Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Number of games in database: 38
Years covered: 1987 to 1999
Overall record: +6 -15 =17 (38.2%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games.

Repertoire Explorer
Search Sacrifice Explorer for Computer
Search Google for Computer

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 38  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Kasparov vs Computer 1-0281987Simul, 41bD15 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
2. Alburt vs Computer  ½-½5619891st Harvard CupA40 Queen's Pawn Game
3. Silman vs Computer ½-½431991It Chicago (USA)D27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
4. Computer vs W Schmidt 1-0511993Katowice mB84 Sicilian, Scheveningen
5. Joel Benjamin vs Computer  ½-½4719945th Harvard CupD00 Queen's Pawn Game
6. Computer vs K Burger  0-1531995ICC 2 12 08/26/95 Internet Chess ClubD52 Queen's Gambit Declined
7. K Burger vs Computer  1-0411995ICC 2 12 08/26/95 Internet Chess ClubD90 Grunfeld
8. Computer vs Bisguier  ½-½331995It Chicago (USA) (01)C67 Ruy Lopez
9. Zsofia Polgar vs Computer  ½-½611995The Hague AEGONC00 French Defense
10. L Christiansen vs Computer 1-0241995The Hague AEGOND02 Queen's Pawn Game
11. Computer vs Zsofia Polgar  0-1721995The Hague AEGOND05 Queen's Pawn Game
12. Computer vs Zsuzsa Polgar ½-½411995The Hague AEGONC12 French, McCutcheon
13. L Christiansen vs Computer 0-1941995The Hague AEGOND32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
14. Computer vs Zsofia Polgar  ½-½451995The Hague AEGONB48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
15. Computer vs Zsuzsa Polgar 1-0571995The Hague AEGONB22 Sicilian, Alapin
16. Zsofia Polgar vs Computer  ½-½231995The Hague AEGONC46 Three Knights
17. Zsuzsa Polgar vs Computer  1-0541995The Hague AEGONA46 Queen's Pawn Game
18. Computer vs Zsuzsa Polgar 0-1261995The Hague AEGONC44 King's Pawn Game
19. Computer vs Zsofia Polgar  ½-½541995The Hague AEGONB25 Sicilian, Closed
20. Computer vs Zsuzsa Polgar 1-0481995The Hague AEGONB32 Sicilian
21. Zsofia Polgar vs Computer  1-0321995The Hague AEGONC26 Vienna
22. Joel Benjamin vs Computer 0-16119956th Harvard CupA11 English, Caro-Kann Defensive System
23. K Burger vs Computer  1-0531996BR 3 12 06/04C30 King's Gambit Declined
24. Computer vs K Burger  ½-½441996ICC 3 12 06/05/96 Internet Chess ClubD14 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Exchange Variation
25. K Burger vs Computer  1-0891996BR 3 12 03/13E32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 38  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Computer wins | Computer loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Who was the greatest chess player of all time?> (part 2 of 2)

2. The authors used only one engine at any one time. I again know from personal experience that different engines produce different move evaluations and rankings, so who’s to say that one engine's top ranked move is better than another engine's top ranked move? No only that but, because of the non-determinism of chess engines, particularly multi-core engines, the same engine running on the same computer, when used to analyze the same position and run to the same search depth, will give different evaluations and rankings. Not MAY, WILL. Guaranteed. Again, this aspect of computer position analysis has never been addressed to my knowledge by any of the authors, and might not even have been appreciated at the time that they did their research.

So determining a reference move to be used to grade the player's choice of move is not easy and would be very time consuming. Imagine having to run an analysis of <each> position multiple times by multiple engines, each analysis at a much greater depth. Such an analysis would require much greater computing resources and much more time. And in the end there is no good known (at least to me) to determine the confidence level in one or several engines' evaluation of a position, so we don't really know how good the agreed upon reference move is.

<Sally Simpson> If you have gotten this far you might remember the discussion we recently have about ways to assess the complexity of a position with regards to including within an engine ways to determine that a position might be difficult for a human to analyze. The article provides one possibility to attempt to do this.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Alerkupp,

I followed the link...

Glad to hear you are out on parole.

I doubt if anybody (or thing) can answer the question 'who was/is the greatest chess player'.

But no harm done in setting a top of the range computer onto it. Just don't expect everyone to agree.

If God almighty himself appeared and stated who the greatest player there would always be someone (especially on here) to argue with him and in some cases make a valid point.

(The rows would get that bitter some would end up on God's ignore list)

Regarding a computer knowing what is and what is not a difficult position for a human is nigh impossible. It all depends on who they are playing.

How can you tell a machine that does not even know it is playing a game that it's opponent is a GM or a beginner.

