Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 15:13:06 06/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2005 at 17:42:29, Terry McCracken wrote: >On June 23, 2005 at 17:17:51, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>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". > >I'm not anonymous. And yes Michael talk is cheap. You're getting a little >frustrated I see. I certainly don´t get frustated at all. >> >>>>>>>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 > >Hmmmm...who's thin-skinned? If you were in violation of the rules I'd complain, >you haven't crossed that boundary, yet. > >If you don't care less what I or Robin have said, then why reply? BTW I never >stated your opinions were nonsense You misunderstood me. I used the word "Nonsense" in a reply to Robin Smith. Michael it was/is your demeanour that I find >inappropriate. > >Terry McCracken
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.