Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 08:07:39 06/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2005 at 08:15:32, Andreas Guettinger wrote:
>I think a men vs. machine match constellation is rarely good for the human.
>Adams plays his best attacking style but is outplayed by the computer.
Adams does play his best chess? Which match are you watching?
So far he played very bad, considering he is a >2700 player.
Of course he could play much better, just like most of the other Super-GMs could
have played much stronger in their matches.
Some barely played on 2500 level against the machines.
Great performance by Hydra, and maybe a bit of bad luck for Adams.
>But let's imagine an other scenario. What if Adams had played well prepared
>anti-computer strategy, won one game (and the match) on time at move 257 and
>drew all the other games?
You seem to believe the only Anti-computer strategy is setting up a totally lost
Stonewall position and shuffling the pieces back and forth.
This obviously doesn´t work at all here. The match has a time control
100min+50min+15min+30sec/move. How do you want to win this on time??
Moreover this match is not played in the Chessbase machine room where Computers
are set up to play other Computers, _not_ humans. This computer is set up to
play a human, the book lines and the parameters are altered accordingly.
I watched a very interesting Anti-Computer approach from GM Volkov at the CSS
online tourney:
[Event "PAL/CSS Freestyle Main Tournament"]
[Site "playchess.com #042828"]
[Date "2005.06.05"]
[Round "6"]
[White "wilger, deep shredder 9"]
[Black "sergey volkov"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C11"]
[WhiteElo "2790"]
[Annotator ""]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventDate "2005.06.05"]
1. e4 {0} e6 {4} 2. d4 {0} d5 {2} 3. Nc3 {0} Nf6 {13} 4. e5 {0} Nfd7 {13} 5. f4
{0} c5 {3} 6. Nf3 {0} Nc6 {23} 7. Be3 {0} Rb8 {46} 8. Bb5 {284} a6 {52} 9. Be2
{186} b5 {28} 10. O-O {171} g6 {305} 11. Qd2 {454} Qb6 {115} 12. Nd1 {120} b4 {
91} 13. c4 {129} bxc3 {105} 14. bxc3 {0} a5 {2} 15. Qd3 {134} a4 {456} 16. Nf2
{85} c4 {6} 17. Qc2 {25} Qa5 {39} 18. Rab1 {60} Be7 {59} 19. Rxb8 {37} Ndxb8 {
57} 20. Rb1 {114} a3 {91} 21. Bd2 {85} Nd7 {115} 22. g3 {49} h5 {189} 23. Ng5 {
97} Nb6 {56} 24. Bf3 {14} Bd7 {41} 25. Be1 {40} Nd8 {110} 26. Bg2 {74} Ba4 {100
} 27. Qd2 {0} Kd7 {13} 28. Nfh3 {144} Kc7 {34} 29. Kh1 {124} Bd7 {78} 30. Ng1 {
150} Na4 {27} 31. Bh3 {168} Nb2 {36} 32. N1f3 {61} Be8 {
Sergey Volkov Ïðåäëàãàåò íè~~üo^ (Lag: Av=0.54s, max=1.2s) 141} 1/2-1/2
This is the right way to play a computer. Volkov played the very seldom opening
move 7...Rb8. Shredder on a Dual Opteron was out of book (probably because the
number of games was too small) and produced the tempo loss 8.Bb5?!. After
8...a6 9.Be2 the GM had certainly no problems at all to get a draw.
However this opening line was not pure Anti-Computer. It is simply a suitable
opening line against computers but you can also play it against humans. It is
not some Nonsense opening where you don´t have a safety net at all:
[Event "TCh-RUS"]
[Site "Sochi RUS"]
[Date "2005.04.24"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Sadvakasov, D."]
[Black "Volkov, S1."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C11"]
[WhiteElo "2605"]
[BlackElo "2634"]
[PlyCount "106"]
[EventDate "2005.04.19"]
[SourceDate "2005.04.25"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Rb8 8. Qd2
Qa5 9. Bd3 b5 10. f5 b4 11. fxe6 fxe6 12. Ne2 c4 13. Bxh7 Rxh7 14. O-O Nd8 15.
c3 Be7 16. Bg5 bxc3 17. bxc3 Qa3 18. Qf4 Nf8 19. Qg4 Nf7 20. h4 Rb7 21. Rf2 Nh6
22. Bxh6 gxh6 23. Raf1 Rb2 24. Nh2 Rxe2 25. Rxe2 Qxc3 26. Ref2 Kd7 27. Kh1 Ba6
28. Qg8 Qxd4 29. Rxf8 Bxf8 30. Rxf8 Re7 31. Rd8+ Kc7 32. Nf3 Qc5 33. Qf8 c3 34.
Rd6 Rh7 35. Rd7+ Kb6 36. Qxc5+ Kxc5 37. Rxh7 d4 38. Rd7 d3 39. Kh2 Bb5 40. Rd8
Kb4 41. Rc8 Ba4 42. Rd8 c2 43. Rc8 Ka3 44. Kg3 Kxa2 45. Kf4 Kb2 46. Ke3 c1=Q+
47. Rxc1 Kxc1 48. Kxd3 Kb2 49. Nd2 Bb5+ 50. Kd4 a5 51. g4 a4 52. g5 hxg5 53.
hxg5 a3 0-1
Michael
After the match some happy anti-computer specialists
>would cry yes!, he did it. But the major part of the (non-computer) chess fans
>would not be satified with the match (maybe even disgusted). Maybe also Adams
>would not be proud of his performance. There would be always the question what
>would have been if he played a more attacking (and more interesting) chess
>match?
>
>I think that's why Adams choose to go down proudly playing his (maybe not) best
>attacking style. If he wins, he is the hero. If he wins with sneaky play, the he
>is the guy who won the boring match. Ergo there is more to win with attractive
>play. And most GMs want to play attractive (or what they consider attractive,
>even if it's the Berlin defense). And they want to win.
Many don´t want to play attractive at all. Otherwise they wouldn´t produce lots
off boring draws in the Petroff Defence. They wan´t achieve the highest possible
score. That is all.
Michael
>
>regards
>Andy
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.