When to start setting cheapo's tricks and traps in a lost position is beyond the top computers. They are too powerful, they cannot anticipate a bad move.

Yes what is the point, they can beat humans so why the need to cheapo humans, which I have no doubt they could do.

I bet in some famous lost games they could have muddied the waters if only we could let them - it must be frustrating for them. It can see a shot that turns the game into turmoil. No problem for it to thread it way through but impossible for a human. And yet it cannot play it. It has to follow the 'play the best move' routine.


Van der Wiel vs Short, 1990 (kibitz #2)

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <Bill Gates wants you to send him your resume if you can finish this insanely difficult book>

<In the world of Silicon Valley, there are few books held in higher esteem than "The Art of Computer Programming," a multi-volume set by Stanford professor emiritus Donald Knuth.

"If you think you're a really good programmer... read (Knuth's) Art of Computer Programming... You should definitely send me a résumé if you can read the whole thing," read a quote from Bill Gates on the cover of the third edition of the first volume.>

Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: (<OhioChessFan: <Bill Gates wants you to send him your resume if you can finish this insanely difficult book>

<In the world of Silicon Valley, there are few books held in higher esteem than "The Art of Computer Programming," a multi-volume set by Stanford professor emiritus Donald Knuth.

"If you think you're a really good programmer... read (Knuth's) Art of Computer Programming... You should definitely send me a résumé if you can read the whole thing," read a quote from Bill Gates on the cover of the third edition of the first volume.>>

If you were that good, you would have created something better than "Windows" and Bill would be sending you his resume.

Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: Tried that (volumn I) e-book, think I got to page 8 before I decide to switch to Angry Bird.
Sep-07-16  zanzibar: I wonder if Ken Thompson or Dennis Ritchie read that book through, cover to cover?
Sep-07-16  zanzibar: <• Everyone spoke highly of Knuth’s The Art of Computer Programming, and plenty of people owned copies that they dipped into from time to time, but only one person had actually read it all the way through. (I don’t remember who, sorry).

• Everyone agrees that Knuth’s “literate programming” seemed like a pretty neat idea, but no-one had ever actually done it. (Er, except Knuth.)>

Sep-07-16  john barleycorn: <zanzibar> that is the fate of outstanding books:

Everybody agrees they are a must read,
many pretend to have read them and very few actually did.

(I am not alluding to the pseudo-intellectuals on Rogoff)

Sep-07-16  Absentee: <diceman: If you were that good, you would have created something better than "Windows" and Bill would be sending you his resume.>

Linux and BSD are better than Windows.

<only one person had actually read it all the way through. (I don’t remember who, sorry).>

That's Knuth himself, although I'd bet good money that even he can't remember every plot twist and minor character with their patronymic.

Sep-07-16  john barleycorn: Windows did not succeed because it was/is the better operating system but by IBM accepting it and giving Bill Gates the happiest moment in his life.

I admire Knuth already for Latex (not for condoms)and "Insel der Zahlen".

Sep-07-16  Appaz: <<Absentee> Linux and BSD are better than Windows.>

That depends on what you are going to use it for. As a desktop OS the different GNU/Linux distributions suck big time compared to OSX and Windows. The different GUI options are unstable, too heavy and even sometimes introduces stupid security issues.

For low level work like programming, processing data or as a server OS it's magnificent.

Sep-07-16  Absentee: <Appaz: <<Absentee> Linux and BSD are better than Windows.>

That depends on what you are going to use it for. As a desktop OS the different GNU/Linux distributions suck big time compared to OSX and Windows. The different GUI options are unstable, too heavy and even sometimes introduces stupid security issues.>

The only reason I can think of for running Windows is if you want to play games. Videogame development is almost exclusively Windows-centric. For everything else I'd still pick GNU/Linux (personally, I use Funtoo for both the usual desktop stuff and programming). Incidentally, OSX, too, is based on BSD, ie it runs a proprietary interface on top of a BSD kernel.

I'm curious as to which GUIs you found unstable. There are a dozen, more if you count plain window managers, and in my experience (all GNOMEs, LXDE, XFCE, Cinnamon, brief stints on KDE, Unity and E17) they're rock-solid. Practically all of them, except KDE the Unholy Mammoth and maybe Unity, are considerably lighter, faster and less resource-hungry than Windows. Can you elaborate on the security issues? The X server doesn't run with administrative privileges unless you explicitly make it, so it should be impossible to compromise a machine through the GUI.

Sep-07-16  Appaz: I wouldn't recommend GNU/Linux for the typical computer illiterate secretary or home user. I once installed Ubuntu instead of Windows for my ex-gf, hoping this would result in less free support from me, but I was wrong. She was less able to troubleshoot issues herself and I also found myself searching a lot for the right drivers for some peripherals.

