Author: Mark Young
Date: 00:13:29 07/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2001 at 12:08:06, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On July 22, 2001 at 11:36:17, K. Burcham wrote: > >> >>do you know of any game where two GMs agreed to a draw that was similiar to >>this, in a match or tournament. >> >> >>1. less than six (actually there were only four) pieces off the board. >>2. less than ten moves made. >>3. an exchange of minor pieces is avoided by move repetition. >>4. an exchange of pieces is avoided where the next move does not include >> a score change. (no score change with 10. Nxd7 >>5. an exchange of pieces is avoided, and a draw is chosen in such a >> conservative opening. caro-kann:steinitz variation. >>6. an exchange of pieces is avoided, and a draw is chosen when neither >> side has a threatening position. >> >> >> >>here is a final statement that GM huebner made with his board play. >> >> "IF YOU DO NOT GIVE ME THE ADVANTAGE OF Ne5, UNTHREATENED, THEN I >> CHOOSE TO NOT CONTINUE THIS GAME". > >I do not know whether it was in purpose or not, but Huebner showed a serious >flaw in fritz (or any other computer perhaps). He could draw whenever he pleases >and just as easily. This is not a flaw in the program, as GM Kasparov once said a 2600+ Grandmaster can draw at will against anyone. This is why I think we have started to see some style changes in the new programs coming out. Like Junior 7 and Gambit Tiger, that play a risky sytle of chess. (but this may mean weaker play against a soild Human GM} To force wins in games against very strong players, you have to risk losing. Fritz did not care if it won or lost the match, and GM Huebner was not going to risk losing any game to play for a win. The results is a draw match. This does show that Fritz is a very strong player and again shows computer programs to be playing on a GM level. I did not think about this, but it could have been >a nice "match" strategy against a computer. Play in order to have equality >guaranteed and if you do not like the position to play against the computer, >take the draw, NOW. He did not play anti-computer in the "classical" way, but >maybe play "anti-computer" in the way it should be played, the GM way. GM Huebner played a form of Classic "anti-computer" tactics. It just did not produce any wins for him, as computers are playing much better "positional" chess. 1. Knock the program out of book. (step one worked for GM Huebner) 2. Play for a closed position. (step two did not work, as GM Huebner would not risk a objectivly worse position, but better in term of playing a computer) 3. Wait for the computer to make a silly "anti-positional" move(s). (Because step two failed, and computers are very strong in most positions, the computer did not play any "anti-positional" move(s)" 4. coast to victory after the computer kills itself. Solid >chess using standard openings where the GM has knowledge accumulated for a >century. >Yermolinsky wrote something about this in his book. > >Regards, >Miguel > > > > >> >> >> >> [D] r1bqkb1r/pp1npppp/2p5/4N3/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1 >> >> >>kburcham
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.