Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:53:40 06/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
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, keep hounding Mr. Robin Smith, who is a >correspondence GM and twice US correspondence champion. >He's also a published author, Modern Chess Analysis. > >He deserves a little more respect. I would bet I have watched 1000X more computer vs human games than he has. I would bet I have carefully analyzed 10000X more computer vs human games than he has. Most of us understand the "open position problem". Why he doesn't I don't know. Why Adams is playing suicide chess I don't know. But he certainly is. 0-2 playing 1. e4 e5 as black ought to be instructive enough to show that this plan isn't working. But we get hung up on whether a US correspondence player is more knowledgable about computer vs human chess or not. The answer is simply "no". > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>-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.