Author: Robin Smith
Date: 10:15:15 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 Adams knows 1...e5 better than you know the back of your own hand. Any other choice besides 1...e5 would have put him in less familiar (to Adams) opening territory. Do you really think he should play openings he doesn't know well against a monster like Hydra? Maybe, 1...e5 is certainly not an anti-computer move and I never claimed it was; but I can't immagine calling someone playing the opening they know best a "blunder" or "outright stupid". I am sure Adams has played dozens (if not 100's) of games against PC's using 1...e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 and done OK, so I'm also sure it wasn't some ill conceived decision on his part as you and others are claiming. -Robin >Michael
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.