weyerstrass-nowakowski

Missed part of your post.

A 1400-1500 equipped with an engine pitted vs Carlsen.What would his input be other than executing the moves on the board?zero,nul,nothing,nada,zip.
Better to just let the engine run by itself,the human might blunder by moving a piece to the wrong square.

toet.

Originally posted by enrico20
... Advanced Chess (sometimes called cyborg chess or centaur chess) is a relatively new form of chess, first introduced by grandmaster Garry Kasparov, with the objective of a human player and a computer chess program playing as a team against other such pairs...

So what you're saying is that "he plays advanced chess" directly translates as "he is a cheat who uses a computer for help"?

Originally posted by toeternitoe

Same goes for the machines,they don't play perfect chess and I don't think human input will make it perfect either.
But that's just my opinion,kinda hard to prove either way.

toet.[/b]

That's in fact very easy to prove: go to IECG or other serious CC site and see how easily you'll be defeated by other players, even if you might have a very fast computer and the latest version of Rybka.

Originally posted by cotoi
That's in fact very easy to prove: go to IECG or other serious CC site and see how easily you'll be defeated by other players, even if you might have a very fast computer and the latest version of Rybka.

They don't play perfect chess on IECG despite rumours to the contrary. I play there, am rated 1650ish and still occasionally pick up a draw (or even a win!) against the big boys.

Originally posted by Diophantus
They don't play perfect chess on IECG despite rumours to the contrary. I play there, am rated 1650ish and still occasionally pick up a draw (or even a win!) against the big boys.

But I guess you don't make each and every time the move suggested by Rybka?

Anyway, this topic is not about advanced chess, but about two players who apparently don't use engine assistance, yet they play more engine-like than any player in the history. Amazing!!

Originally posted by cotoi
But I guess you don't make each and every time the move suggested by Rybka?

Anyway, this topic is not about advanced chess, but about two players who apparently don't use engine assistance, yet they play more engine-like than any player in the history. Amazing!!

Beating me doesn't require perfect chess.Wish it did!Proves nothing.

Advanced chess is not about following the engine every move.What would be the point in that?

No longer understand what this is about.Time to quit.

toet.

Originally posted by cotoi
But I guess you don't make each and every time the move suggested by Rybka?

Anyway, this topic is not about advanced chess, but about two players who apparently don't use engine assistance, yet they play more engine-like than any player in the history. Amazing!!

I don't have Rybka so I don't get any suggestions from the little fish.

Originally posted by Diophantus
I don't have Rybka so I don't get any suggestions from the little fish.

Nice! So you manage to beat people who use engines in their games because - on IECG - this is allowed. You know what? You should start playing chess professionally. None of the current top players can defeat Rybka. Carlsen, Anand or Topalov are crushed easily by Rybka. It seems that you are better than them.

Originally posted by C J Horse
So what you're saying is that "he plays advanced chess" directly translates as "he is a cheat who uses a computer for help"?

CJ, he's not allowed to insinuate anything. But I'll help you understand what he meant.

I'm pretty sure he meant that it's a massive co-incidence (one in a billion? ten ++ billion if we take into account the same match-up results for their other game?) that all their moves are rybka top choices since in world CC championships, where engines are allowed, the matchup rate is....well... lower. Not to mention that the masterpiece was followed by an early resignation that requires us mortals a tablebase to understand. (fun fact: using tablebases for your games is cheating on this site) Of course my endings are mediocre at best, so it might have been a trivial finish for better players.
One would have to be quite naive not to be in AWE of such unimaginable skill and luck! Truly epic. Of course, if I didn't know any better I would think they are both careless blatant cheats, but I know better, and also I recognize serious talent when I see it. Thanks for the wonderful game guys.

Here is the game analyzed until the point tablebases can be used. I don't have them, so I must stop the analysis at that point.

[Event "Challenge"]
[Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"]
[Date "2009.09.12"]
[EndDate "2010.06.27"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nowakowski"]
[Black "Weyerstrass"]
[WhiteRating "1629"]
[BlackRating "2441"]
[WhiteELO "1629"]
[BlackELO "2441"]
[Result "0-1"]
[GameId "6698090"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nb1c3 Bf8b4 4. e5 c5 5. Ng1f3 cxd4 6.

