3 Ng6 53. h3 Ne5 54. f4 Nf7 55. Kf3 Kf5 56.
>>>Bd2 Kg6 57. fxg5 fxg5 58. Ke4 Nd6+ 59. Kd5 Nf5 60. g4 Ng7 61. a4 Ne8 62. b4
>>>Kf7 63. b5 axb5 64. axb5 Nc7+ 65. Kc6
>>>{Shredder resigns} 1-0
>>
>>
>>
>>I am amazed by the number of pointless moves made by both sides in this game.
>>
>>Maybe it's because of the position. I should check with my own program, maybe it
>>would also make these pointless moves.
>>
>>I guess strong chess players would have a good laugh if they browse thru this
>>game. "And you need these thousands dollars computers to play like that???" :)
>>
>>No offense intended to Stefan or James. It's the kind of game that makes me
>>think: "huh, I'd better work on better planning in Tiger, because maybe it would
>>play similarly in that position".
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>I think there are happier reasons for the "pointless" moves. =) My
>interpretation is that Insomniac was gradually putting pressure on Shredder, and
>each move contains ideas so deep that a mere human just glancing at the game
>cannot fathom them. Perhaps the moves actually show the incredibly skillful,
>human way in which Insomniac bewildered his opponent before seizing victory.
>
>I like these explanations better than just saying the stupid programs didn't
>know what they were doing.
I agree.
I think that people underestimate chess programs.
I know at least about one player who made the same mistake in a tournament of
advanced chess when he decided not to trust the machine.
It was an open tournament when machines,humans,and a team of comp+human were
allowed to participate and the surprising result was that Rebel century won the
tournament and not some advanced player.
I believe that a lot of chess players do the same mistake in correspondence
chess when they can use computers to help them when they do not give their
programs a long time to search or do not trust the computer move and use it only
to avoid tactical mistakes.
I play almost always computer moves in my correspondence games when I only
decide the programs that I use and often I do not use more than 1 program.
If I use more than 1 program I decide which program to trust.
I do analysis by going backward and forward but I almost never play a move that
is not suggested by at least one of my programs.
Uri
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.