The GNOME interface I've used on Mint and Ubuntu (on several different computers) sometimes crashes for no obvious reason. The kernel is still running, but all input devices dies so the only fix is a hard reset (pressing the power button for several seconds). This occasionally happens on Windows too, but in 9 out of 10 times, Windows is able to detect this and restart the Explorer GUI automatically.

At my previous work we also experienced several problems setting up a stable development environment with Ubuntu on some old but powerful Dell boxes.

Windows also has much more functionality built into the GUI and things like drag&drop and keyboard shortcuts are more advanced.

The security issue I was thinking about is not of a technical nature, but the stupid habit my Mint and Ubuntu boxes have after a boot. Usually it automatically fills in the user name of the last logged in user, so all I have to do is to give the password, but suddenly it "forgets" this and wants to have my user name too. When I don't recognize this, I type in my password visible for anyone to see. Not what you want in an open working environment. If this happened every time it wouldn't be an issue, but it's the random behavior that makes it a security issue.

I've worked on all three major desktop OS'es (and even some old mainframe systems) but I'm not locked into a particular environment. I pick my tools, whether it being the OS or a programming language, depending on what kind of work I have to do (if I'm allowed of course).

Fanbois stuck in an environment or to a certain programming language, exclaiming "<this> is the best for anything", just aren't very professional in my eyes.

Sep-08-16  zanzibar: For the record, Knuth invented TeX, Leslie Lamport invented LaTeX (an elaborate set of macros built on top of TeX):

It's funny how little Lamport's wiki page talks about LaTeX.

Here's a link to Amazon's version of the TeX manual:

I think LaTeX and TeX both used the same illustrator.

Backslashes are oh so \special aren't they?

Sep-11-16  zanzibar: One of the unsung heroes of the early days of Linux...

Alan Cox, recently recognized with an honorary degree by his old Alma mater, Swansea University:

(Didn't realize alma should always be capitalized in Alma mater)

Sep-11-16  john barleycorn: I think it is even Alma Mater. at least in German.
Sep-11-16  zanzibar: Yes, I was wondering about that, but there's this...

And, of course, I'm just a humble supplicant of my overlord, Spellcheck - the ultimate arbiter in these matters.

Sep-11-16  john barleycorn: <zanzibar> the article has all three - alma mater, Alma mater and Alma Mater. I guess we have to wait for the master linguist <Abdel> to clarify. <Abdel> does not have an Alma Mater but probably can teach us about the spelling hahaha
Premium Chessgames Member
  cro777: If you use the more general noun rather than the proper noun, this should not be capitalised.

The same rule applies for the Latin phrase "alma mater" - it should not be capitalised if it is not specific. ("My alma mater was books, a good library.")

Of course, in German all nouns are capitalized!

Sep-14-16  Abdel Irada: ∞

<If you were that good, you would have created something better than "Windows" and Bill would be sending you his resume.>

As with Betamax/VHS, it isn't always the better version of anything that triumphs in the market. Sometimes aggressive selling and even dumb luck become more decisive factors than quality.

(If this were not so, do you think Microsoft's bloatware OSs would dominate?)

Sep-14-16  Appaz: All you Windoze haters can't rest easily, in a few years it will be marginalized.

Already it has lost it's dominating position because of Android and *nix (including iOS/OSX). Gaming and other applications are moving to OS independent Internet technology. Consoles have taken large share of the gaming market. Data storage is moving to the cloud.

Very soon, the only computer we will have is our mobile phone. At home we will dock it get access to a keyboard and a bigger screen.

"Mobile phone" is already an outdated term: most the time we use it for other things than phone calls. It has now become the <real> Personal Computer, the new PC.

Sep-14-16  Appaz: I have a head start on you here, as I <HATE> both Android and iOS (and WinPhone of course).

If Microsoft have courage, they could find a niche with a phone OS that put the user in the center and protects his privacy instead of selling his whole personal life on the market, as Google and Apple do.

It's shocking that we accept NO control over our most important computer which have access to a lot of our personal life like mail, friends, Internet habits, real-time location or real-time audio recording. Applications are starting up at will, multiple times if killed, and there are no way of stopping them - except with some specialized third party software - and they have free access to the all the data and all the functionality of the phone.

People are of course becoming very sloppy when installing well known software and doesn't hesitate to give it access to irrelevant data and functionality. Then there are all the pre-installed bloatware from Google and Apple themselves, for which you have no control at all.

On a desktop computer such behavior from software would be labeled Trojan and not accepted, so I wonder why we accept it on our new, even more PC.

