|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1688 OF 1784 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-13-08 | | kwid: Jul-13-08
<ganstaman:> <chesscard: >< We can't and won't do this. We can't and won't do this. We can't and won't do this. We can't and won't do this.> Who is "WE" ? Please elaborate for the benefits of "OUR" enlightenment! Are -we- (members of this team) individually not allowed to express our ideas even if they are counter to the view of others like yours? IMO, our collective playing strength stems mainly from our diverse ideas and different view points. Therefore suppressing or discouraging opinions or assessments should not
be tolerated so as not to adversely influence the team's cohesiveness or cooperation between individuals of OUR TEAM. Respectfully, i thank you in advance for your cooperation. PS, A discussion about this topic may be more beneficial
than queering the engines evaluation functions.
|
|
| Jul-13-08 | | ganstaman: <kwid> We can all express all the ideas we want, and I encourage the exrepssion of ideas. But <chesscard> has already suggested this idea before and was told, basically, "no." And yet he suggests it again and again, as if the answer would change. We've even given reasons: there's no mechanism for us to tell GMT to resign and give him lines showing he's lost, many of us consider it to be asbolutely rude, this is an exhibition game and not something more important so it wouldn't be appropriate. This has nothing to do with playing strength or positional assessments or anything. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me either. This is just a matter of what the team is capable of doing and what it has expressed its desires of doing. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | benjinathan: <kwid> There simply is no mechanism for the World to do as <chesscard> suggests: there is no way to ask him why he continues and there is no way to vote on whether the team wishes to ask that question anyway. It is summer; enjoy the weather. |
|
Jul-13-08
 | | kamalakanta: I have a very strong computer, and a very strong chess program (Deep Shredder 11). Yet I do not like to use it to analyze this kind of positions. I look at many games in the Chessgames website, and I do not use Shredder either. Susan Polgar's site (which I like quite a bit, as I think she is doing a lot of good for spreading chess in schools, etc.) has daily problems and quizzes. I do not use the engine for that either. (And she encourages people NOT TO USE a computer when looking for solutions. That way you get the maximum benefit.) If we want to make progress as chessplayers, we should use our won brain as much as possible. Then our strength WILL increase. This is one of the main benefits of playing this kind of game against a grandmaster. If we let the "engines" do the work, where is our progress? In tournament play, we have to think for ourselves. So we should try to get used to THAT kind of dynamic, where we use our own head to find the truth in any given position. There is value in playing this game until the end. Everyone learns form it!
But with computers, we think we "know" the answer already! Do we really "know" the answer? That is, if I faced this position in an actual tournament game, would I be able to figure it out, or would I be wishing I had a computer that told me how to do it? Please do not be offended by my words. I have been playing chess for over 36 years. Great grandmasters like Kotov and Bronstein make emphasis in the need to use your head in order to get better. This "exercise" is of utmost importance. Anyone can look at a computer screen. But chess is about problem-solving ON YOUR OWN, not assisted by a computer. Maybe because there were no chess computers when I started, I am used to looking at positions by myself. I also like Petrosian's advice and method. He used to read books, and tried to follow the games without actual pieces, trying to move the pieces in his head from one diagram to another. It worked for him! Kamalakanta |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | myschkin: <kamalakanta> everyone is welcomed, no one is offended!
good post :)
|
|
| Jul-13-08 | | isemeria: <kwid: Jul-13-08
<ganstaman:> <chesscard: >
< We can't and won't do this. We can't and won't do this. We can't and won't do this. We can't and won't do this.>Who is "WE" ? Please elaborate for the benefits of "OUR" enlightenment!> Who is "WE" is quite difficult question to answer. But in this specific case of <chesscard> we know that he doesn't consider himself as part of the team. He always writes "you" not "we" or "us". It's "you should do this..." or "you are not strong..." or some other condescending comment. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | Boerboel Guy: <kamalakanta:> I agree with you.
