Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 01:56:28 06/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2005 at 02:42:34, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On June 21, 2005 at 22:48:47, Robin Smith wrote: > >>On June 21, 2005 at 18:39:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 21, 2005 at 16:13:31, Robin Smith wrote: >>> >>>>On June 21, 2005 at 15:30:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:19:44, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:11:23, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 14:04:37, Ted Summers wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>To sum it up " He played a drawish opening in a tactic way. " Not a good idea >>>>>>>>when computers are able to hang with the best and proving themself as better >>>>>>>>than humans in open tactical positions. However I still think GM Adams can pull >>>>>>>>it together and Win or Draw this match. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>[D] r2q1rk1/1pp3pp/p2b4/nP1p1p1b/2PPn3/3B1N1P/P1QN1PP1/1RB1R1K1 b - - 0 17 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Having reached this position, we seemed to be watching the beginning of the end >>>>>>>>for Adams in the first game but hopefully not the match. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>C4! was a killer positional shot. >>>>>> >>>>>>c4 was a good move, but hardly a "killer". >>>>>> >>>>>>>It seems clear GM Adams missed this move when he played Na5. >>>>>> >>>>>>Perhaps Adams miissed it, but it hardly seems "clear", since Black is still OK >>>>>>afterwards. His loss happened later. >>>>>> >>>>>>-Robin >>>>>The problem here is that the kingside is already a bit open. One does _not_, as >>>>>a human, allow the computer to open _both_ sides of the board in the same game. >>>> >>>>Agreed. But that had already happened _before_ black played Na5. Hydra was >>>>forcing the position open on the queenside even before Na5 and there was already >>>>no way for Adams to stop it. >>>> >>>>>It invites a debacle such as this. Of course, he made a couple of tactical >>>>>errors around the point where the rook on C8 was hanging, but he was already in >>>>>the wrong kind of position... >>>>> >>>>>All the comps were suggesting the same moves as played by Hydra, so there was no >>>>>real surprises from the white side, just black making an error here, an error >>>>>there, before long he fell off the rim of the canyon. >>>> >>>>Adams clearly made a mistake, Rc7, but from a pure chess point of view it is not >>>>clear to me that he had made any other mistakes prior to this, and I find people >>>>saying things like he "played like a 2300 player" and "an error here, an error >>>>there" etc most disrespectful, all the more so since he didn't make the kind of >>>>gross blunders other super GM's have made against computers. Of course everyone >>>>knows he did not end up in the type of position that is comfortable to play >>>>against a computer; but it is easier for a determined player with the white >>>>pieces to create an open and messy position than it is for black to keep it >>>>closed and positional. >>>> >>>>-Robin >>> >>> >>>He was guilty of a different type of blunder. Namely of playing 1. ... e5 >>>against the computer. That was blunder 1. Why enter an open position? >> >>Because 1...e5 has been Adams defense of choice for 15 years. He knows it like >>the back of his hand. Perhaps it is unfortunate for Adams that 1...e5 is the >>defense he knows best, but that is a fact. If he had played something else >>people would have been complaining "Why did Adams play an opening that is not >>his main weapon of choice". Adams lost because Hydra is stronger, plain and >>simple > > > >> >>>Would you consider a baseball pitcher that pitches fast, high and outside to Babe Ruth >>>to be "a professional player that made a small mistake" or "a professional >>>player that made a bad blunder?" >> >>I consider baseball analogies irrelevant. >> >>>The usual idea is to play to your opponent's weaknesses, not his strengths... >> >>Right. But the usual idea is _also_ to play to your _own_ strengths. Adams >>strength is 1...e5. He sometimes plays 2...Nc6 but in this game played the >>"drawish" 1...Nf6. A good choice and an opening he knows very well and not a >>"blunder" by any stretch of the imagination. > >Nonsense, this wasn´t a good choice at all. >The human is superior in developing long term plans. >Therefore it was outright stupid to play the Petroff defence > >Michael It might be a good idea to check Robin's profile before throwing words like "nonsense" around! Andrew
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.