Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 11:49:21 06/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2005 at 14:35:33, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On June 23, 2005 at 14:01:41, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>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. 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. >>>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 >> >>You're a GM huh? >> >>Robin is making a good arguement, and explains his position clearly, but both >>you and Hyatt, both below expert > >You are below expert. Bob is clearly an expert regarding Man vs. Machine. >I don´t know anyone in the world who has more experience. I'm below expert? How would you know? Well, you're wrong, I've eaten Experts for Breakfast! > >>correspondence GM and twice US correspondence champion. > >There are a lot of correspondence GMs in the World with a worse OTB rating than >I have. Maybe? That's not the point. I also think you have a bad habit of talking through your hat. > >Michael > >He's also a published author, Modern Chess Analysis. >He deserves a little more respect. > >He doesn´t need your help. I think he can defend himself if he feels unfair >attacked. That was certainly not my intention. No, he doesn't, but as a member here, I find your continued disrespect pretty childish and annoying. This seems to be a pattern with you. > >Michael > Could You be More Arrogant, More Rude? I guess you can:-) >>>>-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.