Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 14:17:51 06/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2005 at 15:33:36, Terry McCracken wrote: >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. Talk is cheap "Mr. Anonymous". >>>>>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. If you think I have violated the charter simply make a complaint. I´m sure I didn´t. You need to grow some thicker skin and not understand everything as an insult. I couldn´t care less about someone who is not of my opinion and states it is Nonsense. Michael
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.