|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 27 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-29-05
 | | lostemperor: <alchemist> sorry I corrected a spellings mistake.'But yes in a way it must! |
 |
| Jun-29-05 | | skiskichess5: <lostemperor>, that is an interesting point. At least the human should be allowed a PC (without chess engine) to play through the positions that is entering his head. Another possibility would be to deprive the computer of the advantage of NOT playing blindfold in the way that you describe. But how on earth could you do that ... |
|
Jun-29-05
| | lostemperor: A computer cannot play blindfold. It must always shuffle the pieces and see the future positions to play chess. There is no other way. |
|
| Jun-29-05 | | THE pawn: <Eric S.> The whole point of having opening books for comps is to avoid lots of lost time at the beginning of the game. Look at Hydra, He's thinking for about 5 minutes per move, imagine if, for the first 15 moves, He had to lose 5 minutes for each one. In the crucial positions, he would have no time left to think, thus leveling down his analysis capacity. |
|
| Jun-29-05 | | Clutch: What a patzer adams is |
|
| Jun-29-05 | | aw1988: Oh yeah, what a patzer... |
|
Jun-30-05
| | lostemperor: After losing the match 5.5 - 0,5 this English GM said the following now legendary words <"I thought I was playing the worldchampion- not some 27-eyed monster who sees everything">. This was not Adams as you may know though it could have been. This was one of my favorite players, Anthony Miles, God rests his soul. |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | Woodpusher: Eric Schiller is not suggesting that computers don't use opening books--just that they don't use opening books prepared by humans. If Kasparov analyzes the best move in a certain opening position, and the computer just copies this advice blindly, who are you really playing, the computer, or Kasparov? Let computers build up opening repertoires just like humans: move by move, spending hours or even days of computation on various positions, and then they can write all this data to giant database for instant reference during the game. It would be very interesting to see what they come up with. |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | SnoopDogg: <Lost emperor> Didn't Miles say that to Kaspsrov? And wasn't it <I thought I was playing a 27-eyed monster who sees everything, not the world champion."> Something like that. |
|
Jun-30-05
| | lostemperor: <SnoopDogg> LOL, maybe Adams should have said that! |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | THE pawn: <Woodpusher> Oh okay... sorry <eric S.> if I didn't understand correctly. I think too, that it would interesting to see with what type of opening he would come up to. But that would be really long for the programmers, imagine how many hundreds of games they would have to make it play to come with only a couple of openings. Oh well. <lostemperor> Or maybe he should have said I thought I was playing a computer, not a nine-headed, fabled monster that sees everything! |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | Poisonpawns: I dont know much about Petroff but 9..f5 seems risky.How does white normally play after say 9...Nf6 just retreating the knight? |
|
Jul-04-05
 | | OhioChessFan: But something hits me because of all these talks. We humans are playing blindfolded to the computers! Well at least for 90% of the time. Let me explain what I mean. We see only the current position on the board. All our calculated variations should be made by heart, by imaginating and memorising the possible future positions and it's sidelines. While a computer can keep shuffeling the pieces and actually SEEING future positions, we cannot. It can store hundreds of possible variations and calculate from there onwards again and so on.
So what Adams needed to have equal conditions as Hydra is a room with a hundred chessboards, all automatically displaying the current position. <Lostemperor>, I agree with your points above, but as someone else stated, a computer MUST see ahead to play the game. I'm not sure if it's still true, but I understand that at one time the computer even examined knight moves on an extended board, that is, moves to a 9th rank or file. The accomodations that must be made for the 2 sides to meet are so hopelessly arbitrary, that it strikes me as an exercise in futility. As things stand today, I think the great majority of the decisions have gone in favor of the computer side. Maybe we should just accept these matches as exhibitions and not be so concerned about them. |
|
Jul-05-05
| | lostemperor: <OhioChessFan> Man should get the opportunity to analyse on a real board (or labtop without engine) to have even slightly equal circumstances as the computer has. When Kasparov moved a piece against Judit Polgar and than retreated it to a different square, everyone was talking shame about it. It was simply cheating. Computers do that all the time and we barely give any attention to it! In every game a top-player must think up to 16 ply (move) deep sometimes. But human must do it by heart, memorising and imagening all positions and it's sidelines blindfolded, while computers see and store all positions it calculates. |
|
Jul-05-05
| | OhioChessFan: <Lostemperor> that wasn't my quote cited above. In any case, I recall an article about the matter some time ago, the title was something like "Cheating 200 Million Times a Second". It made the point you do. The accomodation must be made. But the arbitrariness of the accomodation lessens the quality of the competition. I've seen people on both sides make a good case for this rule/that rule. At some point, the rules arbitrarily accepted have as much influence on the outcome as the players. I suggest we look at the big picture and be dazzled by how well computers with a deep search and a fairly decent eval can play a close facsimile of the game of chess. And also accept that in no way are they playing chess as we understand it. |
|
| Jul-05-05 | | djmercury: Flohr suggested after 12. Qc2 -> c5. And black position looks more solid.
