Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: My thought on Hydra vs Adams Game 1. Yes c4! was a killer shot.

Author: Robin Smith

Date: 10:45:24 06/23/05

Go up one level in this thread


On June 23, 2005 at 12:46:37, Drexel,Michael wrote:

>On June 23, 2005 at 11:14:06, Robin Smith wrote:
>
>>On June 23, 2005 at 09:37:40, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On June 23, 2005 at 01:32:43, Robin Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 23:33:05, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 21:49:25, Robin Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 16:17:31, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 23:00:37, Robin Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 18:36:34, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On June 21, 2005 at 16:44:21, Torstein Hall 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This is in my view far to general. Black was at least = uptil move 23.Be6
>>>>>>>>>>[D]2rq1r1k/6pp/p2bB3/2p1Np1b/3Pn3/7P/P1Q2PP1/1RB1R1K1 b - - 0 23
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Define "equal".  Here I am considering the important detail that white is a
>>>>>>>>>computer, black is a human.  In that regard, black is _not_ equal up to move 23.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>By that logic Adams was already much worse after 1.e4 no matter what he did.
>>>>>>>>Let's face it, Hydra is stronger. Adams will probably be under presure in every
>>>>>>>>game where he has the black pieces.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact, I don't believe black is anywhere near equal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He is equal unless you use your "considering the important detail that white is
>>>>>>>>a computer" logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>He isn't lost, but he is far from equal and is at best fighting for a draw.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But in an open position.
>>>>>>>>>And he just has no chance in that kind of position.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He was under presure, yes. That is a far cry from "has no chance".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But I would take white anywhere along the way in that game, as a human playing
>>>>>>>>>another human.  And by the way, any move after the "knight to the rim" move
>>>>>>>>>finds white better IMHO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Your opinion is wrong, unless perhaps you mean that white had a very slight
>>>>>>>>advantage. That is the norm in chess, by the way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Adams played 23...Rc7 while 23...cxd4 looks like it holds everything nicely
>>>>>>>>>>together.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Doesn't quite hold everything nicely together.  The comps were at about +1 here
>>>>>>>>>already, went to +1.5 on the Rc7 move.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Maybe Craqfty sees +1, but the top programs don't see anything near +1 until
>>>>>>>>_after_ Rc7. Before Rc7 black was fine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But then the next few moves were mostly
>>>>>>>>>bad by black, turning this into a debacle.  But if there were not so many open
>>>>>>>>>files, open diagonals, etc, black wouldn't have had to be worrying about tactics
>>>>>>>>>all over the board.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One line could be 23...cxd4 24.Qxc8 Qf6 25.Qc4 Qxe5 26.Qa5 and black
>>>>>>>>>>looks OK to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But white looks better to me there.  Maybe not "winning better" but
>>>>>>>>>"significantly better".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Try "very slightly better". Adams played well until Rc7. Hydra is very strong
>>>>>>>>and kept putting the presure on and finally Adams made a mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-Robin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Again, let me remind you that I qualified my response to "knowing this is a
>>>>>>>computer vs human, black is exposing himself to difficulty."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is _not_ what you said. If that _had_ been what you said I would have
>>>>>>agreed. But your original statements were stronger. Here are some actual quotes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is _the_ actual quote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"efine "equal".  Here I am considering the important detail that white is a
>>>>>computer, black is a human.  In that regard, black is _not_ equal up to move 23.
>>>>>
>>>>>In fact, I don't believe black is anywhere near equal.  He isn't lost, but he
>>>>>is far from equal and is at best fighting for a draw.  But in an open position.
>>>>>And he just has no chance in that kind of position.
>>>>>
>>>>>But I would take white anywhere along the way in that game, as a human playing
>>>>>another human.  And by the way, any move after the "knight to the rim" move
>>>>>finds white better IMHO."
