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.