Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 00:30:05 05/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2001 at 03:27:09, James Robertson wrote:
>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.
Steady on James.
This is a computer chess forum, not a back patting service.
>
>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.