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe that shows exactly what I said I said...  "the important detail".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hyatt:"black making an error here, an error there"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In chess terms he made his error on move 23, not "an error here, an error there"
>>>>>>before move 23. In anti-computer terms, by your logic he should never should
>>>>>>agreed to the match, since 1...e5 is the defense he knows best and no matter
>>>>>>what he does he will be playing into Hydra's strength (either the "open game" or
>>>>>>else openings Adams doesn't know as well as Hydra).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hyatt:"he just has no chance in that kind of position"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is silly. Of course he has a chance. The odds are against him, yes. The
>>>>>>odds are against him when he has black no matter _what_ opening he plays. But
>>>>>>Adams on a good day will find a way to hold 1...e5 against Hydra, even if/when
>>>>>>Hydra opens things up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hyatt:"Doesn't quite hold everything nicely together. The comps were at about +1
>>>>>>here already, went to +1.5 on the Rc7 move."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. Maybe Crafty said +1, but the _top_ programs say ~=.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hyatt:"If your strength is in the same area as your opponent, but his strength
>>>>>>in that area is much greater, only an idiot would stick with that plan"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're calling Adams an idiot? This is the kind of statement I find really
>>>>>>offensive. What arrogance!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'd be fairly happy with either side against an equal human opponent.  But
>>>>>>>against a computer, I want things blocked, not open.  e4 e5 is the wrong way to
>>>>>>>block things up.  There are multiple options after e4 that avoid many of the
>>>>>>>wide-open king-pawn type positions...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He's done the same thing again today.  f4 was the move I would play as white,
>>>>>>>_unless_ I was playing a computer.  Before I would play f4, I would have to be
>>>>>>>_certain_ that I can win from that point.  I would not want to leave the
>>>>>>>computer playing on both sides of the board, with a pair of bishops, pair of
>>>>>>>rooks and a queen still on the board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then how come he got a draw today?
>>>>>
>>>>>Fortunate,  to say the least.
>>>>>
>>>>>1.5 - .5 is not exactly a scintillating result??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So again, my comments were based not on pure chess, but on the opponent for
>>>>>>>Adams...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe Adams knows better than anyone else on the planet in what openings he
>>>>>>does best against computers. I think it is highly arrogant when people suggest
>>>>>>otherwise. The fact that Adams is a 1...e5 player does not help him, I agree;
>>>>>>but if he starts switching openings he will also have trouble, since now he will
>>>>>>be playing a computer that knows the opening better than he does. _Either_ way
>>>>>>is an up-hill battle. Adams might try 1...c6, since he has played that on
>>>>>>occaision, but anything else is highly unlikely and computers can put some real
>>>>>>presure on in the Caro too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-Robin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Believe or say what you want.  If you think humans ought to play open positions
>>>>>against the computers, that's your right to believe so.  But it is an insane way
>>>>>to play the game, as has been demonstrated _countless_ times in GM vs Comp
>>>>>matches over the past few years...
>>>>
>>>>I notice that:
>>>>1) You conveniently don't comment on the other quotes from your posts, just the
>>>>first one of the 5 I mentioned. Hmmm.
>>>
>>>I notice that you have a _real_ problem following a conversation.
>>
>>I have noticed you have a _real_ problem with insulting people you don't agree
>>with.
>>
>>>I tend to not
>>>repeat something over and over if avoidable.  I made it clear that my comments
>>>were colored by the "computer vs human" issue.  Early in the thread.  I didn't
>>>see any need to continually repeat that over and over.
>>>
>>>If that slipped by you, oh well...
>>
>>No, that did not slip by me. I know all about the "computer vs human" issue.
>>What _has_ slipped by me is a specific response by you to some of the specific
>>quotes from you that I took issue with. I guess I will never get a response to
>>those (other than insults). For example in one post you called 1...e5 against a
>>computer "a blunder". In another you said not playing in an anti-computer style
>>is "not a blunder". Which is it?
>>
>>>>2) You seem to claim that I "think humans ought to play open positions against
>>>>the computers";
>>>
