Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:42:44 06/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2005 at 08:01:59, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On June 22, 2005 at 04:56:28, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>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 > >I don´t care at all. This discussion is about man vs. machine OTB chess, not >correspondence chess. > >It doesn´t matter whether the Petroff Defence is drawish or not. >It is pretty much the worst opening I can think of to play OTB against a >computer which calculates about 100 million nodes per second. >Even some lines in the Ruy Lopez are better. > >Michael I would bet that Hans Berliner, a former _world_ correspondence chess champion, would agree. Correspondence against humans is a totally different world from chess vs a computer of this computational speed...
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.