Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:51:54 08/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 1999 at 17:56:33, walter irvin wrote:
>On August 10, 1999 at 14:53:32, blass uri wrote:
>
>>On August 10, 1999 at 12:05:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On August 10, 1999 at 02:29:51, blass uri wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>On August 09, 1999 at 17:10:19, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have yet to find a single game at 40/2 with no tactical errors. Even by
>>>>>Kasparov. They might not be 'losing' tactical errors, but they are errors all
>>>>>the same...
>>>>>
>>>>>That is usually the give-away, because someone using a computer might make a
>>>>>weak move here and there, but they _never_ hang pawns or overlook winning them
>>>>>when it is reasonable to do so... just like a computer, and much unlike a
>>>>>human, even a super-GM.
>>>>
>>>>1)What do you mean by tactical error?
>>>>If you mean that the biggest change in the evaluation is not more than 0.5 pawn
>>>>then I drew in the past a game at tournament tiem control of more than 40 moves
>>>>with no tactical errors
>>>>(I analyzed it with a computer and the biggest change in the evaluation was not
>>>>more than 0.5 pawn)
>>>>
>>>>The opponent's rating was close to 1800 and my rating was 1985.
>>>>
>>>>2)It is also possible that a move that the computer evaluate as a tactical error
>>>>is a good move and a human who use a computer can play it (analyzing the
>>>>position with a computer can help the human to be sure that the move is not a
>>>>tactical blunder).
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>
>>>I define tactical error as follows:
>>>
>>>any move that changes the material balance by a pawn or more, whether or not
>>>the move is really good or bad. IE if a computer thinks that grabbing a pawn
>>>is the right thing, and the human doesn't, I call that a tactical error. Note
>>>that this is from a computer perspective, because I have seen several positions
>>>where I would _not_ grab the pawn, but any program I try would.
>>>
>>>But please post the game if you'd like to have me check it by my 'definition'
>>>to see what happened...
>>
>>Here is the game that I drew.
>>
>>[Event "liga"]
>>[Site "?"]
>>[Date "????.??.??"]
>>[Round "?"]
>>[White "uri blass"]
>>[Black "yaniv danialy"]
>>[Result "1/2-1/2"]
>>[ECO "A04"]
>>[Annotator "Blass,U"]
>>[PlyCount "102"]
>>
>>{67108860kB, Jun-book.ctg. Pentium} 1. Nf3 e6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 Bd6 4. d4 Nd7 {3}
>>5. O-O {2} 5... Ngf6 {3} 6. Nbd2 {3} 6... O-O 7. c4 c6 8. Qc2 Re8 9. e4 dxe4
>>10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Qxe4 f6 12. b3 e5 13. Bb2 exd4 14. Qxd4 Qc7 15. Rfe1 Ne5 16.
>>c5 Nxf3+ 17. Bxf3 Be5 18. Qc4+ Kh8 19. Bh5 g6 20. Bxe5 Rxe5 21. Bf3 Be6 22. Qc3
>>Bd5 23. Rxe5 Qxe5 24. Qxe5 fxe5 25. Bg4 Kg7 26. Kf1 Kf6 27. Ke2 Kg5 28. f3 Rf8
>>29. h4+ Kf6 30. Bh3 Re8 31. Rf1 Kg7 32. Ke3 Rf8 33. Rf2 a5 34. Bf1 Kh6 35. Bd3
>>Kh5 36. Be2 Kh6 37. Bd1 Kg7 38. Bc2 Kh6 39. Be4 Kg7 40. Rd2 Rd8 41. g4 h6 42.
>>f4 exf4+ 43. Kxf4 Rf8+ 44. Ke3 Re8 45. Rd4 g5 46. hxg5 hxg5 47. Kd3 Bxe4+ 48.
>>Rxe4 Rxe4 49. Kxe4 Kf6 50. Kd4 Ke6 51. a3 Kf6 1/2-1/2
>>
>>There was no tactical errors by your definition but the players were definitely
>>humans.
>>
>>In most of the games there are tactical errors but there are sometimes games
>>without tactical errors
>>
>>Uri
>i think also the chess players back ground should be taken into consideration
>.like myself i have played maybe only 500 to 600 games total against human but
>perhaps played 7000 to 8000 games against computers ,have observed possibly
>another 3000 games with computers .so if my game is strong tacticly i wonder
>why?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>could it be that i had to get strong tacticly to survive as programs got
>stronger????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
We had a 'patzer challenge' a few months ago where a 1600 player tried to
play crafty a long match, about 50 games if I recall. He lost 49. He might
have drawn 1 had he played a drawn tablebase ending correctly. Unfortunately
that game was lost (he played as a guest, which means ICC doesn't 'save' the
game) when crafty got lagged out and logged off by ICC.
I really don't think a 1600 player has a prayer of winning a match, or even
winning one of 10 games or whatever...
But I'm available to test this hypothesis.
If you can beat Crafty you are absolutely better than 1600, no doubt at all.
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.