Qd1xd4 Nb8c6 7. Qd4g4 Ng8e7
8. Qg4xg7 {takes game out of database, 1st} Rh8g8 {1st}
9. Qg7xh7 {1st} d4 {1st}
10. a3 {1st} Qd8a5 {1st}
11. Ra1b1 {1st} dxc3 {1st}
12. Bc1e3 {1st} Nc6xe5 {2nd}
13. axb4 {2nd} Ne5xf3 {1st}
14. gxf3 {1st} Qa5xb4 {1st}
15. Qh7e4 {2nd} Ne7d5 {1st}
16. Qe4xb4 {1st} Nd5xb4 {1st}
17. bxc3 {2nd} Nb4xc2 {1st}
18. Ke1d2 {1st} Nc2xe3 {1st}
19. fxe3 {1st} b6 {1st}
20. e4 {1st} e5 {1st}
21. h4 {1st} Bc8e6 {1st}
22. h5 {1st} Rg8h8 {1st}
23. Bf1b5 {3rd} Ke8e7 {1st}
24. h6 {1st} Rh8h7 {1st}
25. Rh1h5 {1st} f6 {1st}
26. Kd2e3 {1st} Ra8c8 {2nd}
27. Rb1c1 {1st} Rc8h8 {1st}
28. Rc1h1 {1st} Rh8g8 {2nd}
29. Rh5h2 {1st} Ke7d6 {3rd}
30. c4 {2nd} Kd6c5 {1st}
31. Bb5a6 {2nd, all moves are 0.00} Rg8d8 {out of top 3}
32. Rh2g2 {1st} Rh7d7 {1st}
33. h7{out of top 3, but still 0.00} Rd8h8 {1st}
34. Rg2h2 {1st} Be6xc4 {1st}
35. Ba6xc4 {1st} Kc5xc4 {1st}
36. Rh2h6 {1st} b5 {1st, all 3 moves are 0.00}
37. Rh6xf6 {1st} b4 {1st}
38. Rf6c6 {1st} Kc4b5 {1st}
39. Rh1c1 {1st} b3 {1st}
40. Rc6c5 {1st} Kb5b4 {1st}
41. Rc1c4 {1st} Kb4a3 {only move}
42. Rc5a5 {2nd} Ka3b2 {only move}
43. Ra5xe5 {2nd} Rh8xh7 {1st}
44. Re5c5 {1st} Rd7b7 {out of top 3}
45. e5 {1st} Kb2a2 {3rd}
46. Rc5a5 {2nd} Ka2b1 {1st}
47. f4 {1st} b2 {1st}
48. e6 {1st} Rb7b6 {1st}
49. Ra5e5 {1st} Rh7h3 {3rd}
50. Ke3d4 {1st} Kb1a2 {1st}
51. Rc4c2 {1st} Rb6b4 {1st}
52. Kd4c5 {1st} Rh3c3 {1st}
53. Kc5xb4 {1st} Rc3xc2 {1st}
54. Re5a5 {1st} Ka2b1 {only move}
55. Ra5e5 {1st} a5 {1st, all 3 moves are 0.00}
56. Kb4xa5 {1st} Kb1a1 {1st. all 3 moves are 0.00}
57. Re5b5 {1st} Rc2e2 {2nd, all 3 moves are 0.00}
58. f5 {1st} Re2e5 {3rd, all 3 moves are 0.00}
59. Rb5xe5 {1st} b1=Q {1st}
{and now we have 6 pieces left, so the endgame result can be looked up in the tablebases}

60. Re5b5 Qb1d3
61. Ka5b6 Qd3d6
62. Kb6a7 Ka1a2 63. Rb5b7 Qd6c5 64. Ka7a6 Qc5xf5 65. e7 Qf5e6

66. Ka6b5 Ka2b3
67. Rb7c7 Qe6e4 68. Kb5c5 Qe4e6 69. Kc5b5 Qe6d5 70. Kb5b6

Qd5d6 71. Kb6b5 Qd6e6
72. Kb5c5 Kb3c3 73. Rc7b7 Kc3d3 74. Rb7b3 Kd3e4 75. Rb3b7

Ke4e5 76. Rb7c7 Qe6d5
77. Kc5b6 Qd5b3 78. Kb6a7 Qb3b5 79. Rc7b7 Qb5e8 80. Rb7c7

Ke5d6 81. Ka7b6 Qe8b8
82. Rc7b7 Qb8c8 83. Kb6a7 Kd6c6 84. Rb7b6 Kc6c5 0-1

Originally posted by Maxacre42
CJ, he's not allowed to insinuate anything. But I'll help you understand what he meant.

I'm pretty sure he meant that it's a massive co-incidence (one in a billion? ten ++ billion if we take into account the same match-up results for their other game?) that all their moves are rybka top choices since in world CC championships, where engines are al ...[text shortened]... ter, and also I recognize serious talent when I see it. Thanks for the wonderful game guys.

I also know better. I'm very confident that Weyerstrass is in fact Kasparov who wants to get the only chess title he's missing: the correspondence world champion. I don't know who is the other guy though, I don't think Kasparov is playing against himself in public 😛

Originally posted by cotoi
Nice! So you manage to beat people who use engines in their games because - on IECG - this is allowed. You know what? You should start playing chess professionally. None of the current top players can defeat Rybka. Carlsen, Anand or Topalov are crushed easily by Rybka. It seems that you are better than them.

Just because it is allowed does not mean that all use engines, or use them all the time. I suspect that the top flight players turn the engine off when playing those at the bottom of the food chain like me.

Originally posted by Diophantus
Just because it is allowed does not mean that all use engines, or use them all the time. I suspect that the top flight players turn the engine off when playing those at the bottom of the food chain like me.

Probably you are right! I meant the CC world championships and such 🙂

Originally posted by Maxacre42
CJ, he's not allowed to insinuate anything. But I'll help you understand what he meant.

I'm pretty sure he meant that it's a massive co-incidence (one in a billion? ten ++ billion if we take into account the same match-up results for their other game?) that all their moves are rybka top choices since in world CC championships, where engines are al ...[text shortened]... ter, and also I recognize serious talent when I see it. Thanks for the wonderful game guys.

With the ending, one does not have to use a tablebase. I used the "endgame" tab of chessbase to pull up over 100 examples of Q vs R+p with the pawn being a d- or e-pawn.

I have also used endgame books where I have been able to find relevant positions to follow, even if they did not match exactly.

Nevertheless, I do have a counterexample where my normal practice failed. I was playing Nimzovitch on the site (not THE Nimzovitch... but he's good), where we each had g- and h-pawns, and I had a knight and wrong-color bishop vs his rook.
I was following GM Glenn Flear's advice that the ending is usually winnable, so I played on a bit, even though it took me a bit to realize that the particular position was no more than a draw- which I should have agreed to sooner.

Even with the best books, you still have to play the game yourself!

Is it so easy to find the perfect moves in a difficult ending without using tablebases? GMs make a lot of mistakes in such endings, it seems that amateurs are better at playing an ending.