Hi Deep Thought.
The human lad played 7.Qh3 and won because Black took the Rook. (Qc8 mate)
The computer chooses 7.Qf3 because it expects after 7.Qh3 Qxh3 and
it wants a Knight on f3 instead of h3. Either way it matters not White is
a piece and pawn down and lost.
The 1400 player won a game the best computers would lose.
It is a very basic example of a computer failing to play chess.
It cannot recognise a basic simple trap in this six and two three's position.
It cannot play to expect a blunder. It cannot hope, it sulks.
Another from the 1400 RHP lads. (Black to play)
In the actual human game Black played 1...Kc7 2.Ka6? Kb8 0-1.
One of the computer experts tested this position.
Critter and Stockfish took the draw as top choice but Komodo liked 1...Kc7!.
(there is hope for this program.)
However when the test were run with Komodo's tablebase switched off it
Komo listed it's top three as 1...Kb8, 1...Kc7, 1...Kd7 (? that losses).
This is quite a serious error and I can only assume the lads who put this
thing together skipped endgame routines because 'why bother' the TB's
will kick in and we get 100% accuracy.
OK. but how does thing assess engamges before the TB's start up?
A Master game example. Bernstein - Tarrasch, St Petersburg 1914. (White to play)
Bernstein had to win this game so he could play in the second phase of this brilliant tournament.
White is lost but tried one last gamble 69.Rxb2+!.
If Tarrasch has played the clumsy, though very plausible....
(see Blog for 100's of examples of plausible moves losing on the spot.)
70.Kxb2 Be5 wins.
No computer would play 69.Rxb2+ even though it is the best practical chance.
They go for Rxa6 as it staves off the coming mate the longest.
They have no idea of what a blunder is, they do not have ideas,
they cannot play Chess.
Studying with one (at our level) at your peril.
It will drop you in a position laden with tricks and traps, some will be,
yes, will be, chess is very rich in tactics, 10-15 moves or even longer deep.
It will see them, but you won't. It will dismiss them, can you afford to v a Human?
We keep getting told how strong they are, all I am doing is pointing out
a weakness. 1400 players are winning games from positions these things would lose.
The work being done on them is soley to beat other computers, not to help
humans play chess. It can;t. it cannot think like a human.
(Tarrasch of course played 70.....axb7 0-1.)