Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 14:16:13 06/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2005 at 16:42:17, Terry McCracken wrote:
>On June 28, 2005 at 15:10:42, Matthew Hull wrote:
>
>>On June 28, 2005 at 13:25:13, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>
>>>On June 28, 2005 at 12:54:30, Matthew Hull wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 28, 2005 at 12:02:45, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On June 28, 2005 at 09:27:07, Matthew Hull wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On June 28, 2005 at 08:38:47, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On June 28, 2005 at 08:35:42, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On June 28, 2005 at 07:52:32, Jack Lad wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Give me the Black Pieces and give me any human in that position, they'll not
>>>>>>>>escape.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I would look at them and they would know they are toast!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Give me the Black Pieces and even Hydra and it will not survive!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I saw the end before Adams saw it was futile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I saw it even before you. I saw it from the opening moves.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're ignorance is showing. Do you actually play chess? I'm beginnig to have my
>>>>>doubts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell me exactly when Adams was in trouble, tell me what move he made that was
>>>>>risky, tell me when you knew he was lost,(1.e4 Doesn't Cut It!), tell me when he
>>>>>actually had the advantage!
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW Adams as Black in the prior game had an easy draw, what was it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The fact is, I do the shooting and you do the dancing. So it has been. So it
>>>>shall ever be.
>>>
>>>You're shooting your mouth off and not backing it up with facts, outside some
>>>rather dubious statistics.
>>
>>
>>Apparently posting facts and shooting off one's mouth are one and the same to
>>you.
>>
>>
>That's twisting my words, I never made any statements which support your
>ad-hominen arguement!
>>>
>>>You give me no respect, you give Robin no respect, and the worst of all you
>>>don't give GM Michael Adams any respect, whatsoever.
>>
>>
>>I think you give yourself enough respect without my help -- continually boasting
>>that you are a great chessplayer while claiming others are not. You exalt
>>yourself above others without any support other than your own estimation.
>>
>>When your "great chessplayer" opinion is shown to not agree with the facts, you
>>fly off the handle and start your favorite style of discourse -- the ad-hominem
>>attack.
>>
>No sir, you're the attacker here building your strawmen. I haven't loss control,
>but you never have been in control, so now you make false accusations.
>
>I don't exalt myself over other good chessplayers, but will smash a know-it-all
>"puck" when they spout drivel, about one half move!
What you call smashing is just name calling and insults.
>>
>>>
>>>Adams treated the computer like another human GM
>>
>>
>>It has been known for over a decade now that you can't do that and maintain a
>>plus score against a strong program.
>
>Kasparov certainly could score points playing "normal" chess against a machine,
>see Junior Jan. 2003.
>
>BTW less than a decade ago I was winning game 5 against machines frequently
>without anti-computer strategy on fast PCs.
And I was leaping tall buildings in a single bound.
>I still play comps normal chess and
>it's not too hard to get draws, although it's tough too win, most of the time.
>>
>>
>>>, he wanted to play solid chess
>>>not some sort of anti-computer crap
>>
>>
>>Solid chess is chess that obtains a winning score. Losing games is not "solid
>>chess". It's _losing_ chess.
>>
>More blather, when was Adam's game not solid? Tell me his blunders
1. e4 ...
>, I doubt you
>know. Actually he committed no gross blunders, but did make some wrong choices.
>
>You really have no idea how strong Hydra is. Solid chess doesn't mean you'll
>win, you can still lose by small inaccuracies.
He lost with openings that are strong points for computers.
>>
>>>, and for that we get to see how Hydra plays
>>>normal chess. Adams was a bit unlucky
>>
>>
>>He wasn't unlucky. He was unwise.
>
>Tell Adams, but he'll tell you something I'm certain you won't like!
>He knew what he was doing, but the pressure became immense and he lost control.
>Few people could handle the public pressure after faltering as Adams did. So
>it's no surprise he lost. Not for the reasons you have stated, which really
>seems to be one, one-half move!
Well, seeing how a player cannot legally make a full move, a blunder is of
necessity a half-move.
Sheesh.
>>
>>
>>, and his opponent was unforgiving, but we
>>>all learned something from this match, like Adams, with the exception of a few
>>>people who believe 1.e4 and 1..e5 are terrible choices against a machine, even
>>>when it's what you know best.
>>
>>
>>In any contest, it is wisest to hit one's opponent where he is weakest. To do
>>otherwise is to walk into the machine guns of the Somme. There is no honor in
>>it. It's just a waste.
>
>You see waste, I see something else, where one can learn by.
The rest of us learned it over ten years ago. Oh well, better late than never.
>
>Tell me where Hydra is weakest puck, you haven't a clue! Also Adams a strong GM
>didn't know where Hydra was weak
Most GMs know that programs are weak in certain opening systems. Heck, even I
know that. Adams did not play those systems.
