Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 14 Feb '14 02:47
    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.
  2. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    16 Feb '14 03:16
    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.
  3. 16 Feb '14 05:09 / 1 edit
    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.)
  4. Subscriber rookorbycrook
    rookorbycrook
    16 Feb '14 13:55
    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",
  5. Subscriber rookorbycrook
    rookorbycrook
    16 Feb '14 13:55
    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 **** **** ****
  6. Subscriber rookorbycrook
    rookorbycrook
    16 Feb '14 15:02
    the franz maresch problem set problem 1
  7. Subscriber rookorbycrook
    rookorbycrook
    16 Feb '14 15:05
    problem 2
    black to move
  8. Subscriber rookorbycrook
    rookorbycrook
    16 Feb '14 15:07
    problem 3


    problem 4
  9. Subscriber rookorbycrook
    rookorbycrook
    16 Feb '14 15:12 / 1 edit
    problem 5

    problem 6

    problem 7

    problem 8

    black to move problem 9
  10. Subscriber rookorbycrook
    rookorbycrook
    16 Feb '14 15:58
    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
  11. Subscriber rookorbycrook
    rookorbycrook
    16 Feb '14 16:00
    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
  12. Subscriber rookorbycrook
    rookorbycrook
    16 Feb '14 16:02 / 2 edits
    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 ?
  13. 16 Feb '14 16:13
    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.
  14. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    16 Feb '14 16:39
    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.
  15. 17 Feb '14 02:26
    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.