Author: Robin Smith
Date: 11:18:09 05/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2002 at 10:49:15, Kevin Strickland wrote:
>[Event ""]
>[Site ""]
>[Date "???"]
>[Round ""]
>[White "???"]
>[Black "Somnus"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[WhiteElo "2229"]
>[BlackElo "2753"]
>[Opening "B20 Sicilian Defense"]
>
>{Time control = 3 1 Engine book(s): ct.tbk }
>1.e4 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 d6 4.g3 e5 5.Bh3 Bxh3 6.Nxh3 h6 7.O-O Qd7 8.Kg2 Nf6 9.d3
>Nd4 10.Be3
>Be7 11.Ng1 Bd8 12.Nge2 O-O 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.cxd5 Qb5 15.Bxd4 exd4 16.Qb3 Qxb3
>17.axb3 f5
>18.f3 fxe4 19.dxe4 g5 20.Nc1 Bf6 21.Nd3 Rfe8 22.Rfc1 a5 23.Rc2 b6 24.Re1 Ra7
>25.f4 gxf4
>26.gxf4 Rg7+ 27.Kf3 Bh4 28.Ree2 Kh7 29.Rg2 Bf6 30.Rxg7+ Bxg7 31.Re2 a4 32.bxa4
>c4 33.Nf2
>d3 34.Rd2 Ra8 35.e5 dxe5 36.f5 h5 37.d6 Kg8 38.Ke4 Kf8 39.Kd5 Bh6 40.Rd1 Rxa4
>41.f6 Ke8 42.Ne4
>Be3 43.Ke6 Ra7 44.Rf1 Kf8 45.d7 Ra8 46.Re1 Bf4 47.Rf1 Be3 48.Nd6 Rd8 49.Nb7 Rxd7
>50.Kxd7
>Bh6 51.Ke6 Kg8 52.Kxe5 Kf7 53.Kd4 Bf8 54.Kxc4 Ke6 55.Kxd3 Bh6 56.f7 Ke7 57.Kc4
>Bg7 58.Kb5
>h4 59.Kxb6 h3 60.Kb5 Bh6 61.Nc5 Bf8 62.Kc4 Bg7 63.Kd5 Bh6 64.Ne6 Kd7 65.f8Q Bxf8
>66.Rxf8
>Ke7 67.Rh8 Kf6 68.Rxh3 Ke7 69.Rf3 Kd7 70.Rf7+ Ke8 71.Ng5 Kd8 72.Ke6 Kc8 73.Kd6
>Kb8 74.Kc6
>Ka8 75.Kb6 Kb8 76.Rf8# { Somnus checkmated} 1-0
>
>
>I was looking over the games my account on ICC has played over the last few days
>and I came up with this one. Now I do not believe that the "person" that won
>this game was human. He was using a human account, but the moves are not that of
>a human.
>
>These are the move times for the game in question as well..
>
>Move ???? Somnus
>---- ---------------- ----------------
> 1. e4 (0:03) c5 (0:00)
> 2. c4 (0:01) Nc6 (0:00)
> 3. Nc3 (0:00) d6 (0:05)
> 4. g3 (0:01) e5 (0:04)
> 5. Bh3 (0:01) Bxh3 (0:03)
> 6. Nxh3 (0:01) h6 (0:04)
> 7. O-O (0:01) Qd7 (0:06)
> 8. Kg2 (0:00) Nf6 (0:05)
> 9. d3 (0:02) Nd4 (0:04)
> 10. Be3 (0:03) Be7 (0:04)
> 11. Ng1 (0:01) Bd8 (0:03)
> 12. Nge2 (0:03) O-O (0:04)
> 13. Nd5 (0:03) Nxd5 (0:05)
> 14. cxd5 (0:02) Qb5 (0:01)
> 15. Bxd4 (0:02) exd4 (0:07)
> 16. Qb3 (0:04) Qxb3 (0:06)
> 17. axb3 (0:01) f5 (0:04)
> 18. f3 (0:05) fxe4 (0:06)
> 19. dxe4 (0:11) g5 (0:12)
> 20. Nc1 (0:04) Bf6 (0:06)
> 21. Nd3 (0:02) Rfe8 (0:04)
> 22. Rfc1 (0:02) a5 (0:02)
> 23. Rc2 (0:13) b6 (0:03)
> 24. Re1 (0:02) Ra7 (0:03)
> 25. f4 (0:03) gxf4 (0:15)
> 26. gxf4 (0:02) Rg7+ (0:03)
> 27. Kf3 (0:02) Bh4 (0:01)
> 28. Ree2 (0:03) Kh7 (0:03)
> 29. Rg2 (0:07) Bf6 (0:02)
> 30. Rxg7+ (0:03) Bxg7 (0:02)
> 31. Re2 (0:02) a4 (0:04)
> 32. bxa4 (0:27) c4 (0:00)
> 33. Nf2 (0:03) d3 (0:03)
> 34. Rd2 (0:04) Ra8 (0:02)
> 35. e5 (0:30) dxe5 (0:04)
> 36. f5 (0:04) h5 (0:06)
> 37. d6 (0:25) Kg8 (0:00)
> 38. Ke4 (0:04) Kf8 (0:03)
> 39. Kd5 (0:02) Bh6 (0:19)
> 40. Rd1 (0:02) Rxa4 (0:12)
