Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 23:24:34 06/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2005 at 01:17:46, Matthew Hull wrote:
>On June 28, 2005 at 20:03:00, Terry McCracken wrote:
>
>>On June 28, 2005 at 17:16:13, Matthew Hull wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>You're a fish, sir. That is more then just name calling, it's calling like it
>>is!
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>>You accuse me of lying, I was not! I didn't run into real difficulties till the
>>turn of the century. I just recently played a couple of speed games against CM9K
>>"Full Throttle" in front of a student of the game. I achieved 1.5 to .5!
>>
>>No Anti-Computer Play!
>>>
>>>
>>>>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 ...
>>
>>Error! I use 1.e4!!
>
>
>So does every other patzer on the face of the earth.
Ah..Now I'm the patzer, you're amusing Matt...Chandler tried this on me he got
his head handed to him.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>, 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.
>>
>>No, and that is a fact that I know first hand!
>
>
>It looks like the statistics don't support your claim.
The Stats don't say 1.e4 or ..e5 are the wrong strategy.
I'd like to see a young Fischer plays this beast, and youl'd see 1.e4 and ..e5
would slay this behemoth.
It would be like "Milking a Cow", to him in 72.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>, 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.
>>
>>You're really stuck in this very simple line of reasoning. The first half move,
>>even if it's a3 can't lose by force.
>
>
>First half-move can't lose? Ok. 1. g4 ...
First you just chose one of the worst first moves one can play, but I'm sure it
can be done. However I don't play the Grob, and I won't give you anything for
free.
I'd most likely would lose with the Grob.
>
>Post a PGN with this move where you didn't get your helmet handed to you against
>any commercial program at long time controls.
>
>
>
>>
>>Petrosian, study some of his games.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>, 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.
>>
>>Really? I never needed anti-computer play, so why would I use it? Back in 1995
>>the programs were not that hard to smash to bits if you played them enough, if
>>you were good enough. I was that good!
>>
>>If anti-computer play is the only way to win, then there is no use playing a
>>computer, if you're a tactical player, and I am.
>
>
>Maybe someday you'll learn positional chess like mature, well rounded players.
I do I assure you, this isn't negating tactics. The two work together, as you
well know or should.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Do you think it would help you in a game with Hydra? I don't think so.
>
>
>The statistics from successful GM/IM games against computers makes it rather
>plain that these systems offer the best chances.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>, 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
>>
>>Yeah, I know all about it. Your point?
>
>
>Grandmasters that know what they are doing don't play 1.e4 against strong
>programs. 1.e4 allows programs high chances of opening up the position.
That's bull, Matt, even the stats don't make this claim, you do.
>
>Maybe someday you'll learn. Keep trying. Don't give up.
I do know more than you in this area, and I should, I worked for it!
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>*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 are? You are making an ass of yourself. Did you torture small animals when
>>you were a child? The pointed stick thing and your attempt to inflict damage on
>>me begs the question. The problem is I'm not a small animal and you're starting
>>to get on my nerves.
>>
>>Matt you really have it in reverse, I'm the USA you're Iraq, Bagdad April 7,
>>2003.
>>
>>You keep annoying the KING COBRA with your pointed stick!
>
>
>It's noteworthy that you picture yourself as a snake in one sentence while
>claiming you are no small animal in another, with the by-now familiar suggestion
>of physical violence, e.g. "I'm not ... small ...and you're starting to get on
>my nerves".
>
The King Cobra is a very deadly Snake, and its not small at all, it reaches 18'
in length, sometimes 20'.
Violence Matt? "In Chess You Must Kill Someone.", Nigel Short
If you're afraid of a little bloody nose then you shouldn't play the game.
Crawl back under your bed, with your "army" real battle isn't safe.
>It seems you felt the ad-hominem alone was not sufficient to express your
>capitulation.
Why would I resign or even could resign, I mated you! And as ad-hominen
arguements go you have a flair for them yourself. So clean your house first, and
stop whipping rocks through your own windows.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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
>>
>>You still didn't address my questions!! Proving my points!
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>No! But appears to be your motif! You are MATED but you try to move out of mate
>>by taking the K off the board!
>>
>>Robin thrashed you and you continued, but he is a gentleman...I have a threshold
>>and you deliberately pushed it woodpusher.
>>
>>I lose my composure with you as you are impossible.
>>
>>The insults didn't come until you laid the foundation for it.
>
>
>Ah, so your breaking the rules (charter) is actaully someone else's fault. This
>is a hypothesis held in high regard in the sophisticated social circles of state
>and federal penitentiaries.
BTW if you try to make someone break the rules, it makes you no less guilty
regardless of the fact if you break them or not. You're worse as you know you
can do this and get away with it.
This is a prime example of your character assassination attempts, and is an
ad-homenin, so you too are in violation of the rules within the charter as well.
>
>
>>
>>
>>YOU LOSE!
>>
>>Double Check & Mate!
>>>
>>>
>>>>, a
>>>>little Canadian slang you can add to your repertoire, then you're just begging
>>>>for it:)
>>
>>
>>Are you the kind of player who when playing online in a bullet game runs with
>>his lone K&P to try and win on time?
>>
>>Go Away, you annoy me with your illogical condescending jibberish.
>
>
>Dang. I was hoping you could tell us more about what a great chessplayer you
>are. Do continue. And please, don't bother posting PGNs of your famous
>victories over man and machine. Facts would only establish limits on the height
>of your chess prowess above your fellow posters.
I have posted some of my games, and the reaction I got was pretty low..IE you
cheated, you took back moves etc.
I also never claimed to be the strongest chessplayer at this site, I said I play
master chess, that is all. Yes, I've had some games with IMs/GM's with both
positive and negative results.
The same with computer chess.
You're very ill-mannered, I assume its just your nature, that you can't help
yourself.
The Fox and the Scorpion
You still never addresed my questions from my first reply, and I know you won't,
so you surrendered a long time ago. From your very first reply you were
provoking me, so in essense you chose the wrong opening and lost straight away.
In your own words...
http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?434069
Give it the good old college try, if you can?
P.S. You cut into this thread to create a fight, you instigated this, you
planned this, from the beginning.
You're hoping I'll attack you with extreme verbal abuse so you can have me
banned!
How low will you go?
I'll not accommodate you.
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.