Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 05:15:58 05/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2001 at 02:46:58, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On May 27, 2001 at 01:00:02, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>
>>On May 26, 2001 at 23:09:07, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>
>>>On May 26, 2001 at 20:51:59, Will Singleton wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 26, 2001 at 20:47:42, Will Singleton 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
>>>>
>>>>Hey, out of order. You seem to have time on your hands, enough to work full
>>>>time on chess. You certainly could have participated in CCT3. So, please,
>>>>don't condescend to the real players.
>>>>
>>>>If you can show how Tiger would have played differently, fine. Otherwise.. you
>>>>know what.
>>>>
>>>>Will
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I am supposed to know what? Go ahead, tell what you think.
>>>
>>>I have mentionned TWICE in my post that it is possible that Tiger would play the
>>>same pointless moves.
>>>
>>>I did not mention ONCE, because I knew somebody would misread my post and
>>>misinterpret it, I mentionned it TWICE.
>>>
>>>Obviously you don't understand the spirit of my message. Sorry for you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>
>>Christophe, I understand what you say and I agree.
>>What an awful game. Insomniac played well, but Shredder...
>>1st, let itself to be with a terrible pawn structure. It is not that it has
>>weaknesses, it is worst than that. It was a pawn structure that was not
>>_flexible_. White had all the time to play c5 whenever it wants. That is why
>>Insomniac took some time. Then, It had no clue where to place the pieces. It was
>>wandering around with the Queen with no plan whatsoever. It tried to protect the
>>Bishop because it thought that it was a good "light squares" bishop and did not
>>understand that the opponent knight was better in this type of positions. It
>>could have tried to play Kg7, Qf7 and keep the Bishop in e6. In this way, c5 is
>>not that terrible. Still, the position is good for white.
>>Shredder should take this opening out of its book.
>>hxg4 was ever played? sounds very suspect.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Miguel
>
>
>
>Yes, black's pawn structure was terrible, but what concerns me is that black did
>nothing. If my program was playing black here, maybe he wouldn't do anything
>either.
>
>So I'm asking myself: how can I tell my program to DO something when there is
>nothing good to do?
>
>I remember several years ago, 70 years old Bronstein was interviewed in the
>Aegon tournament after having played an incredible game against a computer.
>Coming back from behind if I remember correctly, and finally winning the game.
>
>Bronstein just said to the TV journalist: I was lost. I HAD to do something, so
>I just DID something.
>
>OK, this is the kind of sentence that does not mean much and sounds so pretty
>when you say it in front of a camera. But still, I feel there is something
>behind this.
>
>When you are completely lost in a position (I'm not sure it was black's case in
>the game, but...), you have two options:
>1) do nothing and lose in 90% of the cases (in the last 10% a miracle happens
>and you draw or you even win).
>2) do something crazy (shuffle the chess board) and lose in only 75% of the
>cases.
>Options 2 allows you to gain 15% of winning percentage in lost positions. Not
>counting the psychological impact on your opponent.
>
>I think option 2 has something to do with focusing only on a fraction of the
>chessboard and merely ignoring the rest. Or trying to create a material
>imbalance (piece against pawns or something similar).
>
>Computer programs are absolutely unable to do option 2. They do not know that
>when they are lost they HAVE to do something. Because we have not worked on that
>YET.
>
>
>
> Christophe
I don't have experience in chess programming but I reckon it's one of the most
difficult things to decide when it's necessary to do something and when it is
necessary to do nothing.
Sometimes you have a bad position but it's difficult for the opposite to achieve
something. But if you do something and open the board you'll loose.
And sometimes you have a bad position which is easy to play for your opposite.
If you do nothing you'll loose.
I often play games against Fritz at fun levels. And my impression is that Fritz
is always trying to do something (on these levels), he's trying to attack, he's
trying to open the game. In most cases this is right. But there are a lot of
positions where this is very bad.
Martin
This page took 0.01 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.