If you HAVE to play this position with engines then you don't know much about chess. It is a very easy OTB win. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | MostlyAverageJoe: <kwid: Just for the record - Mate on square e5> I must have missed something. Why on e5? If we were to look for a specific mate, I propose to look for a forcing line that will end with Qf8+, which made its appearance in the polls as a joke move some time in Nov/Dec timeframe. <benjinathan: ... there is no way to ask him why he continues and there is no way to vote on whether the team wishes to ask that question anyway ... It is summer; enjoy the weather.> Indeed. It's not like anyone is spending much time on the analysis any more. Autopilot lines are posted for everyone on Artar1 chessforum to see. It might be worthwhile to consider how to handle a won game in the future. Perhaps by voting to open the blocked forums to be readable by the GM? |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | MostlyAverageJoe: BTW, once The World is able to communicate the collective conviction of unavoidable win to the opposing GM, the following scenario can be expected: <Chessgames Challenge: The World vs Dr. Tansel TurgutFINAL VOTE RESULTS:
1. We are the Borg. Surrender now. 2801 votes (99.96%) 1. e4 1 vote (0.04%) 
click for larger view
>
... and one day later ....
< Chessgames Challenge: The World vs Dr. Tansel TurgutFINAL VOTE RESULTS:
1... 1-0
<Insert dancing rook>
> |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | hms123: <MAJ> I love it! Exactly right. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | Red October: no problem <Chancho> the users when they read the open thread will wonder what that was about heh! |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | kwid: Jul-13-08
< MostlyAverageJoe: <kwid: Just for the record - Mate on square e5>
I must have missed something. Why on e5?>
<I propose to look for a forcing line that will end with Qf8+> Well, e5 as a final resting place for his king or any other square at his choosing was my suggestion about 3 month ago. I thought it would be more challenging for some of our members because we need two mayor pieces for such a task and the endgame TB would not be of any help. Anyway it takes me less than a minute to force a mate with the last move Qf8+ assuming Rxe4 next: 
click for larger view 57. Re4 Rxe4+ 58. Kxe4 Nb4 59. Rb5+ Kd6 60. Kd4 Nc6+ 61. Kxc4 Ne5+ 62. Kc3 Nf3 63. Rxh5 Kc6 64. Kc4 Kd6 65. Rd5+ Ke6 66. h5 Kf6 67. Rxa5 Kg7 68. Rb5 Kf6 69. a5 Ng5 70. a6 Ne4 71. Kd4 Nd6 72. Rb6 Ke7 73. a7 Nc8 74. Rb7+ Kf6 75. a8=Q Nd6 76. Qa6 Ke6 77. h6 Kf5 78. Qxd6 Kg4 79. h7 Kf3 80. Rb2 Kg4 81. h8=Q Kg5 82. Qg3+ Kf5 83. Qe8 Kf6 84. Re2 Kf5 85. Qf8# |
|
Jul-13-08
 | | rinus: <MAJ> I do agree with you on a lot, but not with your opinion about a game agianst <chesscard>. I would love to see a move from him evaluated 1.2 points below the best 3 Rybka-options for him; and then 10 moves later, while we played Rybka's top choices, seeing him at the winning hand. Then Dr. Tansel Turgut has played beyond the engine's horizon. (I'll follow the process with Fruit) |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | MostlyAverageJoe: <kwid: Anyway it takes me less than a minute to force a mate with the last move Qf8+ assuming Rxe4 next> Cool. <Artar1>, I propose to adopt this as a mainline in case Rxe4 is played :-) On the earlier topic, note that in recent weeks, there were still several posts claiming that this game appears to be drawn; this, IMO, fully justifies continuing the game. Yes, it may be obviously won on inspection to yourself and many other participants with substantial ELO; it may be obviously won to engine-heads like myself, but it may not be so obvious to many others. At this point, the plain infinity analysis, run for a couple of minutes, still returns evaluations that are lower than what is obtained with analoguous analysis in many situations where a game is resigned OTB. Take for example this OTB game: A Giaccio vs T Turgut, 2000 - the position after 30. Nc6 evaluates, after 8 CPU minutes, at just over 9.00, but black kept playing for another 10 moves (maybe he was in time trouble, since he resigned just after the time control). Whatever the reason, the game did not appear to be obviously lost to the black. For comparison, the current position in the GMT game gets an eval of about 4.50 under the same conditions. