Author: Pablo Ignacio Restrepo
Date: 06:49:50 07/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
Vladimir,
Great Job. Congratullations.
Best regards,
Pablo
On July 24, 2005 at 22:52:08, Vladimir Xern wrote:
>...are blitz games against the aging (yet quite strong) amateur Delfi 4.5 and
>are probably not good for much more than a few test positions and a laugh or
>two.
>
>First, a preface. Although they each borrow from each other, I believe that
>three categories of computer-slaying have cropped up:
>
>a) "Anti-chess" espoused by Pablo Restrepo, locking up a position and winning on
>time (I think this is solely the domain of internet chess).
>b) Specially prepared variations or traps (e.g., the "Nemeth Gambit") which are
>repeatedly practiced against a computer until a satisfactory finished product
>can be presented.
>c) Outplaying the opposition in real time.
>
>Obviously c) is the most desirable, yet is quickly becoming the least
>obtainable. Between the other two, a) is more "boring" as many have said, yet,
>I believe, more technically impressive. Each game is played in real time, such
>that one cannot prepare for a specific opponent (Shredder, Fritz, etc.),
>specific condition (computer speed), or specific variation, and follows only a
>general strategy. Seeing the game in which Pablo defeated Fritz a queen down
>was awe-inspiring. Of course it didn't have the thrill of, say, Tal demolishing
>someone with a spectacular sacrifice, yet it represented a seemingly impossible
>feat that was amazingly accomplished. That said, I think that b) is less
>technically impressive because it is accomplished by preparing a trap for an
>opponent to fall into under very controlled conditions (computer speed, time
>control, opening variation, and first-move privilege). Nevertheless, the latter
>are typically more visually appealing as games of chess, as I hope the following
>games are.
>
>I first got the idea for this post by noticing that Delfi's small book allowed
>it to fall for a somewhat well-known trap. 6...Nxd5?? transposes into a losing
>variation of the Lolli Attack.
>
>[Event "Computer chess game"]
>[Site ""]
>[Date "2005.07.24"]
>[White "Me"]
>[Black "Delfi 4.5"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[TimeControl "300+1"]
>
>1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Ng5 d5 6. exd5 Nxd5 7. O-O f6
>8. Nc3 dxc3 9. Bxd5 fxg5 10. Re1+ Be7 11. Bxg5 Kf8 12. Qf3+ Bf6 13. Rad1
>Bd7 14. Bc4 b5 15. Be6 Bxe6 16. Rxd8+ Rxd8 17. Bxf6 Bd5 18. Be7+ Kg8 19.
>Qxc3 Nxe7 20. Rxe7 Bf7 21. h4 Re8 22. Rxc7 h5 23. Qf3 Rf8 24. Qb7 Rh6 25.
>Qxb5 a6 26. Qd3 Rf6 27. Qd4 Re8 28. c4 Re1+ 29. Kh2 Rfe6 30. Qd3 R1e2 31.
>c5 Re8 32. Qf3 Bg6 33. Qb7 Kh7 34. Rxg7+ Kh6 35. c6 Rxf2 36. c7 Rf6 37. Rd7
>Bf5 38. Qf3 Kg6 39. Qg3+ Bg4 40. Rd8 Rff8 41. c8=Q Rxd8 42. Qxa6+ Rf6 43.
>Qb5 Rdf8 44. Qg5+ Kh7 45. Q3e5 R8f7 46. Qe8 Rf8 47. Qe4+ Bf5 48. Qe7+ R8f7
>49. Qgxf6 Rxe7 50. Qxe7+ Kg8 51. Qg5+ Kf7 52. Qxf5+ Ke7 53. Qxh5 Ke6 54.
>Qg6+ Kd5 55. h5 Kd4 56. h6 Ke3 57. h7 Kd2 58. h8=Q Ke3 59. Qc3+ Kf2 60.
