Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:51:44 07/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2004 at 17:06:30, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >No offense, Omid, but we used to play an Expert who had a great sense of humor. >When we would lose to him and tell him "You were lucky!", he always replied >(with humor) "Lucky I was playing you!" We laughed with him after that. > >In this particular game, the better program won. It might be different in >another game, but this is the game that we are commenting on. > >In this particular game, the Crafty programming was better than the Falcon >programming. Because it won, in the end, according to the rules of the >competition. It might be different in another game, but this is the game that >we are commenting on. > >So, for this particular game, congratulate your opponent (the programmer, not >the program) on being the better programmer, and for the superior play of his >program. > >This is not a confession that your program is worse overall than his program. >This is gracious acceptance of having been outplayed (ultimately) and >acknowledgement (if it is sincere) of the skills of your worthy opponent (the >programmer, not the program). > >As a host, you should exhibit even greater than normal graciousness. > >Many times I have had winning OTB positions against far stronger players, and in >the end I didn't have the time or technique to get the win--often I lost. Who >was the stronger player? They were. > >Have I ever been bitter after a loss? Yes, since I am human, but mostly that >was long ago. These days, I always take my gamescore home (even the losses) and >have a wonderful time analyzing it with my friends and with my software. > >I take each and every loss (or win) as an opportunity to learn from my mistakes >... and the mistakes of my opponents so I don't do the same in the future. > >The joy of analyzing replaces any temporary sting from losing. I often admire >the beauty of my opponent's play, even when I'm playing & losing, and sometimes >after-the-fact when I analyze a loss at home. > >When you realize losses are just a normal part of the game, a normal part of >strong competitions, they seldom sting after that. > >In many games, I was losing but played on, looking for any possible chances to >save the game. Sometimes I set a trap, and my opponent fell into it and I won >or drew. Othertimes the opponent made a mistake (like I had, earlier in the >same game!), and I escaped with a draw or win. > >There are many kinds of mistakes in chess--no one mistake is automatically a >lost game. No player/program is perfect--all players/programs make mistake. > >It is said (good philosophical comment) that the winner of a chess game is the >player/program who makes the next to the last mistake. And that players make >their own luck in chess. > >Your program played a great attack against the Crafty king position. >Congratulations on having a great attacking program. I thought Falcon would >win. > >But Crafty hung in there and refused to fold, refused to collapse. Falcon made >a chess mistake, perhaps several, then lost. Crafty's engame skills eventually >prevailed, and the Falcon attack came to naught. > >Crafty & its programmer *deserve* sincere respect for their accomplishments--in >this case being doughty defenders of an extremely difficult position (how can we >truly say 'lost'?). > >Cheer up! Your program has acquitted itself very well. It plays great >attacking chess. A loss does not take that away from Falcon or its programmer. > >By the same token, thanks for helping arrange this computer chess competition. >Your efforts deserve respect, even if some aspects could have been even better. > >Be modest in victory. >Be gracious in defeat. > >Good luck with Falcon in the future. > >Best regards, >--Steve Nicely written. Notwithstanding Crafty probably was lucky, let's have a look: [Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "2004.07.11"] [Round "?"] [White "Falcon"] [Black "Crafty"] [Result "*"] [ECO "C48"] [PlyCount "88"] [EventDate "2004.07.11"] [SourceDate "2004.07.11"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bd6 5. O-O O-O 6. d3 h6 7. Be3 a6 8. Ba4 b5 9. Bb3 Na5 10. d4 exd4 11. Bxd4 Be7 12. e5 Ne8 13. Nd5 Nxb3 14. axb3 c5 15. Be3 Bb7 16. b4 Bxd5 17. Qxd5 Nc7 18. Qb7 Rb8 19. Qe4 cxb4 20. Rfd1 Qc8 21. Nd4 Re8 22. Nf5 Bf8 23. Qg4 Kh7 24. Bxh6 gxh6 25. Qh5 Kg8 26. Rd3 Re6 27. Rg3+ Rg6 28. Rxg6+ fxg6 29. Qxg6+ Kh8 30. Nxh6 Bxh6 31. Qxh6+ Kg8 32. Qg6+ Kf8 33. Rd1 Ne6 34. Rd3 Ke7 35. Qf6+ Ke8 36. Rg3 Qc5 37. Rg8+ Nf8 38. Rg7 Rb6 39. Qf7+ Kd8 40. Rg8 Kc7 41. Qxf8 Qxf8 42. Rxf8 a5 [d]5R2/2kp4/1r6/pp2P3/1p6/8/1PP2PPP/6K1 w - - After a huge king attack Falcon exchanges material entering into this ending. The question here is how Crafty being down a pawn, also facing 3 connected passers (h2,g2,f2) evaluates this position. Did 42..a5! show a possitive score for Crafty then hat off for Crafty. Did 42..a5! show a < -1.xx or even lower then I would say Crafty indeed was lucky. My own brainchild evaluates +2.xx for black which is a total misjudgement of the involved dynamics of this position. I stored the position into the TODO database. My best, Ed
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.