Note that Adams avoided the traditional reply, probably dangerous against Hydra, 11. ... Kh8 (losing the b7 pawn, but with good counterplay chance). |
|
Jul-05-05
| | lostemperor: <OhioChessFan> yes I did agree with you, excuse me if I gave another impression. Still the only FAIR way to play a computer is in a correspondence kind of game. But I would favor a HYBRID between correspondence and OTB: an over the board game with longer time control. Since human may not "analyse" positions during the game like computers, it is only fair to give more time to think or even if we finally may analyse also, we still cannot "store" positions. Going back to the timecontrol we had for over a century since Steinitz. 16 moves an hour (instead of 20 now). Although Steinitz (the world) used 15 moves an hour then and before there wasn't even a timelimit. Even if that means a 9 or 10 hour game or adjournments, it will be better and fair (since computers also now have endgame databases). But even with the present time control I think human can still fight the computer (I intend to get back on this at another Adams - Hydra game) .. |
|
Jul-06-05
| | lostemperor: Michael Adams was being too modest in his interview after this match. He is a Grand Master in giving no excuses. Everyone can see that he barely had time to prepare for this computermatch.In fact he was the LEAST prepared human top player you can think of. He has played in all 3 toptournaments this year and on top of that he also played a rapidmatch with Leko two weeks before the match. Not your ideal computer preperation. A match where he lost a 3-0 lead! Hydra knew every game from Adams while Adams had almost no information about Hydra. It is like playing poker your cards open on the table. That is what also happened when Adams got trapped by an opening's novelty of the computerteam. It would not be possible the other way around. Hydra was being steamed ready for a manmauling machine in the months before the match. Adams did not realise he was sitting duck. A future opponent should dig in and prepare and play the computer for a month, at least. Like Kramnik and also Kasparov did before the match against respectively Deep Fritz and Deep Junior. They asked and got games of their sillicon opponent and insisted to play versions of the programs before the match. But a future opponent of Hydra must do with these six games of Adams only. Though that is still a lot more than nothing. |
|
| Jul-06-05 | | iron maiden: Adams doesn't think he would have performed that much better with proper preparation--maybe another draw or two. |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | aw1988: I thought Kasparov was the 1000 eyed monster who sees everything. |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | fgh: <SnoopDogg>: Actually, it was like this: "I though I was playing the world champion, not some monster with 20 000 eyes that sees everything!" - Anthony Miles, after losing to Kasparov 0.5 - 5.5. And also this one: "It's a monter's with a thousand of eyes that sees everything! For me it's impossible to defeat him!" - Anthony Miles |
|
Jul-13-05
 | | patzer2: Wow! What a super result by the Hydra team in securing this first of five out of six victories in the Adams match. In this game, the computer was programmed to play a sharp opening line and sprang a novelty with 14. Rb1! with some extremely difficult lines for Black to have to figure out over the board. Of course the computer had time in advance to to analyze the possibilities and find lines likely to confuse Adams in the complications over the board. This game was certainly not a fair contest for Adams, but it was a decisive victory to put the Chess World on notice that all of the best super GMs may soon join the ranks of all other Chess players who can't hold their own against these silicon monsters. Finding improvements for Adams in this game is a difficult process, even with the help of fellow kibitzers, opening research, game databases and computers. Perhaps Bologan's idea of 12...c5!? can revive this opening. However, his near loss when Anand missed a win on his 18th move in Anand vs Bologan, 2004 may have discouraged other super GMs from reviving this idea. Another alternative worth considering is 16... axb5!? 17. Rxb5 Na5 18. Nxe4 fxe4 19. Bxe4 dxe4 20. Rxh5
g6 21. Rxa5 Rxa5 22. Qxe4 Qd7 23. Qxb7 Rxa2 24. Qb3+ Qf7 25. c4  , when White's two pawns for the exchange and safer King position seem to give White only a small advantage. Of course hydra seems to thrive on increasing such small advantages, and Adams didn't relish the idea of defending such a position I'm sure. Perhaps 24... Nf6!? 25. Bg5 cxd4 26. Qd3 Rc5 27. Qxd4 Qc7 28. f4 Rd5
29. Qb2 would have given Black enough of a defensible position against Hydra to survive with a draw. Of course Hydra can probably improve on this analysis also. After this game, one thing for sure is that computer games will have to be taken more seriously as a source for researching and anlyzing openings.
Certainly, Hydra's novelty 14. Rb1! made a major statement that the Petroff may not be so safe as a drawing weapon in future GM contests. |
|
Jul-13-05
| | patzer2: Just found the possibility 23... cxd4! 24. Qxc8 Qxc8 25. Bxc8 Rxc8 26. Bf4 g5 27. Bh2 Rc2 , with Fritz 8 @ 14 depth, which looks sufficient to give Black good chances to hold the draw. |
|
Jul-13-05
| | patzer2: Hydra's technique in securing a passed pawn with 27. Rb6! and subsequent play is instructive.
Here's a little analysis of 27. Rb6! using Fritz 8:
<27. Rb6! Rf8 28. Qe3 Rcf7> Not much help is 28... Qc8 29. Ba3 Re8 30. e6 c4 31. Qf3 Rf7 32. Qc3 Rf6 33. Bb2 Bf5 34. e7 Rf7 35. Qa5 Bd7 36. Rxa6  , when Black still has a lost position. <29. Rd6! Qa5 30. e6 Re7 31. Ba3 Rfe8 32. Bxc5 Qxa2> While this makes it easy for Hydra, with a winning discovered attack to follow, also losing decisively is 32... Bf5 33. Rxa6 Qxa6 34. Bxe7 Qc8 (34... Rxe7 35. Qc5 ) 35. Qe5 Bxh3 36. Qd6 Bf5 37. Re3 Kg8 38. a4 Qb7 39. Bh4 Qc8 40. e7 Qc1+ 41. Kh2 Qc4 42. Bg5 Qf7 43. a5 Bg4 44. Qd8 Qh5+ 45. Kg1 Qg6 46. a6 Qc6 47. Rc3 Qa4 48. Ra3 <33. Rd2 1-0> Adams surely sees it is hopeless after 33...Qa5 34. Bxe7 Rxe7 35. Rd7 . |
|
| Aug-15-05 | | Clutch: The Petroff? Obviously a glitch in the human. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 27 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
icon.