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | MostlyAverageJoe: <kamalakanta>
Of course, you're correct in that one should use the brain first. But there's nothing wrong in using a computer as a GM-level coach substitute, to confirm the correctness of the brain-derived solution, *after* expending some brainpower efforts. Perhaps we can approach the rest of the game as a challenge to bring it as fast as possible into a *really* obviously won position. This still leaves plenty of chances to use carbon-based engines given us by the nature. For example, in some lines on Artar1 chessforum, the win is proven by returning the K-R exchange to arrive at an ending that can be resolved with a 6-piece tablebase. One of these involves a win in 30 moves. It might be possible to accelerate it by not exchanging right away; this leaves plenty of chances to exercise gray matter. Still, computer checks for tactical omissions would be required. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | MostlyAverageJoe: <rinus> This was not my opinion, just an attempt at inserting some comic relief. Anyhow, for everyone's entertainment during the waning phases of this game, here's one of the ultimate examples of positions where a computer is of no help whatsoever, and a solution was found OTB. It comes from a real game and was found by another CG memeber. I'll give the credit to that person in a couple of days (if I did it now, the game and solution is trivial to find). White to move and win. Enjoy:
click for larger viewAnyone familiar with that position or game from which it came, pleas don't spoil the fun. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | chesstoplay: <Chessgames Challenge: The World vs Dr. Tansel Turgut FINAL VOTE RESULTS:
1. We are the Borg. Surrender now. 2801 votes (99.96%) 1. e4 1 vote (0.04%) ... and one day later .... > < Chessgames Challenge: The World vs Dr. Tansel TurgutFINAL VOTE RESULTS: 1... 1-0 <Insert dancing rook> > MAJ, LOL... one of the best posts I've ever read on this site!!! You now qualify to be the president of the Artar1 fan club. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | amadeus: <1. We are the Borg. Surrender now. 2801 votes (99.96%) 1. e4 1 vote (0.04%)> Lol |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | MostlyAverageJoe: <rinus ... I would love to see a move from him evaluated 1.2 points below the best 3 Rybka-options> It would be even better to play 3 points below, no?
Earlier in the game referenced in my previous post, the position was: 
click for larger viewEngine recommendation for white:
Qb3 (+5.35 at 15 plies in 20 CPU minutes of analysis -- the position is a real engine killer). White played: Ne6 (+2.15).
Subsequent moves by white reduced the engine evals to zero when the game arrived at the previously posted position. Yet, white is still completely winning (I suppose the engines still include the paralyzed rook on h8 when counting the material balance). Question to ponder: what would it take to convince The World to play Ne6 in the position above? I need to get off the computer. This is my third re-post, each time correcting spelling errors... |
|
Jul-13-08
| | rinus: <MAJ> <Question to ponder: what would it take to convince The World to play Ne6 ain the position bove?> An awful lot.
