I won a bet with a 1400 RHP game...

I joined chessgames as a non-sub to see what it was like.
It was getting pelters from another place and I wanted to see for myself.

Of course I got involved in an anti-computer rant.

Some lad bet me a years chessgames sub I could not show him,
as I had claimed, a 1400 RHP lad playing a move and winning where in the
same position Houdini would choose a different move and lose.

So I showed him Game 4867930 the White huiman played Qh3 and
mated Black - A computer would choose Qf3 and being a piece & pawn
it would lose.

The lad bought me a years sub! I told him not too but he went ahead.

So there I am all alone. (except for my benefactor) If any of you lot are
there then say hello on my private forum thingy.
I need to know who my friends are. I'm Sally Simpson.

There are some really big guns floating about on there and I just know I will be ruffling feathers.
I don't want to upset any of you RHP lads by mistake.
(you will see why 'Sally Simpson' in the profile.)

I am going to start a games collection but very little else.

My spare chess time is taken up on here and I aint leaving here.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I joined chessgames as a non-sub to see what it was like.
It was getting pelters from another place and I wanted to see for myself.

Of course I got involved in an anti-computer rant.

Some lad bet me a years chessgames sub I could not show him,
as I had claimed, a 1400 RHP lad playing a move and winning where in the
same position Houdini would ...[text shortened]... ction but very little else.

My spare chess time is taken up on here and I aint leaving here.

Well yes, but if black swaps queens instead of taking the rook then he's a piece up.

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.)

Problem Tests

by Larry Kaufman

In the last issue, we reprinted the "One-Hour CCR test" and made the comment that we hoped to offer an endgame test to be averaged in with the "One-Hour" results for more accurate rating predictions, since the "One-Hour" test does not deal with the endgame. Such an endgame test, devised by Franz Maresch, has been published in both "Ply'' and "PC Schach" magazines, together with the results of a fair number of programs. His test consists of 35 problems, on which your computer is to spend 1O minutes each in infinite level, with one point awarded for each correct solution at the end of the ten minutes. In some cases there are more than one correct solutions, while in other cases no credit is awarded unless one or more follow-up moves are also found in ten minutes each. To convert the point score to an estimated USCF rating (for endgame play only), I suggest multiply­ ing by 30 and then adding 1650. This means that a perfect score would earn a 2700 rating (about U.S. Champion level) while a zero score would rate 1650. In my opinion this is the best endgame test for computers that I have seen so far, as it covers all major classes of simplified endgames and tests both knowledge of endgame theory and calculating ability. I would hope that some readers might try running the test using the scoring method Igave for the "One-Hour'' test, namely allowing only two minutes per problem and awarding one point for each correct move after 15", 30", 1', and 2', disregarding the follow-up moves since they will generally be found if the first move is found. This would allow for the points of the two tests to be combined directly to make a point score ranging from 0 to 240 for the sixty problem set, which we might call the "CCR three hour test". That score would then be multiplied by five and added to a constant to be deter­ mined to estimate ratings more accurately than any other test has been able to do. In the meantime, we'll have to be content to average the "One-Hour'' and "Maresch" rating estimates.
Since the "One-Hour'' test has come out, there have been results pouring in from the readers of all the magazines that have reprinted it, especially Eric Hallsworth's "Computer Chess New Sheet",

Dedicated Computer "One-Hour" "One-Hour'' " Maresch" "Maresch" Average





TASCR30 (ver. 2.2) Points



63.5 Rating"



2515 Points



30 "Rating"



2550 "Rating"



2533
M Genius 68030 65.5 2535 (26) 2430 2483
M Berlin Pro 61.5 2495 (25) 2400 2448
CMach Gid3 30M 64 2520 24 2370 2445
Meph Vane 68020 60 2480 25 2400 2440
M Montreaux 57 2450 (26) 2430 2440
Saitek RISC2500 52 2400 (25) 2400 2400
Meph Port 68020 51 2390 25 2400 2395
Meph Lyon68000 45.5 2335 25 2400 2368
Meph RISC1 50 2380 (23) 2340 2360
Meph Vane 68000 47 2350 (24) 2370 2360
Meph Berlin 44 2320 (24) 2370 2345
Meph Almer68020 41 2290 24 2370 2330
Novag Sapphire 38 2260 25 2400 2330
Meph Port 68000 42 2300 (23) 2340 2320
Fid Elite 9 (34) 2220 24 2370 2295
Novag Diablo 41 2290 **** **** ****
Meph Almer68000 30 2180 (22) 2310 2245
Fld Des. 2325 29 2170 (22) 2310 2240
Novag Jade II/Zircon II 32 2200 **** **** ****
Sal Pres/GK2100 30 2180 **** **** ****
Meph Nigel Short 30 2180 **** **** ****
Fld Mach Ill 19 2070 (20) 2250 2160
Novag Ruby 28 2160 **** **** ****
Meph Roma 68000 27 2150 **** **** ****
Meph Dall 68000 25 2130 **** **** ****
Meph Amsterdam 24 2120 **** **** ****

43

Dedicated Computer "One-Hour" "One-Hour" "Maresch" "Maresch" Average

Points "Rating" Points "Rating" "Rating"