>>>Please learn to read, then return to the discussion.
>>
>>Bob, you are the one not reading here. I was talking about what you seem to
>>think that _I_ said: "If you think humans ought to play open positions against
>>the computers, that's your right to believe so". But I have _never_ said humans
>>ought to play open positions against the computers. Why do you imply that I
>>think that? What quote can you show me where I said _anything_ remotely like
>>that? You can't. Instead you twist my words into something I didn't say and then
>>argue against the straw man you created.
>>
>>>I said _exactly_ the opposite unless I had a typo somewhere.
>>
>>Yes, I _KNOW_. I was talking about what you were saying about _me_. Learn to
>>read, then return to the discussion. :-)
>>
>>>Clearly humans should play closed positions against computers.
>>
>>I agree, and I have repeatedly agreed. If they can. It just isn't all that easy
>>against a program such as Hydra, playing the white pieces, that has probably
>>been designed to open lines in anti-human fashion rather than being tuned to
>>beat other computers, as most PC programs have been.
>>
>>>That is what all the "anti-computer style" posts
>>>are always talking about...  I didn't say that you said the above anywhere in my
>>>posts.
>>
>>Then what is this?: "If you think humans ought to play open positions against
>>the computers, that's your right to believe so."
>>
>>I _never_ said anything remotely like that. Stop putting up straw men.
>>
>>>I simply pointed out that open positions are _bad_ when playing a
>>>computer.  Period.
>>
>>I _KNOW_; I _AGREE_. You can stop repeating yourself now. But you have also said
>>other things. Like playing 1...e5 against a computer is a "blunder". I don't
>>agree with that. You have also said, in effect, that Adams should play openings
>>he doesn't know. I don't agree with that either.
>>
>>>> but I _never_ said that. In fact I agree they shouldn't as I
>>>>said in my other posts. But keeping the position closed is easier said than
>>>>done, just avoiding 1...e5 is not enough. Plus if it means the human must leave
>>>>their known book it is out of the frying pan into the fire.
>>>
>>>Not for a GM.  They have a few more skills than that and I doubt Adams or any
>>>other GM would feel that uncomfortable playing something unusual.
>>
>>Some GMs have very wide opening repertoires. Others do not. Adams is one of the
>>ones who does not. In another post I gave a game where Adams tried the Najdorf
>>against a player rated 370 points lower. Adams lost. I don't believe he has
>>played the Sicilian since.
>>
>>>And he did have months to prepare, don't forget.
>>
>>Yes. I'm sure he did. And he probably played 1...e5 against PC's, and he
>>probably did just fine.
>>
>>>If he didn't use that time to figure this out, what more could be said?
>>
>>What makes you think Adams didn't figure something out? And how can you be sure
>>he didn't figure out that he can play 1...e5 against computers and do OK? Not
>>every game that starts 1.e4 e5 ends up open and messy. Not every game that
>>starts 1.e4 <insert black move that is not e5 here> ends up closed and
>>positional. White has a much easier time creating and open and messy game than
>>black trying to keep things quiet. Of course PC's that have been tuned to play
>>PC's don't generally open things up, but I think Hydra has been tuned to
>>anti-human, not PC's.
>>
>>Let me sum up my position for you Bob; maybe this time you will understand :-)
>>
>>1) I agree that where possible, humans should avoid open positions against
>>computers. You don't need to keep repeating that. Everyone already knows that.
>>Believe it or not, even Adams knows that.
>>
>>2) For a GM with a wide opening repertoire, avoiding 1.e4 e5 is a good idea,
>>because of #1, above.
>>
>>3) For a GM with a limited opening repertoire (Adams) it is _also_ a good idea
>>to play the openings you know.
>>
>>Adams opted to pay attention to #3. That is not a "blunder" or any of the other
>>names his decision has been called. It is opting for the fire instead of the
>>frying pan. That Adams lost the game is not surprising. Hydra is stronger. Hydra
>>had white. A Hydra win was the most probable outcome no matter what opening
>>Adams chooses.
>
>Keep on babbling.

Keep throwing insults. It makes you look so mature. :-)

>All your arguments are refuted by reality.
>Right now Adams got smashed again after 1.e4 e5.
>Again he was completely lost in under 30 moves.

Would Adams have done any better in an opening he doesn't know? I think not,
Hydra is too strong, but the only way we will ever know is if Adams adopts an
anti-computer defense in game 5.

-Robin

>The game 2 clearly proved that Hydra has no clue what to do if there is nothing
>to do (Bf8,Be7,Bf8,h6) etc. before Adams tried to lose the game but didn“t
>succeed. Probably he dreamed about a Kingside attack. He played some unnecessary
>and weak positional moves in this game
>
>Michael
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>-Robin



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.