|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-21-05 | | THE pawn: are you talking about the Nemeth gambit? if you don't know what I am talking about, check this game: E Nemeth vs Chess Tiger, 2001 |
|
Dec-23-05
 | | James Demery: I was reading some of the earlier posts about the players ratings and I`ve noticed the same opponents play much better when its a rated game. Has anyone else noticed this? I was playing Tasha (1586) in a regular game and then played her in a rated game and there was a world of difference. Maybe the ratings are applicable to tournament or rated games. |
|
| Dec-23-05 | | BishopofBlunder: <James Demery: I was reading some of the earlier posts about the players ratings and I`ve noticed the same opponents play much better when its a rated game. Has anyone else noticed this? I was playing Tasha (1586) in a regular game and then played her in a rated game and there was a world of difference. Maybe the ratings are applicable to tournament or rated games.> Yes, I have noticed this as well. Some players I can beat easily in the gameroom, but when playing in a rated game or tournament, they become much tougher matches. But I just figured it was me choking in the rated games. :) |
|
| Dec-23-05 | | DtRooster: I too, have noticed that. I found it to be very frustrating. |
|
Dec-26-05
| | James Demery: This happened with my hand held game. I have a game called Excalibur thats rated about 1700. I played it in the game room against a personality named Max (1965 rating) and it beat him. In a rated game Max put the beat down on Excalibur. The highest rated personality Excalibur has beaten in a rated game is Nikolai (1705). Chessmaster 7000 is the version I have. I think the ratings are accurate if only for rated games. |
|
| Dec-26-05 | | THE pawn: Excalibur, are you talking about the portable chess engine? |
|
Dec-26-05
| | James Demery: Its a hand held game. Its about the size of a small transistor radio and its rating is approximately 1700. It says it can beat 95%of all chess players. I didn`t realize most chess players were rated under 1700, but then again there isn`t always truth in advertising. |
|
| Dec-26-05 | | THE pawn: Ok I got it not long ago, so we're talking about the same engine. Yeah that's funny because on the back of the box it says: '' the strongest engine matching the strength of today's best computer programs''. The only thing is that there is only one level that can be considered strong and it's the last level (73 if I am correct) because it thinks for an infinite period of time, it never plays on until you tell him to make his move. So it's not false to say that he can find good moves like the actual programs, but it's only if you let him think for like 2-3 days hahah! what a joke. But it's still fun playing him if you're not that strong. |
|
Dec-26-05
| | James Demery: That doesn`t sound like the game I have. The game I have basically has 3 levels. Easy , medium , and hard. If you set it at the highest level and let it think for 20 or 30 seconds for each move it will make pretty good moves and be fairly hard to beat...for me anyway;) Mine says Excalibur at the bottom and Talking E Chess at the top. Does this sound like the game you have? |
|
Dec-26-05
| | James Demery: I see what the problem is. I just looked up your profile. You`re a pretty good player thats whats wrong ;)
Mine does have an infinity setting , but when I played it against the Chessmaster personalities I only let it think for 20 or 30 seconds. It might beat some higher rated people if I let it think longer , but then the games drag on for too long. |
|
| Dec-26-05 | | THE pawn: Ok no it looks like it's not the same tool after all. I got Excalibur Touch Chess ( and checkers but it's not important). Here is the site scoll down a bit and you'll see the ''machine'' I own: http://www.excaliburelectronics.net... |
|
Dec-26-05
| | James Demery: No thats a different game. Mine is here
http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=9...... |
|
Dec-26-05
| | James Demery: It says its $29.95 , but I got mine at Radio Shack for $6.95 after Christmas when they were trying to clear their shelves. |
|
| Dec-27-05 | | THE pawn: I've found a site where it says ''the cellular version of chessgenius (2341) has beaten touch chess excalibur (2406) in an exciting match.'' So if they are talking about the same portable engine, mine should be around 700 elo points higher than you. (!) In the end it might not be right but it doesn't matter. |
|
| Dec-27-05 | | BishopofBlunder: I have the Excalibur Touch Chess similar to what <THE pawn> has, though with no checkers. I have the model that is listed a $39.95 on the website, but I payed only $9.95 at some store like Bed Bath & Beyond or some such nonsense. It has 73 levels of difficulty, which works well for me because I'm a patzer (<1000 elo) :) I only use it to play games during the time I am waiting at traffic signals while driving to work. Or on the plane trip if I happen to be traveling, which is very infrequent. I'm rambling now, aren't I? Ok, I'll shut up. |
|
| Jan-01-06 | | Caro.K.4.me: . See whose Excalibur machine can beat the thinking computer program. It does'nt has a rating, but it beats me everytime! http://www.turbulence.org/spotlight... I think eventually I could beat it if I keep trying. Maybe that's impossible! |
|
| Jan-01-06 | | Karpova: this thinking machine was quite easy to beat. in a closed position it completely misplaced its pieces and i invaded on the king's side gaining a whole lot of material.
the rest was, of course, just a matter of technique |
|
| Jan-01-06 | | aw1988: That thing? I smashed it... |
|
| Jan-01-06 | | Caro.K.4.me: Hey,
You guys are pretty good then! Obviously!
