Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 22:36:04 06/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2005 at 01:30:02, Matthew Hull wrote: >On June 24, 2005 at 01:09:08, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On June 24, 2005 at 00:45:50, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >>You're quite a "brown-noser" aren't you? >> >>And you told me Authority didn't carry weight with you!? > > >That's why I posted facts. > > >> >>I think Robin made his point and I wouldn't put as much stock in games such as >>these as there is no impetus for the IMs/GMs to win, other than pride. The T/C >>are very important too, so I hope you selected 120 standard. >> >>Another thing, people are often put off of seeing openings listed as A00 down >>through the list. >> >>Oh sorry, you know soooo much more than I or Robin or just about anyone you >>disagree with. >> >>We have names for people like you > > >Uh, factual and logical. > >:) > >Thanks! > > You wouldn't know an accurate fact if it bit you in your posterior. >>but it would get me banned and that would make >>you so terribly happy, so I won't accommodate you. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>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 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.