<Subsequent moves by white reduced the engine evals to zero when the game arrived at the previously posted position. Yet, white is still completely winning (I suppose the engines still include the paralyzed rook on h8 when counting the material balance).> I don't know the game, but could White force Black's direction of play? |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | Artar1: Part 1
<sentriclecub and others>: Thank you for taking the time to answer my inquiry. I really appreciate it! The issue you are discussing is an important one, but unfortunately I do not have a ready-made solution. Finding an improvement in currently accepted analysis and then communicating it, is, perhaps, an insurmountable process. We have the ability, I believe, to do the type of analysis you are suggesting and we have the capacity to communicate it. The problem lies in having about 300 to 350 active players follow our game on an hour-by-hour basis. For many players on the <chessgames.com> team, they usually make a decision based upon the prevailing vote count, what <RV> has listed in his forum, and perhaps what might be listed in the pertinent forums before casting their ballots. After that, they turn their attention elsewhere, as they should, for there are other activities worth pursuing in life besides chess, as unthinkable as that might seem. Thus, when an improvement has been found, there is not enough time to have it clearly communicated to the entire block of active voters so the improvement can win the vote. It would require that active players be more “active,” or at least more attentive. Could we use an e-mail system alert? That is, after the improvement has been found and verified, an automated update could be sent to everyone who has signed up for the contest and who has also given permission for the receipt of e-mail alerts. I think enough people understand sliding analysis, but not all sliding analysis is the same. Perhaps the more time-consuming sliding analysis is the one in which each and every ply is tested to a fixed depth (e.g., 20-ply) before moving to the next one in the suggested line generated by the computer. If an improvement is found, the better move is entered and the process continues. An easier, and perhaps less effective form of sliding analysis, is to take a computer generated line of about 15-ply long and start the “sliding” portion of the analysis somewhere in the middle of the line. I feel it’s best to test each ply to make sure the “right” move has been selected. But what is “best” or “right” is relative and may even be suspect due to either the horizon effect, which has been discussed previously, or a computer miscalculation. I will return to the topic of sliding analysis in a later post; for now I would like to discuss the issue of semantics. I may be in the minority, but semantics are important. It’s vital that we define what we mean very carefully so an actual debate can occur, and to minimize the possibility of confusion. With all terms carefully defined, we can then assess the merits of an argument and correctly ponder the validity of its conclusion. What sometimes happens, however, is that miscommunication and misplaced assertions are made, all of which lead to perceived insults, real or imaginary. Tempers flare and felt indignation becomes real, derailing the possibility of a satisfactory conclusion to a substantive discussion. In dealing with these situations as a team, I think it’s important that we exercise patience and forbearance while giving others the benefit of the doubt, and if an argument reaches an impasse, perhaps it would be best to table it for a while until the overheated passions can subside, letting logic and decorum surface once more. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | Artar1: Part 2
As to what an evaluation (Eval) number means is subjective and open to interpretation. Not only that, Eval numbers vary across computer chess programs and even within a program, depending upon the depth of ply that has been reached, the size of the hashtable, the amount of information stored in the hashtable regarding the position, and the number of positional permutations that have been tested by the computer operator. <RV> is probably the most qualified to speak on this subject due to his formalized computer engineering education and training, his avid interest in chess, his long experience at operating chess computer programs, and the many computer processing machines at his current disposal. If I were to hazard a guess, the numerical weighting that we see is based upon, as you probably already know, a number system that assigns values to concrete material advantages or positional properties, such as pawn islands, hanging pawns, backward pawns, isolated pawns, light- or dark-square weaknesses, king safety, piece mobility, development, spatial advantage, control of the center, passed pawns, promotion threats, mating threats, attacking potential, and so forth. In some programs, the numbers represent pawns; in others they have no special meaning other than to indicate an overall strength or weakness of a given side and his or her potential winning chances, or the lack there of. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | Artar1: Part 3
I, personally, would not overstate the importance of Evals because of their inherent subjective nature. Rather, what’s more important is for an analyst to inspect the position visually, move by move, to pin point tactical opportunities and positional considerations, using standard chess analysis, which can be found in such works as 1. The Middlegame, books I & II. M Euwe & H. Kramer.
2. Chess Strategy. Eduard Gufeld & Nikolai Kalienchenko. 3. Secretes of Positional Chess. Drazen Marovic.
4. My System & Praxis of My System. Aron Nimzowitsch. 5. Creative Chess Strategy. Alfonso Romero.
6. Chess Strategy in Action. John Watson.
7. Modern Chess Strategy. Ludek Pachman.
8. The Art of Planning in Chess. Neil McDonald.
9. Think Like a Grandmaster & Play Like a Grandmaster. Alexander Kotov. 10. The Art of Chess Analysis. Jan Timman.
11. The Secrets of Grandmaster Chess. John Nunn.
12. Chess Master at Any Age. Rolf Wetzell.
13. Mastering the Chess Openings, Vol. I & II. John Watson. 14. Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy. John Watson.
15. The Art of Attack in Chess. Vladimir Vukovic.
16. The Middlegame in Chess. Eugene A. Znosko-Borovsky. 17. Secrets of Chess Transformations. Drazen Marovic. 18. Modern Chess Strategy. Edward Lasker.
