Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 16:52:01 05/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1999 at 17:48:14, Francis Monkman wrote: >An *absolute classic* win for LDD 2.0, with the exception of two moves, and >a little help forcing mate. 60 secs/move, which I guess equates to 30 with >two programs running. > >1. c4 Nf6 2. d4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. Qa4 Bb4+ 7. Bd2 Nd5 >8. Qb5 Bxd2+ 9. Nbxd2 c3 10. bxc3 Nxc3 11. Qd3 Nd5 12. O-O O-O 13. Rac1 Up till >here, Genius6 has played from book, but LGG2.0 has played this standard opening >without a book, and usually choosing the best move first. This next move takes >Genius6 out of book 13...Bd7 14. a3! Qe7 15. e3 Rad8 16. Rc5 b6 17. Rcc1 a5 >18. e4 Nf6 19. e5?! played almost immediately. I thought White was trying to >get his knight there ..Nd5 20. Ne4 h6! (two can play at that game) 21. Rc2 Na7 >22. Rb1 Nc8! one step ahead 23. Qb3 Qe8! 24. Rcc1 Bc6 25. Qc4 Nce7 26. Nfd2 >Rd7 27. Rb2 Qa8 28. Rbc2 Bb7 29. Qa4 Rfd8 30. Qb5 Nf5 31. Qb2 Nf4!! This was >where FM intervened, for the sake of the game. LGG2.0 would have played (note >this is 30 secs/move) 31...Qb8, but meanwhile Genius6 had spotted this fine >combination. In post-game analysis, LGG2.0 actually found this on exactly >59 seconds! It's also fair to point out the significant advantage that Black >has already gained by now. 32. gxf4 Nxd4 33. f3 Ne2+! 34. Kf2 Nxc1 >35. Qxc1 Qb8 36. Nf1 Bxe4 37. fxe4 b5 38. Qe3 b4 39. axb4 axb4 40. Qc5 b3 >41. Rb2 Qa8 42. Kg1 Rd3 43. Qb4 Qa7+ 44. Kh1 c5 45. Qb5 Qa3 46. Re2 c4! >The second move where LGG2.0 needed help (playing 46...Qa1, on this move >post-game analysis took several minutes to find 46...c4!) 47. Qxc4 b2 >48. Qc2 Rb3 49. Qb1 Rc8 50. Rxb2 Rxb2 and really White should resign here >51. Qd1 Rcc2 52. Qf3 Qxf3 53. Bxf3 Rf2 54. Bg2 Rxg2 55. f5 Rgc2! (LGG2.0 >misses this clever Mate in 6, right until the last two moves -- curious) >56. Kg1 Rb1 57. h3 h5 58. h4 Re1 59. fxe6 fxe6 60. Kh1 Rxf1# > >A really good game, with clear cut motives (eg White's pressure on c7, and >Black's clever re-deployment of his queen's knight). All the way (with the >exception of the lapses noted) LGG2.0 looked sharper, which, taken with its >handling of the opening, surely shows it's going to be a powerful contender >in the field. Sorry, but this seems more than a little bogus to me! These "helping moves" remind me of Diego Maradona's "Hand of God" goal, i.e. it just looks like cheating to me. What I mean is that, given any two competitive programs, inserting a couple of good moves for weaker ones at the right moment will probably guarantee a victory, so it doesn't mean as much as it would if it had played all of the moves by itself. Dave
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.