Meph Academy
20
2080 **** **** ****
Meph Polgar 19 2070 **** **** ****
Meph Supermon2 19 2070 **** **** ****
MephMM5 22 2100 10 1950 2025
Flcl Excel 3 12.5 2005 **** **** ****
Flcl Elite C 12 2000 **** **** ****
Sal Trav Ch old 13 2010 8 1890 1950
Exe Adv Star Ch 9 1970 6 1830 1900





PC Software "One-Hour'' "One-Hour'' "Maresch" "Maresch" Average

Points "Rating" Points "Rating" "Rating"


Meph Genius 3 75 2630 28 2490 2560
Meph Genius 2 74 2620 28 2490 2555
Hlarcs 3 72 2600 28 2490 2545
CM4000 64 2520 28 2490 2505
TheKlngTascbase 62 2500 (28) 2490 2495
MChessPro 4.0 58.5 2465 28 2490 2478
MChessPro 3.1 56 2440 28 2490 2465
Hlarcs 2.1 58 2460 27 (2460) 2460
Rebel 6.0 60 2480 26 2430 2455
WChess 60 2480 25 2400 2440
Kallisto 1.82 54 2420 **** **** ****
Gideon Pro 55 2430 25 2400 2415
Fritz 2 53 2410 **** **** ****
Fritz 3 60 2480 22 2310 2395
Socrates 3.0 54 2420 23 2340 2380
Nimzo 46 2340 (25) 2400 2370
Fritz 1 47 2350 **** **** ****
Rex2.3 (32) 2200 **** **** ****
GnuChess 18 2060 **** **** ****

the franz maresch problem set problem 1

problem 2
black to move

problem 3


problem 4

problem 5
problem 6
problem 7
problem 8
black to move problem 9

black to move problem 10
problem 11
black to move problem 12
problem 13
problem 14
problem 15
black to move problem 16
problem 17
problem 18
black to move problem 19
black to move problem 20
problem 21
problem 22
black to move problem 23
problem 24
black to move problem 25
problem 26
black to move problem 27
problem 28
black to move problem 29
problem 30
problem 31
problem 32
problem 33
black to move problem 34
problem 35

Maresch Results Chart
Give your computer 1 point for each correct answer
after 10 minutes (in infinite mode). To calculate USCF rating, multiply point total by 30 and add 1650.

or even yourself !! post answers later date please let me know your results many thanks ian aka rookorbycrook

scores


Meph Genius 3 28
Meph Genius 2 28
Hlarcs 3 28
CM4000 28
TheKlngTascbase 28
MChessPro 4.0 28
MChessPro 3.1 28
Hlarcs 2.1 27
Rebel 6.0 26
WChess 25
Kallisto 1.82 ?
Gideon Pro 25
Fritz 2 ?
Fritz 3 22
Socrates 3.0 23
Nimzo 25
Fritz 1 ?
Rex2.3 ?
GnuChess ?

Good post Rookery.

I hope the lads who are really the computer buffs on here catch it.

I may iflch a position or two to see if it matches up with some RHP blunders.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Deep Thought.

[fen]rn2kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/8/3P4/2PQ4/PP3PqP/R1B1K1NR w KQkq - 0 7[/fen]
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 ...[text shortened]... y chess. It can;t. it cannot think like a human.

(Tarrasch of course played 70.....axb7 0-1.)

Hi gp,
all except the earliest chess machines use a search routine where they select the move whose consequences maximizes the score for each player up to a move horizon, and you are entirely right - they cannot play for a trap except possibly as a consequence of a move horizon effect where if the player falls for it the pay-off is within the machine's move horizon and if the player doesn't fall for it the penalty for the machine is outside its move horizon.

Komo listed it's top three as 1...Kb8, 1...Kc7, 1...Kd7 (? that losses).

That's interesting. It's move list should be 1. ... Kc7, 1. ... Kb8, 1. ... Kxb7, 1. ... Kd7 and 1. ... Kd8 the first three of which draw. The only explanation I can hazard a guess at is that they've suppressed captures in the move list to avoid one type of machine idiocy, so the move list is wrong. It'd be interesting to see the algorithm.

I think you are right, but overstating it. Computers make tediously accurate opponents, or if set to a beatable level, just play stereotypic poor chess and don't make the kinds of errors humans do. On the other hand I find Crafty useful to chew over OTB games and point out tactical opportunities I've missed, which I sometimes learn lessons from. I learned K+B+N vs K by playing it out against a table base, and they will play all EGTB positions without result changing errors, but I wouldn't take strategic advice off one, and as you say - they miss all potential traps.

Hi Deep Thought.

" I learned K+B+N vs K by playing it out against a table base..."

Recently I was reading a post on another site from a good player who says
he can mate a computer with KBN - K very easily but doing it as an excercise
v a human for two games and he found he was having to stop to re-think his strategy.

The human did not play the 'best' moves. Those that lead to the longest mate.
Instead the human played natural moves, which in theory should have been mated
quicker but the lad said though he won both times it was 'different' and 'tougher'.

I never made a comment on it but I'm thinking:

He was seeing the patterns 3d, possibly for the first time and he toiled
OTB to drag them down.

Plus sometimes the best move to play is not the best move to play.
Something a computer knows nothing about.

Is it now pointless to study won Rook endings with a top box to brush
up on your technique, say KRP v KR because suddenly the thing can see
it's going to get mated with best play, it sulks and plays only moves to prolong
the game and stave off the coming mate rather than put down all the
human tricks and obstacles one would face OTB.

These things are now too strong to be of any practical use.
You need to dumb them down to a human level.