|Jun-26-12|| ||whiteshark: This is probably the quickest white piece development in chess within five moves. Well, it has its drawbacks, too.|
|Jun-26-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <whiteshark> Well said! |
|Jun-26-12|| ||YouRang: You too can own the Turochamp engine!
<What I find fascinating about this story is that nobody (to my knowledge) ever bothered to create an actual computer program using Turing’s algorithm for more than fifty years after Turing devised it. A few years ago, though, the programming team at ChessBase decided to create a ChessBase-format engine based on Turing’s “hand simulation”.* Predictably, it played very badly. But then some brainy mug decided to release the engine to the public: Turing’s chess engine can now be downloaded and used as a chess sparring partner in Fritz12, Rybka4, or any of the other chess playing programs which ChessBase offers (as well as an analysis engine in ChessBase 11, though why you’d want it for that purpose is beyond me).
*The ChessBase programmers made a few additions to Turing’s algorithm, as some situations (such as stalemate) weren’t covered in his original instruction set.
The reason you might want to download and install the engine (which the ChessBase programmers have named Turing, for obvious reasons) is that it’s an ideal sparring partner for beginning chessplayers who might still find Fritz12 or Rybka4 too much to handle even when played in a handicap mode. It’s also a great chess engine for children to use when they’re just starting out as chessplayers; little kids love to win.
Here’s the link to the Turing chess engine; it’s free, by the way:
Turing (courtesy ChessBase GmbH)>
Text from Steve Lopez at http://uscfsales.wordpress.com/tag/...
|Jun-26-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <YouRang> Informative post!|
|Jun-26-12|| ||WannaBe: Garry's expression must have been priceless after seeing 1. e3 :-)|
|Jun-26-12|| ||Shams: <YouRang> What a great idea, both very useful for beginning players and a fitting homage to Turing as well.|
|Jun-27-12|| ||gargle: They keep talking about 2-ply and 5-ply, but I am actually more curious as to how it would play at the "usual" 15-20 ply. Could it play at say 1700 level?|
|Jun-28-12|| ||piroflip: A fitting display of Turing's genius.|
|Jun-28-12|| ||RookFile: Those Fischer vs. Greenblatt games are looking better and better.|
|Jun-28-12|| ||ughaibu: WannaBe: on seeing 1.e3 he said "no respect, no respect". They had to bring his mother on before he'd continue playing.|
|Jun-28-12|| ||Oxnard: <gargle> 15-20 ply is enough to turn even the simplest evaluation function into much more than 1700 elo. However, that is very hypothetical, as I suspect Turochamp's heuristics are very primitive (and perhaps not-existent), so 15-20 ply is most likely impossible with modern hardware.|
|Jun-28-12|| ||gargle: Oxnard - thanks's that's very interesting. My impression was that Turing's paper talked about pruning search trees, but maybe he didn't specify that in his algorithm?|
|Jun-28-12|| ||andyatchess: When I see 1. e3 I'm expecting 2.d4 to follow|
|Jun-28-12|| ||AylerKupp: <YouRang> Do you think that the game organizers considered Garry Kasparov a "beginning chessplayer"? Then again, "little kids love to win".|
|Jun-28-12|| ||theagenbiteofinwit: Kaspy has gotten soft in his old age. He won't play anyone over 2200 in simuls and now he won't play against engines that calculate over 2 ply!|
|Jun-29-12|| ||offramp: <piroflip: A fitting display of Turing's genius.>|
You mean that Turing was an idiot?
|Jun-29-12|| ||Naniwazu: <WannaBe: Garry's expression must have been priceless after seeing 1. e3 :-)>|
For anyone interested here's the link to a video of Kasparov playing the engine http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...
|Jul-07-12|| ||HeadCrunch: This is how computers played in the early 80's - what a cabbage program.|
|Jul-08-12|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <WannaBe: Garry's expression must have been priceless after seeing 1. e3 :-)>|
The only other game I know that opens <1. e3> is this one: Blackburne vs Nimzowitsch, 1914, which is among the games included in the Appendix to <My System> (one of the rare losses by the "stormy petrel" so honored). It worked out pretty well for Blackburne. I always assumed it wins by force, but it would’a seemed like cheating to use it, so I never did.
Maybe it doesn’t (win by force) after all.
|Jul-14-12|| ||Doctor Aust: For the only known game with the original "paper" algorithm, operated by Turing hand-calculating the position assessments, see over here:|
A Turing vs A Glennie, 1952
|Aug-06-12|| ||Sneaky: <WannaBe: Garry's expression must have been priceless after seeing 1. e3 :-)>|
Ironically, 1.e3 is a choice that Kasparov has made himself on numerous occasions when playing computers:
If I recall correctly, he used 1.d3 against Deep Blue at least one round.
|Aug-06-12|| ||perfidious: <Sneaky> When I faced the silicon wretch Deep Thought (Computer) in the 1988 US Open, I plumped for 1.g3. Maybe 1.d3 or e3 would have been better.|
|Oct-24-13|| ||Domdaniel: <Peligroso Patzer> -- <The only other game I know that opens <1. e3> is ...>
You'll find more than that in the database. 1.e3 -- Van't Kruijs Opening -- isn't at all bad: I used to play it regularly, and once won in 12 moves in a national championship game.
It tends to transpose: into a Nimzo-Larsen after 2.b3 or Bird's Opening after eg 1.e3 d5 2.f4. After 1.e3 e5 2.d4 it's possible to end up in a French.
Many people fail to understand that moves such as 1.e3 and 1.d3 are quite playable and can lead to original play.|
|Oct-24-13|| ||Domdaniel: There are actually 300 games in the CG database starting with 1.e3. Nimzo lost to Blackburne, true -- but later won another classic, Nimzowitsch vs Spielmann, 1929.|