< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Sep-27-04|| ||offramp: Bagirov vs Gufeld, 1973 is a great game. I would rate it higher if Gufeld hadn't kept on & on & on & on about it.|
I was just saying that no matter how good a game a computer plays - people will ignore it.
|Sep-27-04|| ||I sacrifice like Tal: Here's the site.
Bagirov vs Gufeld, 1973
|Sep-27-04|| ||charms: I don't understand blacks 67th move, altough the lights are already off then. I'd expect computers to play ruthlessly till the and, and Qxf2 seems simpler. |
|Sep-28-04|| ||I sacrifice like Tal: <charms> I'm not analysing but just at a glance maybe it wins faster for Black. It might be possible for white to waste time pushing passed pawns and "building a fortress" or something. I doubt it though, but it's just an idea. |
|Mar-17-05|| ||lopium: It looks that from the 50th move, deep junior became very angry : invincible. Very funny to see. |
|Jul-05-05|| ||samvega: 47..Ra4 was also a deep move.
What's a zeitnot by the way?
|Jul-05-05|| ||samvega: <charms> if 67..Qxf2, then white plays Nc4+ & Ne3. The knight guards a bunch of key squares, and black's progress would be very slow.|
|Mar-04-07|| ||gauer: the staircase attack didn't quite work out so well here: M Lowtzky vs Tartakower, 1937|
|Jun-11-07|| ||prinsallan: If only I had patience like this. Totally amazing finish.|
|Jun-11-07|| ||scholes: junior sacs bishop at 47th move to win queen at 65 th move !|
|Nov-28-07|| ||Manic: erm <gauer>, what do you mean it didn't quite work out as well in that game?|
|Nov-28-07|| ||scholes: one of the best combinations ever played ??|
|Nov-28-07|| ||cotdt: haha what a funny game|
|Dec-08-07|| ||Manic: Potential puzzles from moves 50-64|
|Dec-25-07|| ||gauer: <Manic> see pages 1 & 2 of the note to that game for the potential white defences.|
|Dec-28-07|| ||Manic: <gauer> What I meant is that you say it did not quite work out so in that game, but in fact the player who made the staircase attack in that game won...|
|Sep-15-08|| ||Whitehat1963: Here's a game we should look at.|
|Sep-15-08|| ||whiteshark: http://www.geocities.com/jagdnews20... :D|
|Jan-02-09|| ||WhiteRook48: ha ha ha why did Deep Fritz resign? Computers can't resign.|
|Jul-21-10|| ||cuppajoe: Know how I know this is a computer game? Moves 34 and 35.|
<WhiteRook> EIther its operator resigned for it or there was a rule in the tournament that if one program or the other is more than, say, six pawn units down it resigns.
|Sep-12-10|| ||ughaibu: Offramp: the queen manoeuvre is known, in tsume-shogi jargon, as a "horse-saw" (I think). It was introduced in the 18th century by Ito Sokan the third.|
|Sep-17-10|| ||echector: Totally the best game ever.|
|Nov-15-13|| ||inmate5: "Stairway to heaven" maybe?|
|Mar-21-15|| ||Alex Schindler: The end is like a game of Go, encircling the king with little black stones in a ladder formation.|
|Mar-21-15|| ||AylerKupp: <WhiteRook48> ha ha ha why did Deep Fritz resign? Computers can't resign.>|
That shows how much you know about computers. Computers can and do resign. The most common method is to have the computer resign when the evaluation is over a certain threshold for a certain number of consecutive moves. For example, in a computer vs. computer game you can specify that White would resign if the evaluation is less than [-9.00] for 5 consecutive moves. Likewise Black would resign if the evaluation is more than [+9.00] for 5 consecutive moves. And you can set the thresholds at any level that you think makes sense.
Granted, the resignation is done by the GUI and not by the engine, but the GUI is just as much a part of the "computer" as the chess engine.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·