So what do you think the rating is of that thing?
I think maybe it's hard for me becuase the scribbles go all over the board in between the moves and I just can't see the pieces. But maybe I just suck!!!! :) |
|
| Jan-01-06 | | aw1988: The lines disappear afterwards. I take a seperate board so I can clearly see what the pieces are, though. I'm not used to playing with triangles. |
|
| Jan-01-06 | | percyblakeney: <Caro.K.4.me> I have no idea about the rating of The Thinking Machine, maybe 1500. Here’s my effort: [White "percyblakeney"]
[Black "The Thinking Machine"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. Nf3 Nc6 2. c4 Nf6 3. d4 e6 4. g3 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Be7 6. Bg2 Ne4 7. O-O Nxd2 8. Qxd2 O-O 9. e4 f5 10. exf5 Rxf5 11. Nc3 Bb4 12. a3 Bf8 13. d5 exd5 14. cxd5 Nb8 15. Nd4 Rh5 16. Rae1 g5 17. f4 Bc5 18. fxg5 Rxg5 19. Kh1 Bxd4 20. Qxd4 Rg6 21. d6 c6 22. Re7 Na6 23. Rff7 c5 24. Bd5 (why go for the simple mate in three beginning with Rg7+ when there is a queen sacrifice almost letting the opponent escape?) cxd4 25. Rg7+ Kf8 26. Rxh7 Rxd6 (Qxe7 is forced but only prolongs it a bit after 27. dxe7+ Ke8 28. Be4 Re6 29. Nd5 and then Rxe4 Nf6# would be pretty enough but in any case white wins) 27. Ref7+ Kg8 28. Rfg7+ Kf8 29. Rg8# 1-0 
click for larger view |
|
| Jan-01-06 | | THE pawn: I was about to say I can't play it, the graphics, though they are nice, annoy me and I can't look at the board, but then <aw> gave me the simple (really simple, in fact...dunno why I didn't think of that sooner!) idead of transposing the game on a real board. So I'll do that and I'll come back in a couple of hours. I'll also challenge it to excalibur, but it's obviously Excalibur who'll win, but that will be important, as we will be able to put a rating on it. <percy>
interesting game. From what I've seen the thinking machine is rated about 1350-1400: in the opening, it was really strange from him to play Bb4+ then put it back at Be7, allowing developement for your «bad» but I believe a huge blunder he made was the extremely strange 16...g5?? to open the way for an attack while four of his pieces are still undevelopped behind four unmoved pawns. funny game but really entertaining all the same. Congrats on your victory! Now for me... |
|
| Jan-02-06 | | Caro.K.4.me: <percy>I tried to cheat and replay your game but after 3.d4 the machine played 3...e5, and I lost. <THE pawn> The programmer said it doesn't know any opening book so that it would think it's way thru the game, but I thought it would play the same moves of <percy's game> anyway. So I wonder if it learns from it's mistakes?
|
|
| Jan-02-06 | | Assassinater: My game:
1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 a6 4. c3 f6 5. Bd3 fxe5 6. Qh5+ g6 7. Bxg6+ Kd7 8. dxe5 Bg7 9. Bf5+ e6 10. Qf7+ Qe7 11. Bxe6+ Kd8 12. Qxe7+ Kxe7 13. Bxc8 Rxc8 14. f4 Two pawns ahead, it's just a matter of technique, as black has nothing going for it other than development, but that development isn't enough compensation anyways. I won't post the rest of the game, as my technique was very sloppy, where I dropped a pawn and almost lost another pawn until I realized that the computer capturing it would lead to a won pawn endgame for me. In any case, the scribbles denote the possible moves, while the darker scribbles indicate 'good' moves or forcing ones. |
|
| Jan-02-06 | | Karpova: <Car.K.4.me: So I wonder if it learns from it's mistakes?> rather not. it's more likely that the program distributes opening moves that do not lead to immediate disaster randomly |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
