Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 12:33:36 06/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2005 at 14:59:17, Drexel,Michael wrote: >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. We did? When? I don't give a damn what you believe, all my chess friends have master ratings (with few exceptions) and I do win a lot of games, period. >>> >>>>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 > Well you have a "book" that needs revision, as you have been crass, ill-mannered to both myself and 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.