Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 08:14:01 07/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2005 at 07:07:23, Roman Hartmann wrote:
>On July 09, 2005 at 00:03:08, Arturo Ochoa wrote:
>
>>On July 08, 2005 at 23:40:52, Amir wrote:
>>
>>>On July 08, 2005 at 22:19:04, Jonas Cohonas wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Good evening Pablo. Thanks for the posts. You are improving. good to see you
>>>>>winning more games and less draws.
>>>>
>>>>LOL are you actually buying his crap?
>>>
>>>Buying what? Are you claiming the games are fake? If so, post your proof. If
>>>not, 2 points out of 4 games is better score than Ehlvest's. No wonder Zappa's
>>>programmer is too scared to play 2000 players who are anti-comp experts and
>>>instead prefers GMs who have no clue how to play against comps.
>>
>>They are fake if they are compared with live game and using long time controls.
>>That what you don´t realize. The proof is the game are played on chess servers
>>not in live. The proof is the games are played in blitz times. The proof is that
>>showing 4 games or just 1 game doesnt prove anything.
>>
>>Announcing a big fighting based on this games is called _______.
>
>I don't think these games are fake as I followed several games Pablo played on
>the chessbase server. I certainly agree that the games look often a bit the
>same, closing the position and then only shuffling the rooks or king a bit
>around trying to win on time. Rather boring to watch, true, but then it works
>against a lot of engines.
>Playing longer games won't be that easy for Pablo though, not because he can't
>beat the engines in longer time controls, but rather because no one wants to
>play him in longer time controls on the servers. The result would be about the
>same anyway. In fact it might be even easier to win games in longer time
>controls for Pablo. A few weeks ago I kibitzed a game he played against Hydra
>(game below) which was dead draw but then he overlooked a simple fork and lost
>the game (doubt he would have overlooked that fork in a longer time control).
>
>regards
>Roman
>
>[Event "10m + 10s, rated"]
>[Site "playchess.com"]
>[Date "2005.06.28"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "Ares01, Hydra/Scylla-1.06bC"]
>[Black "Father"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "C84"]
>[WhiteElo "2873"]
>[BlackElo "2249"]
>[Annotator "Hartmann,Roman"]
>[PlyCount "90"]
>[EventDate "2005.02.04"]
>[EventType "rapid"]
>
>1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5.
>O-O b5 6. Bb3 Be7 7. d4 d6 8. dxe5 Nxe5 9.
>Nxe5 dxe5 10. Qxd8+ Bxd8 11. a4 c6 12. Be3 O-O 13. Rd1 Be7 14. axb5 cxb5 15. Nc3
>Bb7 16. f3
>Rfd8 17. Kf2 Kf8 18. g4 Rxd1 19. Rxd1 Rd8
>20. Rxd8+ Bxd8 21. Ke2 Nd7 22. Nd5 g5 23. c4
>bxc4 24. Bxc4 h6 25. Bf2 f6 26. b3 Ba5 27.
>h4 Ke8 28. h5 Kd8 29. Be3 Ke8 30. Kd1 Kd8
>31. Kc2 Ke8 32. Bf2 Kd8 33. Bd3 Ke8 34. Kb2 Bd2
>35. Bxa6 Bxd5 36. exd5 Bb4 37. Kc2 Nc5 38.
>Bxc5 Bxc5 39. Kd3 Ke7 40. Ke4 Kd6 41. Kf5 Ke7
>42. Kg6 Bd6 43. Kxh6 Kf7 44. Bc8 Be7 45. Be6+
>Kf8 {Father resigns} 1-0
Of course, we can have our "evergreen" game or our "inmortal" game or our
"wonderful" strategical game. This is not the point. The point is to claim a
theory based on bullet and rapid controls on a chess server.
The new Zappa runs on a machine of 4 CPUs and it is a lot different of the old
Zappa 1.0. The Match against Ehlvest has been run in live not on a chess
server. The condidions are totally different. For Arturo Ochoa, the games are
not relevant to help the engines to fix holes.
The games of Restrepo are Ok for fun. Now, to claim that he beated eveything
useing those conditions is other thing and I cannot take him seriously.
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.