Game 2288180Impressive game, I doubt that any Super Gm can win that endgame OTB,black played it almost perfectly, I checked it with a tablebase only 5 slight inaccuracies that prolonged the win, but none gave it away.
Originally posted by EmLaskerThis is a foolish statement.
as we all know, jimster is a program user, and he was banned.
but does it make sense to you when a program loses? I mean think about it, only World Chess Champs can stand a chance against the program.
here are a few examples of people sandbagging a program:
Game 2250837
Game 2288180
I hope you people can get the message
Rather than address it myself, I will quote this article.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3749
One thing to keep in mind about computers is that they are great at short-term tactics, but terrible at long-range planning. The difference between computers and humans is even more pronounced in correspondence chess than in OTB chess -- but in favor of the human player. It's even possible for average players to outthink a computer at correspondence time controls. Correspondence Master Jon Edwards (one of the strongest postal players ever produced by the United States) once told me that he actually hopes that his opponents are using computers, as he feels that he can outplay any computer at correspondence time controls, due to the computer's lack of positional understanding..
Originally posted by zebanoImagine Rybka taking 3 days per move to think. What rating would this equate to? Now, do you think anything playing at that rating could possibly do so while also being “terrible at long-range planning”? Of course not. I disagree with what Steve Lopez wrote; he often talks crap while trying to promote Chessbase products.
Rather than address it myself, I will quote this article.
Very few people could beat a top computer at CC while not having engine assistance themselves.
What I don't understand is why anyone would feel good about any win they achieved with the aid of databases, chess engines, other player assistance, etc....What is the point. It would not be "your" win. I will get the hell beat out of me at times (probably alot on this site from what I see). But win or lose, it will be all of my doing. That is not meant to take anything away from the huge array of players here who could beat most of us without assistance, I just don't see the merit in using it. I have already had several opponents tell me they were using databases or books during our game. If that floats your boat, but I don't subscribe to it...and I will never be one of the top players here either. But every single win I achieve will be ALL mine (as will the losses).
Originally posted by zebanoI agree. In long term strategic planning computer is still weak. For example, when I have played against Jimster (who used engine) I lost game to him in which I played dubious gambit, and got large advantage (that game was unfinished due to his ban) in second game, where i played strategical and used strategic sacrifice of exchange. I must admit that engines has a problems in evaluation of strategic sacrifices.
This is a foolish statement.
Rather than address it myself, I will quote this article.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3749
One thing to keep in mind about computers is that they are great at short-term tactics, but terrible at long-range planning. The difference between computers and humans is even more pronounced in correspondence ches ...[text shortened]... uter at correspondence time controls, due to the computer's lack of positional understanding..
Originally posted by VarenkaAs I remember he moved fast. So perhaps his computer didnt spend too much time per move. I think his engine could be Fritz 8 or 9. I think he did use engine for every move - he did not make tactic mistakes (or innacuracies) at all (I can say it for sure - because I did check our games with engine after they were finished).
Do you know which engine? What hardware? How long did the computer get to think per move? Was the engine used for every move? etc. etc. Engine users don't always utilise an engine to its full strength.
Skinn13 moved quickly also. There was only one game (out of six) in which I got a winning advantage. This game featured a long-range K-side attack that was probably a bit unsound. But it's the kind of position that an engine would have difficulty defending, because of all the yummy material on the Q-side.
Game 2703840
Originally posted by Varenkaseeing as the search tree increases in size exponetnially, Rybaka with 3 days probably wouldn't perform much better than had you given it 3 hrs a move
Imagine Rybka taking 3 days per move to think. What rating would this equate to? Now, do you think anything playing at that rating could possibly do so while also being “terrible at long-range planning”? Of course not. I disagree with what Steve Lopez wrote; he often talks crap while trying to promote Chessbase products.
Very few people could beat a top computer at CC while not having engine assistance themselves.
(without any human intervention of course)
1 edit
Originally posted by Varenkahttp://www.chessatwork.com/core/viewpublicgames.php?p1uid=193748&p2uid=67374&gametype=&showgamescode=F
Very few people could beat a top computer at CC while not having engine assistance themselves.
Me vrs. GauravV
+1 -12 =1
Game 1900846
2 edits
Originally posted by shortcircuitChess is a tough game to master it takes many years of practice and hard work cheaters don't want to wait or pay their dues the honest way they want instant results just like the guys, who think their going to be a Fide Master in only 4 or 6 months by doing tactical exercises and reading rapid chess improvement give me a break.
What I don't understand is why anyone would feel good about any win they achieved with the aid of databases, chess engines, other player assistance, etc....What is the point. .
They don't give a s--t about the rights of other Players or personal honour they just want to win and collect the points.
Originally posted by zebanoI do not wish to "knock" your results, but how can you be sure that "gurav" himself didn't make a (bad) move, or, for one of the moves only gave his engine 3-4 seconds or something.....?
http://www.chessatwork.com/core/viewpublicgames.php?p1uid=193748&p2uid=67374&gametype=&showgamescode=F
Me vrs. GauravV
+1 -12 =1
Game 1900846
I think Varenka's point is that most of RHP engine users, do not use their think tanks at full-strength.
Originally posted by ShinidokiSure, but 3 hours is still a relatively significant amount of time. My point is that some engine users may apply a minute or so of engine analysis. That sort of time limit will be significantly less strong than 3 hours or days.
seeing as the search tree increases in size exponetnially, Rybaka with 3 days probably wouldn't perform much better than had you given it 3 hrs a move
(without any human intervention of course)
Originally posted by ShinidokiYeah, exactly. I have a win and a draw against GauravV. When I analysed them afterwards, the computer found improvements for both players.
I do not wish to "knock" your results, but how can you be sure that "gurav" himself didn't make a (bad) move, or, for one of the moves only gave his engine 3-4 seconds or something.....?