>, he couldn't study the program ahead of time,
>as there was no program to study from unlike Fritz and Junior. Kramnik had Fritz
>months in advance. He should've done better. Kasparov too had Junior ahead of
>time and Fritz, so I was disappointed in him as well. Plus they have seconds
>going over games to help them find weaknesses.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Do you think Adams didn't consider the problems of open and semi-open positions
>>>after 1. e4 and 1..e5? Do you think if he really wanted to he couldn't close or
>>>even lock up these positions regardless of his opening choice?
>>>
>>>He didn't want to, he wanted to play regular chess, even if it cost him money
>>>and points. He turned down draws and took risks, knowing he may very well lose.
>>>So he did what he thought was best for him and his audience, even if it turned
>>>out to be a debacle. Give Adams credit for being a real sporstman instead of
>>>nitpicking his opening choices. He knew what he was doing and he knew it could
>>>cost him games, but the play, the learning, his sincerity and integrity were
>>>more important.
>>
>>
>>I don't pretend to read minds. It is better to post facts.
>
>MH:I don't pretend to read minds.
>Niether do I. But I can make reasonable guesses.
>
>MH:It is better to post facts.
>
>Then actually post _informed_ facts not drivel about half-moves that are
>half-baked.
I posted the scrappy opening stats for draws and defeats. I posted the entire
Smirin victory against Tiger. If you'd like, I could post the Smirin victory
with the white pieces over Shredder (1. c4 ...).
[Event "Internet Challenge II"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2002.04.15"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Smirin, Ilia"]
[Black "Deep Shredder"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A22"]
[WhiteElo "2702"]
[Annotator "André Schulz"]
[PlyCount "48"]
[EventDate "2002.??.??"]
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 Bb4 (3... d5 $1 {
is better for computers because then an open position results} 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5.
Bg2 Nb6) 4. Bg2 O-O 5. e4 Bxc3 6. bxc3 d6 7. Ne2 Bg4 $2 (7... c6 8. d3 (8. d4
Nbd7) 8... d5) 8. f3 Be6 $2 ({Better is} 8... Bc8) 9. d3 {Smirin copies the
successful strategy of Loek van Wely in his game against Fritz6 during the
Dutch Championship 2000. The plan is to storm the kingside with the pawns:
f3-f4, g3-g4-g5. The bad moves with the light-squared bishop were also made by
Fritz.} 9... c5 $2 {Naturally Shredder suspects nothing and does not recognise
White's intentions. Other programs would also have problems here because
White's strategy is still infathomable for computers.} ({Much better is} 9...
c6 10. O-O d5 {and White will not be able to execute his plan so easily.}) 10.
O-O h6 $2 {
Black creates a target which makes the White attack even more devastating.} ({
Black is already in trouble, since his job is to mobilise the f-pawn and to
have the counterthrust f7-f5 ready in case White plays f3-f4. But now it is
unclear how Black can do this elegantly. Apart from that many programs have
trouble moving the f-pawn, which they consider to be a protection for the
casteled king.} 10... Qc7 11. f4 Ne8 12. f5) 11. h3 {a security move} (11. f4 {
is probably also possible.}) 11... a6 ({Better is} 11... Ne8 12. f4 f6 13. f5
Bf7 14. g4) 12. a4 ({Better immediately} 12. f4 b5 13. f5 Bd7 14. g4) 12... b6
$2 {Shredder still doesn't understand what is going on, because the
consequences (mate) are way beyond its horizon.} 13. f4 Nc6 14. f5 $16 Bd7 15.
g4 Qc7 $2 ({Better is} 15... Nh7) 16. Ng3 $18 Na5 17. h4 Nh7 18. g5 {
There is no more defence.} 18... hxg5 19. hxg5 Qb7 20. Be3 b5 21. axb5 axb5 22.
Qh5 bxc4 23. f6 Rfc8 24. fxg7 Bg4 1-0
>
>*Your drivel, not the moves.*
>
>So far you've posted no facts that are truly solid, so I think you use the term
>facts rather loosely.
>>
>>But you go right ahead and keep dancing.
>
>It's not me who's dancing Matt...you're the "artful dodger", never addressing a
>question, however I'm a "tank" in your path with the 120mm howitzer trained on
>your position!
That's what the Irakis told us. In any case, my pointed stick is making pretty
good mince-meat of your non-arguments.
>
>You never did address my earlier questions as you can't address them. You
>haven't the chess knowledge and skill to address them.
>
>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?434069
>
>CHECKMATE!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Terry
>
>P.S. The fact I call you or any other weak player, well a weak player isn't
>exalting ones self over everyone else. If you talk like a patzer....or puck
Well, the ad-hominem is your only weapon in this discussion. As such, it also
serves as your surrender flag.
>, a
>little Canadian slang you can add to your repertoire, then you're just begging
>for it:)
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.