>Qgg3+ Kf1 61. Qce1#
>
>
>The nice-looking book move 8.Nc3 wins for white (8.Re1 transposes after ...Be7
>9.Nc3, so check the pv for when it finds Nc3 with a winning score.)
>
>[D] r1bqkb1r/ppp3pp/2n2p2/3n2N1/2Bp4/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq -
>
>
>The following game features a strange opening, strange sequence of sacrifices,
>strange king-hunt, and a strange endgame (Post-game Fruit analysis says I
>blundered on move 45, but at least Delfi didn't notice). I don't know *exactly*
>what's going on or if any of my moves were good (in hindsight, I'd guess a 1-0
>justifies the unsound, speculative means), so I'll leave it to the better
>players to extract any possible test positions.
>
>[Event "Computer chess game"]
>[Site ""]
>[Date "2005.07.24"]
>[White "Me"]
>[Black "Delfi 4.5"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[TimeControl "300+1"]
>
>1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nf3 dxe4 4. Ng5 Bf5 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nc3 b5 7. Bb3 Be7 8.
>Ncxe4 h6 9. Nxf7 Kxf7 10. Ng3 Bg6 11. O-O Nf6 12. f4 Nd5 13. f5 exf5 14.
>Nxf5 Bf6 15. Nh4 Be4 16. Qg4 Re8 17. Bxh6 gxh6 18. Rae1 Qd7 19. Qh5+ Ke7
>20. Rxe4+ Kd8 21. Qg6 Rxe4 22. Qxe4 a6 23. Nf5 h5 24. Ne3 Nxe3 25. Rxf6 Nd5
>26. Rf5 Kc7 27. Bxd5 cxd5 28. Rxd5 Qg4 29. Qe7+ Kb6 30. Qc5+ Kb7 31. Rd6
>Qd1+ 32. Kf2 Qd2+ 33. Kf3 Qd1+ 34. Ke3 Qg1+ 35. Kd3 Qf1+ 36. Kc3 Qc4+ 37.
>Qxc4 bxc4 38. Rd8 a5 39. Rh8 Nc6 40. Rxa8 Kxa8 41. Kxc4 Nb4 42. Kb3 Kb7 43.
>c4 Nd3 44. g3 Ne1 45. c5 Nd3 46. a3 Kc6 47. Kc3 Nf2 48. Kc4 a4 49. d5+ Kd7
>50. b4 axb3 51. Kxb3 Ne4 52. Kc4 Nd2+ 53. Kb4 Nf1 54. a4 Ne3 55. d6 Kc6 56.
>a5 Nc2+ 57. Ka4 Nd4 58. a6 Ne6 59. Kb4 Nd8 60. a7 Kb7 61. Kb5 Kxa7 62. c6
>Kb8 63. c7+ Kc8 64. cxd8=Q+ Kxd8 65. Kc6 Kc8 66. d7+ Kd8 67. h4 Ke7 68. Kc7
>Kf6 69. d8=Q+ Kf5 70. Qg5+ Ke4 71. Qxh5 Kd4 72. Kd6 Ke3 73. Qe5+ Kf3 74.
>Qf4+ Ke2 75. h5 Ke1 76. h6 Kd1 77. h7 Kc2 78. h8=Q Kb3 79. Qb8+ Kc2 80. Qd4
>Kc1 81. Qbb2#
>{White mates} 1-0
>
>Lastly..
>
>Dear dissidents,
>
> These games are provided as entertainment and proof of concept. Therefore,
>I'm not obligated to play an arranged match against your Shredder on 8
>processors, to waste 7 hours playing at classical time controls, upgrade my old
>1.4 GHz computer to the bleeding edge just to prove myself, or otherwise fulfill
>any of your condescending and antagonistic whims. I am not a grandmaster; the
>purpose of these games is not to play like one, but to demonstrate a legitimate
>victory. Do not make patronizing demands that do not correlate with the purpose
>of my experiment and whose only effect is to bolster your own ego. Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
> [Insert name of much-maligned computer slayer]
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.