Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 13:16:30 06/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2005 at 14:45:16, Andreas Guettinger wrote:
>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. ;-)
You wrote "attacking style". In which game did you see an attack by Adams?
I saw him only defending. :)
>Anyway, I think to force a tempo loss is not enough to win against Hydra.
>It might be barely enough to draw.
You overestimate Hydra. Its after all only a "stupid" computer.
>
>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
:))
It was a 5m+3s match
Michael
>-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.