Author: Mark Young
Date: 10:51:32 06/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2001 at 11:24:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On June 04, 2001 at 23:16:07, Mark Young wrote:
>
>>On June 04, 2001 at 22:37:54, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On June 04, 2001 at 11:08:11, Mark Young wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 04, 2001 at 10:34:36, Slater Wold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>This is the annotated game by Petr. Look like Mark was correct, 10...Bxf3 was
>>>>>the correct move as well as 10...Be6 or 10...Bh5. Shredder was lost, bottom
>>>>>line.
>>>>
>>>>I can't be wrong all the time:)
>>>
>>>
>>>I doubt that _one_ move lost the game. It was the _group_ of bad moves that
>>>made it hopeless.. Against a good GM you can't toss a tempi here, a tempi
>>>there, and expect to do anything but get tossed overboard yourself. :)
>>>
>>>Of course, the computers are all super-GM players, so this discussion really
>>>is _not_ happening. :)
>>
>>Who said "all" computers are super-GM players. :)
>>
>>The only computers that "could" try and claim that they are Super-GM Players are
>>Deep Blue, and Deep Junior. We will have to wait and see what Fritz 7 can do.
>>
>>Many programs are GM strength(> 2500 elo), but Super-GM...I don't think so
>>either.
>
>"many"??? Shredder has beaten them all in the last couple of major events.
>Do you think _it_ is a >2500 player after looking at the above game?
>
>I'm not going to argue the point as it is a pretty hopeless thing to do. But
>so long as computers play like the above, I don't think any reasonable human
>will ever say "that is a >2500 player."
>
You do want to argue the point, and to say that anyone is unreasonable that does
not agree with you is not a good agruement. There is much game data to back up
that some programs are GM strength. The problem you have is you treat all
programs as being just one program, as there is no difference between say a
Crafty and Fritz, or a Shredder and Junior. I think this is a mistake when
looking at the data. I do understand why you do this as for us to be right only
one program needs to show it can play at GM strength which Junior has already
proven.
Many players, chess pros, and programmers agree that computers are 2500+, but I
see you feel we are all unreasonable.
So I guess you are Right...There is no point.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[Event "ICC 30 10 u"]
>>>>>[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
>>>>>[Date "2001.06.02"]
>>>>>[Round "-"]
>>>>>[White "Petrovich"]
>>>>>[Black "Project"]
>>>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>>>[ICCResult "Black resigns"]
>>>>>[WhiteElo "2498"]
>>>>>[BlackElo "2523"]
>>>>>[Opening "QGD: exchange, positional line, 5...c6"]
>>>>>[ECO "D35"]
>>>>>[NIC "QO.16"]
>>>>>[Time "09:05:56"]
>>>>>[TimeControl "1800+10"]
>>>>>
>>>>>1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 c6 6. e3 h6
>>>>>(6...Be7 or 6...Bf5!? ) 7. Bh4 Be7 8.
>>>>>Bd3 O-O 9. Nf3 Bg4(9....Nbd7+= , i think h7-h6 was unnecessary move)
>>>>>10. h3 Bc8? (10..Bxf3 11.Qxf3+=; 10...Bh5 11.g4!?; 10...Be6+=) 11. Qc2 Bd6?
>>>>>(11...Nbd7, 12...Re8, 13....Nf8)
>>>>> 12. Ne5 Qe7 13. f4 White is clear better . Qd8
>>>>>(Black has no good choice ) 14. O-O Be7
>>>>>15. Rae1 Nbd7 16. g4 Nb6 17. Qg2 Be6? 18. Bb1 Re8 19. Qc2 Kf8 20. g5
>>>>>white has decisive advantage
>>>>>Bxh3 21.
>>>>>gxf6 Bxf6 22. Bxf6 Qxf6 23. Rf3 Qh4 24. Qf2!
>>>>>( there are no chances for black in queenless position :)
>>>>> Qxf2+ 25. Kxf2 Bc8 26. Rg3 f6
>>>>>27. Ng6+ Kf7 28. b3 a5 29. a4 Bd7 30. f5!
>>>>>(xg7 is a weakest point ) Nc8 31. Reg1 Rg8 32. Nf4 Nd6 33.
>>>>>Nh5 Ne8 34. Bd3 Kf8 35. e4 dxe4 36. Bc4 Rh8 37. Nxg7 Nd6 38. Ne6+ Bxe6 39.
>>>>>Bxe6 e3+ 40. Kxe3 Re8 41. Ne4 Rxe6 42. fxe6 Nf5+ 43. Kf4 Nxg3 44. Rxg3 h5
>>>>>45. Nxf6 h4 46. Rh3 Ke7 47. Ke5 {Black resigns} 1-0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Enjoy. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Slate
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.