Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 11:59:17 06/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2005 at 14:49:21, Terry McCracken wrote: >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! Well, I think we had this discussion already. I don´t believe a word of it. >> >>>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. I´m not rude at all. "Keep on babbling" is not an insult in my book. It was not very polite. That´s all Michael > >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.