> 41. f6 (0:07) Ke8 (0:09)
> 42. Ne4 (0:01) Be3 (0:08)
> 43. Ke6 (0:02) Ra7 (0:02)
> 44. Rf1 (0:05) Kf8 (0:01)
> 45. d7 (0:03) Ra8 (0:00)
> 46. Re1 (0:09) Bf4 (0:02)
> 47. Rf1 (0:02) Be3 (0:01)
> 48. Nd6 (0:01) Rd8 (0:01)
> 49. Nb7 (0:01) Rxd7 (0:06)
> 50. Kxd7 (0:01) Bh6 (0:05)
> 51. Ke6 (0:01) Kg8 (0:01)
> 52. Kxe5 (0:02) Kf7 (0:03)
> 53. Kd4 (0:01) Bf8 (0:03)
> 54. Kxc4 (0:01) Ke6 (0:00)
> 55. Kxd3 (0:01) Bh6 (0:00)
> 56. f7 (0:02) Ke7 (0:01)
> 57. Kc4 (0:00) Bg7 (0:00)
> 58. Kb5 (0:00) h4 (0:00)
> 59. Kxb6 (0:01) h3 (0:01)
> 60. Kb5 (0:01) Bh6 (0:01)
> 61. Nc5 (0:00) Bf8 (0:01)
> 62. Kc4 (0:00) Bg7 (0:01)
> 63. Kd5 (0:00) Bh6 (0:01)
> 64. Ne6 (0:00) Kd7 (0:01)
> 65. f8=Q (0:02) Bxf8 (0:01)
> 66. Rxf8 (0:00) Ke7 (0:00)
> 67. Rh8 (0:01) Kf6 (0:01)
> 68. Rxh3 (0:02) Ke7 (0:01)
> 69. Rf3 (0:01) Kd7 (0:01)
> 70. Rf7+ (0:01) Ke8 (0:00)
> 71. Ng5 (0:01) Kd8 (0:00)
> 72. Ke6 (0:01) Kc8 (0:00)
> 73. Kd6 (0:01) Kb8 (0:00)
> 74. Kc6 (0:01) Ka8 (0:00)
> 75. Kb6 (0:00) Kb8 (0:00)
> 76. Rf8# (0:01)
> {Black checkmated} 1-0
>
>You will notice that from move 48 - 76 the "human" used very little time per
>move yet played flawlessly. This was _not_ a GM/IM. As you can see by the rating
>it was surely an above average player but nothing spectacular.
>
>Do you think I am correct in assuming this player is not human?
I think there are some very good reasons to believe your opponant WAS a human:
1) Opening choice led to a locked position with good knight versus bad bishop,
typical anti-computer moves (avoid tactical, open positions).
2) Move 35.e5 is not computer like, giving up a pawn in order to make black's
bishop bad and to gain access to the center for his white's king.
3) The amount of time used when surprised or when making a tough decision, such
as for move 32 after the somewhat surprising 31--a4. Also spent a lot of time
on moves 35. More time than a computer playing blitz would probably take for
those moves, since I doubt that there would be a fail low in those particular
positions.
4) Perhaps most telling, repeating the position at move 46-47 when in a
completely won position, something humans do often, to gain a bit of time to
think, while a computer usually will repeat positions only when happy with a
draw.
You mention the flawless play from moves 46-78, but by then he was totally won
and just ran around grabing material for insurance. Everyone knows comps like
to grab material, but humans will also grab material when there is no risk, and
from 46-78 there was no risk. Black was totally tied down. In fact about the
ONLY thing that seems computer like to me is that in a blitz game there were no
blunders. But a decent human will not ALWAYS blunder in blitz games, especially
if the position isn't wide open.
Robin
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.