Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 11:45:16 06/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2005 at 11:07:39, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>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.
>
I never said he played his best chess. I just commented on the style he plays.
And after 1. e4 e6 black could theoretically already resign. ;-)
Anyway, I think to force a tempo loss is not enough to win against Hydra.
It might be barely enough to draw.
As for the rest, I just want to mention:
Palm chess HIARCS 9.5 defeats top Russian GM Sergey Volkov 3-1 in Match
http://www.hiarcs.com/Games/gmvolkov.htm
-regards
Andy
>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.