Oct-16-20  login:

The Book of Lean

288 bytes

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <login> Thanks for the info. The article brought back some memories from my early days of programming, which I learned in my first year in college. My first programs were in <machine> language, not even assembly language, and our sadistic professor told us that he was having us program in machine language first so that we could more fully appreciate FORTRAN when we learned it.

In those early days both a small program size (due to the limited amount of memory available at the time) and efficiency (due to the slow computers available at the time) were highly prized, and the two were often incompatible. So the proper tradeoff between the two was the hallmark of a "good" program, even if it didn't produce the right result. Seriously. And programming "tricks" were essential in achieving both, even though it made the program unmaintainable, even by its originator. After all "Comments? I don't have to show you no stinking comments."

So my youthful self, as a chess enthusiast in high school, would have been highly interested in entering the race for having the smallest chess playing program. But I should mention that the first personal computer or at least the first commercial one, the Altair 8800 introduced in 1974, only had 256 bytes of memory, so LeanChess would not fit in it. Therefore 256 bytes would have been the obvious target for the smallest chess program. For more on the Altair 8800 see and, although the latter is much longer and has a lot of historical and non-Altair 8800 stuff in it; the relevant stuff starts at 03:18 into the video.

I particularly liked the saving of space by using Os for bishops (and the imaginative rationale behind that) as well as the use of brown for the "light" squares. Clever.

I have mixed feelings about the implications of HG Muller's definition of a chess program and how it applies to LeanChess. As you pointed out, LeanChess does not satisfy HG Mulller's definition of a chess program since it does not implement legal moves that would likely occur in more than 50% of the games (I think that 51%, i.e. a majority, would be a better criteria, but that's not important), e.g. castling and 2-square pawn advance. For the others I suppose that it could resign whenever it encounters a move that it didn't understand such as a pawn promotion, en passant capture, and any game termination conditions (checkmate, stalemate, 3-fold repetition, and 50-move draw rule detection). Except for checkmate the others all together should occur less than 50% of the time.

But considering LeanChess to be a reasonable chess playing implementation given what it does and does not implement seems to make it somewhat subjective whether the size of a particular chess-playing implementation is a suitable candidate for the smallest chess playing program. I would suggest that perhaps indicating what does <not> need to be included in a chess playing program might help.

For example, following modern practice, LeanChess could separate its UX (user interface?) from the "chess engine", so the chess engine would not need to implement a display or prompts and any storage used for those would not need to be counted as part of LeanChess. All that a Minimal Chess Engine (MCE) would need to implement is a method for inputting the last move that an opponent played and provide the move that it decided to play to the UX. It may need to recognize a "Stop" command when the UX detects that the MCE has been checkmated or a draw situation has occurred. It might also need to recognize a 'Move' command from the UX for it to provide the best move that it has found to date as the next move that it will play. That way any synchronization between opponents and any time management features would be the responsibility of the UX. And the minimum required interface between the MCE and the UX could be defined as the Minimal Chess Interface (MCI) protocol and all MCE's must be compatible with it, although the definition of the codes transmitted could be left to each UX/MCE pair since they would both be implemented by the same person or team.

The UX could then be as elaborate as needed and implement any game termination conditions, including arbitrating a game as a result of encountering tablebase win/draw/loss conditions. Just a thought.

Oct-22-20  login:

(Live) Computer rating list


I am not the inventor/coder of the program

  UX = User Experience (Design)
≠ UI = Usability/User Interface (Design)

'Why Tough Teachers Get Good Results'

Altair RAM cards were available

'Just a thought' - I'm glad you enjoyed.

Content additions

A 19-year-old prodigy teaching others how to code

'.. Though the most difficult and enjoyable part of writing a program is the design of data structures and program flow, it is also important to use the least number of instructions possible to perform each function in a program. .. Sometimes the simple way of doing things is the best. ..'

from Computer Notes, Sept 1975, p.7 'Software Notes' (parent folder contains more issues)

Years later the 'kid' added

'.. Interviewer: How do you decide on the trade-offs between speed and performance?

Sometimes it’s a trade-off between adding features and executing really fast, but there are ways of having lots and lots of features and still making things fast. Basically you want to decide what the common cases are in a program, and make sure that they go straight through, that they don’t get bogged down with all these special case checks. If your main interactive loop has all sorts of checks in it, then your program is going to be slower than somebody else’s. ..'


from 'Programmers At Work', by Susan Lammers (former Editor in Chief at Microsoft Press), 1989

Artwork and more can be found here

For a in-depth outlook try 'Code Nation: Personal Computing and the Learn to Program Movement in America' by Michael J. Halvorson, 2020

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>

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 player 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, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
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