19. Chess Strategy. Edward Lasker.
20. Bishop vs. Knight: The Verdict. Steve Mayer.
21. School of Chess Excellence 1, 2 , & 3. Mark Dvoretsky. 22. The Middlegame in Chess. Reuben Fine.
23. Pawn Power in Chess. Hans Kmoch.
24. Understanding Pawn Play in Chess. Drazen Marovic. 25. Pawn Structure Chess. Andrew Soltis.
26. Dynamic Pawn Play in Chess. Drazen Marovic.
27. Silman’s Complete Endgame Course. Jerry Silman.
28. Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual. Mark Dvoretsky.
29. Fundamental Chess Endings. Karsten Muller & Frank Lamprecht. 30. Basic Chess Endings. Reuben Fine.
31. Endgame Tactics. Van Perlo.
32. Batsford Chess Endings. Jon Speelman, Jon Tisdale, & Bob Wade. 33. Endgame Strategy. Mikhail Shereshevsky.
34. Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings. John Nunn.
35. Secrets of Rook Endings. John Nunn.
36. Secrets of Pawnless Endings. John Nunn.
37. 1000 Pawn Endings. Jozsef Pinter.
38. 1000 Rook Endings. Jozsef Pinter.
39. Chess Combination. Chess Informant.
40. Chess Café Puzzle Book I & 2. Karsten Muller.
41. Chess 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games. Laszlo Polgar. 42. 3000 Endgame Problems in Russian.
42. 3000 Middlegame Problems in Russian.
43. CT-ART 3.0 Chess Tactics (Software). George Renko. 44. Intensive Course Tactics 2 (Software). George Renko. 45. Deadly Threats (Software). George Renko.
46. Tactics Training (4000 Positions; Software). George Renko. 47. Chess Combinations Encyclopedia (4000 Positions; Software). Convekta. 48. 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations. Fred Reinfeld. 49. 1001 Checkmates. Fred Reinfeld.
50. Chessbase 9 or 10 with its 3.5 million-game database. 51. Ultracorr2 CC Game Collection (870,000 games). Tim Harding. Please note that in the references cited above there are over 20,000 tactical problems to solve, which should improve anyone’s board vision to one degree or another. The Russian language tactical books can be read by anyone, whether they speak Russian or not. Also note that this list does not include books on the openings. Choosing an opening repertoire is a personal matter and is very subjective. One may wish to add to this list any annotated game anthologies, which will also provide further insights into our royal game. In a follow-up post, I will propose how our analysis might make better use of sliding-forward analysis, using similar game positions from grandmaster play to illustrate key concepts and possible middle- and endgame strategies. Thank you for reading.
|
|
| Jul-13-08 | | kwid: Jul-13-08
< MostlyAverageJoe:>
<Take for example this OTB game: A Giaccio vs T Turgut, 2000 - the position after 30. Nc6 evaluates, after 8 CPU minutes, at just over 9.00, but black kept playing for another 10 moves (maybe he was in time trouble, since he resigned just after the time control). Whatever the reason, the game did not appear to be obviously lost to the black.>This is not a good example for pointing out incidents in regard to
a timely resignation compared to an individual vs team in cc playing. In an OTB Olympiad game the teams captain may ask you to play on
especially if your opponent is in time trouble. I am sure that black
with a 2200 elo saw the writing on the wall after he overlooked the Ne7 fork. His Rxe4 was a plunder but made in a very difficult position already.
Then again black could have blitzed white hoping the flag would fall
before move 40 which seem to have been their time control. It should also be said that a player when representing his country has not always got the privilege to resign a game even in a hopeless position nor accept a draw unless approved by the captain of the team. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | Artar1: <White has a theoretically won game.> Black's next move is controversial:
<57...Rc6> offers, perhaps the most stubborn defense. <57...Rxe4+> is favored by some chess programs, but simplifies the game too quickly for Black. Both methods lose, as do other tries by our opponent. The expected course of the game is
A) <57...Rc6 58.Rb5+ Kd6 59.Rxh5 Rc8> or
B) <57...Rxe4+ 58.Kxe4 Nf2+ 59.Ke3 Ng4+> User: Artar1 |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1688 OF 1784 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
