Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 14:13:07 07/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2002 at 16:43:36, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 31, 2002 at 16:19:27, Sune Larsson wrote: > >>I won't dive into the discussion whether top programs have >>GM strange or not. We all know that GM:s make tactical mistakes, >>suffer heavily from severe time pressure, sometimes lose concentration, >>are influenced by their feelings/moods etc. Almost unexplainable mistakes >>also happen. Like in the game below. > >This is not unexplainable. > >> >> >> [D]r2r4/pp3pk1/4bp2/7R/8/5B2/PP3PPP/5RK1 b - - 0 26 >> >> >> This is from the game IM Berg - GM Timman, Malmö 2002. >> Move 26 and no time pressure. Here Timman played 26.-Rab8?? >> His chess knowledge is far beyond playing such a move in this >> position. With the natural 26.-Rd2 black would have saved the draw. >> Activity is vital - activity in rook endings is super vital. Black is >> under pressure and must create counter chances. Of course Timman knows >> this and more - so why really did 26.-Rab8?? happen? Not so much tactics >> here either. > >As we know human chess is _more_ than just playing the results of optimal >calculations. Often chess is based with priority on psychological factors. This >might here be the case. Timman could try to reveil the reasons. How about this. >Just speculating. Timman was bluffing. He's a much more experienced player. But >Berg just played on undisturbed. We should have many more informations to come >nearer to the truth. No, I cannot see any trace of a bluff from Timman's side. I see only a gross mistake, easily refuted by 27.Ra5. 26.-Rab8?? is a very passive move and doesn't set any traps for white. It just gives away the initiative. Only Timman knows why he played Rab8. After the game he didn't want to analyse, but left the board quickly with the remark: "This should have been a draw." To me it feels like Timman somehow lost his concentration and was out of chess. Mixed up his possible coming moves or whatever. > >But the point is for computerchess. Do you think that human players - if they >had begun to research machine chess - would play the optimal moves from the view >of human chess or moves that would cause confusion for the machine? Know what I >mean? That would be real anti computerchess. I think it's a question of motivation from the human point of view. If programs would participate in normal tournaments, playing for price money, human players would naturally prepare accordingly. Which means playing against known computer weaknesses. Sune > >Rolf Tueschen > > >>Fritz7 immediately chooses 26.-Rd2 with +0.47 for white. >> After 26.-Rab8 Fritz shows +1.34. The whole game below. >> >> >>[Event "Sigeman & Co Malmo SWE"] >>[Site "Malmo SWE"] >>[Date "2002.06.07"] >>[Round "2"] >>[White "Berg, E."] >>[Black "Timman, J."] >>[Result "1-0"] >>[ECO "B03"] >>[WhiteElo "2514"] >>[BlackElo "2616"] >>[PlyCount "79"] >>[EventDate "2002.06.09"] >>[Source "Mark Crowther"] >>[SourceDate "2002.06.10"] >> >>1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. exd6 exd6 6. Nc3 Be7 7. Qf3 c5 8. >>dxc5 dxc5 9. Be3 Nc6 10. Rd1 Nd4 11. Bxd4 cxd4 12. Nge2 O-O 13. Nxd4 Bf6 14. >>Ndb5 Qe7+ 15. Be2 Nxc4 16. Nd5 Qe5 17. Nxf6+ gxf6 18. O-O Qxb5 19. Rd4 Qe5 20. >>Rxc4 Be6 21. Rh4 Rfd8 22. Bd3 Qg5 23. Bxh7+ Kg7 24. Rh5 Qg4 25. Be4 Qxf3 26. >>Bxf3 Rab8 27. Ra5 a6 28. b3 Rd2 29. h3 Bc8 30. Rd5 Rxa2 31. Rd8 Rc2 32. Re1 a5 >>33. Ree8 f5 34. Bd5 Be6 35. Rxb8 Bxd5 36. Re5 Rc5 37. Kh2 Kf6 38. f4 Rb5 39. >>Rd8 Bc6 40. Rd6+ 1-0 >> >>Sune
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.