Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 21:45:50 06/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2005 at 23:08:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 23, 2005 at 17:13:16, Robin Smith wrote: > >>On June 23, 2005 at 16:43:19, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On June 23, 2005 at 15:53:46, Robin Smith wrote: >>> >>>>On June 23, 2005 at 14:57:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 11:29:32, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 09:39:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 03:37:51, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 16:20:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 13:51:40, Robin Smith wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On June 22, 2005 at 03:10:00, Drexel,Michael 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>You don´t have a clue. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>And you do? :-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>It´s always easy to sacrifice the exchange of others. In order to play this >>>>>>>>>>>sacrifice you have to calculate correctly some very concrete lines. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Of course. That is obvious and I never said otherwise. All I said was that black >>>>>>>>>>is OK if he plays cxd4 instead of Rc7. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>For example 24.Bxc8 Bxe5 ( The ending after 24...Qxc8 is very difficult to play >>>>>>>>>>>for black) 25.Bxf5 d3 24.Qc6 d2 27.Bxd2 Nxd2 28.Rxe5 Nxb1 29.Bxb1 Qd1+ 30.Kh2 >>>>>>>>>>>Qxb1 31.Qd6 Kg8 32.Rxh5 Qxa2 = and the position after 25.Qxc8 Qf6 26.Qc4 Qxe5 >>>>>>>>>>>27.g3 is very difficult to play for black. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Definitely not the typ of position you want to play against a computer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I agreed this is not the type of position a human wants to be in in another >>>>>>>>>>post. Did you read it before you shot off your mouth? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Therefore Adams Rc7 is a completely understandable decision. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I agree that Adams decision was understandable. I never said otherwise. It was >>>>>>>>>>also a mistake, that's all; an understandable mistake. I have always agreed that >>>>>>>>>>by this point Adams was in the type of position that is hard for a human to >>>>>>>>>>play. That does not mean he made mistakes earlier. It is easier for white to >>>>>>>>>>create open, messy positions that are hard for a human to play than it is for >>>>>>>>>>black to prevent it, so just because it happens does not mean Adams made >>>>>>>>>>mistakes prior to getting into such a position. Hyrda won because Hydra played >>>>>>>>>>well, not because Adams "blundered" or made "outright stupid" choices or "GM >>>>>>>>>>Adams missed this move". I think it is disrespectful to GM Adams when people say >>>>>>>>>>such things, especially since Adams _didn't_ blunder. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>-Robin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I'll say it again. You can throw high, fast and outside to a big hitter, and >>>>>>>>>when he slaps it over the fence, you can say "good shot". Or you can say "lousy >>>>>>>>>pitch." In this game, it was a lousy pitch by Adams. If he chooses to avoid >>>>>>>>>anti-computer type chess, that's fine, and no it isn't a blunder. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Then why in http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?432636 did you say >>>>>>>>"He was guilty of a different type of blunder. Namely of playing 1. ... e5 >>>>>>>>against the computer." Was it a blunder or not? Have you changed your position >>>>>>>>so that now we agree? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-Robin >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No. It was a mistake, or a blunder, or a foolhardy opening choice. You pick >>>>>>>the description. But it was clearly the wrong approach to playing a computer. >>>>>>>Anyone that has played them often will say the same thing... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't see why this turns into an argument when the basic premise is so well >>>>>>>understood by so many... >>>>>> >>>>>>Bob, believe it or not I understand the desirability of keeping the position >>>>>>closed. Over and over again I have agreed with that. But there is a second basic >>>>>>premise, also understood by so many ... play openings you know. You keep not >>>>>>addressing that. >>>>>> >>>>>>-Robin >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>There is nothing to address then. Let 'im keep playing 1. e4 e5. He has lost >>>>>both of those as black, in sterling fashion. He can continue to do so, or he >>>>>can decide to vary as Kasparov and others have when playing computers. We know >>>>>what sticking with e5 is going to produce. We know the computer is not going to >>>>>change. So either he does, or he goes down in flames. Which would you >>>>>suggest??? >>>> >>>>If I were to suggest something to Adams, it would be for him to play the Caro. >>>>At least he has played it on occaision, so it is not completely unfamiliar. But >>>>if he does opt for 1...e5 I won't hurl insults at him, implying he is stupid, as >>>>you have done. If he plays 1...e5 I would assume that he is more comfortable >>>>playing such openings against computers than he is playing other openings. All >>>>the GMs practice with computers these days. Do you honestly belive you know >>>>better than Adams what openings he does best against computers? >>> >>> >>>If you can show double king pawn games where GMs on the black side do well >>>against _strong_ computers, you will have made your point. >> >>Fair enough. How about: >> >>Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1996. Kasparov won. >>Deep Fritz - Kramnik 2002, game 1. An easy draw for Kramnik >>Deep Fritz - Kramnik 2002, game 3. Kramnik won. >>Kasparov - X3D Fritz, 2003, game 2. Even though Kasparov lost this game he was >>in a _superior_ and _relatively closed_ position when he blundered away at least >>an easy draw (with some _winning_ chances) on move 32. >> >>Is that enough? >> >>-Robin >> > > > > >How about listing _all_ such games? Might there be a _different_ overall >conclusion based on all e4 e5 games, rather than cherry-picking one here and >there? Here are the opening stats for scrappy (Crafty versus humans only) losses in the last year or so (opening code and # of games): Scrappy losses playing the white pieces A02 1 A40 1 B07 1 C02 2 A03 5 Scrappy losses playing the black pieces A00 1 A05 1 A25 1 A46 1 C41 1 C45 1 D45 1 D85 1 E15 1 E70 1 E92 1 A79 2 B22 2 C42 2 D02 2 D10 2 > > > > > > > > > > > >>>Until then, Bob has made his point, IMHO, and the recent games are eloquent >>>testimony to that fact. >>> >>>> >>>>-Robin >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>But it _is_ a >>>>>>>>>mistake. You play to your opponent's weaknesses, not to his strength, for max >>>>>>>>>advantage. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Michael >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>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
This page took 0.01 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.