Author: James Robertson
Date: 00:27:09 05/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2001 at 23:30:53, Christophe Theron wrote:
>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.
>>
>>How about you?
>
>
>
>Your program played well and even if I have seen a few hesitations on its side
>in this game, your opponent has played more pointless moves in my opinion.
>
>Please understand me well. I'm not attacking anybody here. I have mentionned
>TWICE in my post that maybe Tiger could play the same pointless moves.
>
>It's just that black was in an uncomfortable position in this game and instead
>of trying something, it did nothing, just hoping that its opponent would not
>find any plan. There was a H file wide open for black. At one point I thought
>black would try to take advantage of this, getting rook+queen on the file, but
>later it removed the queen from the file, and I have not seen the point in this
>move for example. There are other surprising moves, from a human point of view.
>
>My own program has been blamed a number of times for this (playing passive), and
>I'm still trying to figure out a way to improve its planning algorithms. I see
>yet another example of such a game (don't care if it has been played by my
>program or yours), and once again I think "how can we tell our programs to DO
>SOMETHING instead of waiting for the fatal hit?"
>
>So I mention it for the third or fourth time so people don't misunderstand me:
>I'm not attacking the programs which played this game, and my own program could
>probably play similar pointless moves.
>
>OK?
My program won against Shredder, which for it is a first. I really don't care
(right now) whether or not there were pointless moves, or who made more. To
denigrate my success with statements like "I was amazed at the number of
pointless moves" really was uncalled for.
You know as well as I do that programs frequently play aimlessly. This has been
a problem since the dawn of computer chess, and is NOT something new. You
yourself have watched Tiger aimlessly wander around the board hundreds of times.
I know this is true because you have written a chess program, and even with
today's extensive knowledge _all_ programs will eventually behave this way. To
act like this "amazed" you so much is really doing me and my small success a
disservice.
James
>
>
>
> Christophe
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.