Author: James Robertson
Date: 09:07:47 05/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2001 at 03:30:05, Peter McKenzie wrote:
>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.
LOL.... I'm in a better mood today. I guess you could say I was over-excited
after the game. =)
No worries, mate. (Do people in Australia/NZ actually say that?)
James
>
>>
>>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.