chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Shredder (Computer) vs Hydra (Computer)
4th Intl.CSVN (2004), Leiden NED, rd 5, Apr-24
Sicilian Defense: Dragon Variation. Yugoslav Attack Modern Line (B76)  ·  1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 8 more Shredder/Hydra games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: To access more information about the players (more games, favorite openings, statistics, sometimes a biography and photograph), click their highlighted names at the top of this page.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
Oct-31-04  Spassky69: Hydra's overhyped. Stick Shredder on the machine Hydra's running on and we'll see what happens.
Mar-24-05  Orbitkind: Fritz, Shredder, and Junior etc have deep versions (is there a deep shredder though?) which can allow about 8 processors at maximum. I wonder if the programmers can adapt these programs to be run with say 200 processors. The only problem would be finding worthy competition for it. I think people are more interested in the quality of the programming, and how well different software does running on the same power processor.
May-08-05  ryanpd: I thinkt this is an example of bad bookbuilding. Hydra was in bad shape from the moment it came out of its opening book.
May-25-05  Jaymthetactician: is there a deep shredder though?)

Yes, I own a copy, for about $100.00 (plus shipping) you can order it from

www.wholesalechess.com

May-25-05  Jaymthetactician: 21...Kh8?! is too passive, I like 21...f5 better.
May-25-05
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: but a pawn is already on f5. It was from 18. ... gxf5
May-26-05  Jaymthetactician: correction: I meant 21...f4
May-26-05  refutor: <I thinkt this is an example of bad bookbuilding. Hydra was in bad shape from the moment it came out of its opening book>

was it? i read that after 10 moves, the programmers set hydra to put away the book

May-27-05  Jaymthetactician: I personally think that programming book is a bad idea, they play flawed human moves for about 10 moves.
May-27-05  Everett: "Flawed," huh? LOL! GM's play imperfectly so early on now, eh?
May-29-05  Swapmeet: <Jay> I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. However you have to realize that in essence every computer move has some "human flaw" in it, since it is evaluating a position based on the criteria given to it by humans. That, and I've noticed some programs tend to play rather passively in the opening without a little guidance.
May-31-05  Jaymthetactician: you have to realize that in essence every computer move has some "human flaw" in it, since it is evaluating a position based on the criteria given to it by humans.

Well, I have defeated many mediocre program's with the King and wing gambit's, and have been down half a pawn and one move suddenly made my position three quarters of a pawn better, so theres a point.

I've noticed some programs tend to play rather passively in the opening without a little guidance.

Maybe there playing the best move's for 50 moves ahead? And we cannot comprehend the depth search they do, this passivity is for a reason they know and we dont.

May-31-05  Swapmeet: <Maybe there playing the best move's for 50 moves ahead? And we cannot comprehend the depth search they do, this passivity is for a reason they know and we dont.>

I think you're giving computers a little too much credit here...

Like I said before, a program plays moves based on human criteria. The problem is that the opening requires a little bit more imagination and intuition to play without actually memorizing book - there are no clear pathways like in the middlegame or endgame. So the computer simply plays the most conservative opening moves it can find. Whether or not this strategy is sound, I cannot say, but I doubt any programmer in his right mind would send a computer off too face a human GM without the most thorough opening preparation.

May-31-05  whatthefat: Well of course. Without any opening knowledge, the top chess computers are known to play at a much lower level. That's common sense. The knowledge built from human analysis from the first move remains very deep as compared to a computer's crude search tree.
Jun-01-05  ryanpd: That computers play badly in the opening is nothing new. Even very strong chessplayers of the 1800's played what ae (by today's standards) bad openings, simply because they didn't have the experience and common knowledge passed down from former generations of chessplayers.

When you put a human novice before the chessboard, and ask him to find correct opening moves without giving him a "book" to study, he will play horribly, almost 100% of the time. Even people who will one day become talented chessplayers. The reason is that chess is just too complex a game for anyone to understand, human or otherwise, without drawing on their own past experience, and the experience of others.

So no, computers playing badly in the opening means nothing. Humans play like crap in the opening too, without their "opening books" that they study and formulate for hours before the game.

Aug-05-05  tacticsjokerxxx: hydra playes the dragon like an amateur, with a variation 9.-♘xd4 considered inferior. (see for example John Fedorowicz "Fed does the Sicilian" at chess.fm in the video vault, where he states that 9.-d5 is clearly better. (or 9.-♗d7 if you ask me.
Aug-05-05  tacticsjokerxxx: Humans should play more daringly against computers, IMHO.
Oct-14-05
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <When you put a human novice before the chessboard, and ask him to find correct opening moves without giving him a "book" to study, he will play horribly, almost 100% of the time. Even people who will one day become talented chessplayers. The reason is that chess is just too complex a game for anyone to understand, human or otherwise, without drawing on their own past experience, and the experience of others.>

Computers can't learn, for the most part. That is the problem with making an analogy between humans learning to play openings and computers having a book programmed in. Any instructional chess book will encourage a beginner to play various openings for themselves, to learn. Computers left to their own devices, so far, have failed miserably to learn how to play openings.

Nov-07-05  DeepBlade: 32. ...Nf2

Nice picture to spot the fork.

Apr-28-06  Nomen Nescio: I agree, the dragon is not so good for black.
Apr-28-06  notsodeepthought: <Nomen Nescio: I agree, the dragon is not so good for black.> Maybe, but Hydra would have to play the Dragon, if only to be true to its name: http://www.pantheon.org/areas/galle...
Aug-02-06  spirit: is hydra's opening book ok now?
Nov-29-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Penguincw: Hydra (Computer) didn't even get time to use its a8 ♖.

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Sicilian Dragon. Yugoslav Attack Modern Line (B76) 1-0One-sided
from Some S-upermen of the 21st Century by fredthebear
Sicilian Dragon. Yugoslav Attack Modern Line (B76) 1-0One-sided
from SY Robertson doesn't play around Fredthebear by fredthebear
kibitzing gambiteer's favorite games
by kibitzing gambiteer

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC