And it also helps inspire me to try to do more of the same things and also try different things.

Somebody who has as fine an ear for good music as you should never, ever second guess your value as a critic or appraiser of art in general.

You *would*?!?
Then it's true ... you have Bobby Fischer's genes in your genome ... maybe *all* of them, alongside big chunks of Peter Gabriel. Anyone named after a saint and a boss angel can't be all bad.

As Pynchon wrote someplace, a younger self is a fool. You wouldn't loan them money, but neither would you turn them away if they arrived on your doorstep with a saw, a pregnant girlfriend, and a weird story about being followed everywhere by kings, stars, and wise men from the east.

You would gently explain that perfessers in Harvard, McGill and MIT don't stalk people, then you'd park the girlfriend in your stable, if you had a stable. And you'd try to wean Younger Self off whatever chemical caused the paranoia.

Just as a SWAT team from Cambridge University breaks down your garage door and sacrifices your pet ox to Baal.

Your program was relatively weaker as compared to humans at shorter time controls?

At any rate <Dom>, did you see the last one I linked there?

Like you, I am also a fan of monochrome film and I enjoyed <Jim Jarmusch's> early work for that reason.

And <Paul Coates>, my favorite film academic, wrote in his fine "The Gorgon's Gaze" that "monochrome film stock peels off reality in a way that color film cannot."

Also, I recalled "someone is killing all the black and white animals" and decided to fight back, acting most proximally on your suggestion to experiment with the black and white images.

So the last video I linked here, "Irish rain", is constructed entirely from black and white photos and I'm very keen to hear what you might think of the finished product.

I thought the subject matter of the song (starving grieving farmers) also called for a stark visual treatment.

So <Dom> if/when you get time/inclination, please give me your impressions-critique on this video?

No rush of course- you are not getting paid for this.

Well you are in the real world, but not by me I mean.

Although I suppose I could barter something- possibly some background research on the next nubile starlet you interview, something like that.

Here is the video link again-

"Irish Rain" (Andrew wrote this while living in Newfoundland)

If it ain't broke, use a bigger wheel.>

Not widely, circa 1989. Most 'chess computers' were actual chessboards + sets aimed at the amateur home player. Also expensive, about £800 for the stronger ones (far beyond my reach at the time). Their 'features' were things like touch-sensitive boards, not analytic ones.

Even in the early 1990s, engines as we now understand them -- a software package running on a PC platform -- were relatively rare and little-used by stronger players. I don't think this attitude changed much until the launch of Chessbase and early versions of Fritz.

I had *tried* to use the Psion program to construct a small database -- it had a 'save game' feature designed to store an interrupted game for later resumption, or to keep games for playing over. But it was non-PGN, each game was saved as a separate document, with zero search or sort functions. I inputted over 100 games manually, then got bored with the idea.

As for the (human) players ... they had reached 2200 or higher without using computers. By then, quite a few people had other experience of non-chess databases etc -- I was programming in Basic in the late 70s, and used serious computers for university work and journalism in the 80s -- yet many people didn't see how computers would revolutionize chess.

It took the emergence and convergence of three things -- strong chess engines, searchable databases with large game collections, and the spread of the internet/web beyond colleges and institutions -- to do that.

So our hypothetical 2250-rated human in 1989 has perhaps played with a 'home chess computer' and easily beaten it. He knows they're getting stronger but doesn't really believe they can beat him -- maybe the champion programs running on big computers could, but not (he thinks) some commercial chip in a board.

So he tries to smash it the way he'd beaten other computers, with gambits and sacs, and gets a nasty shock.

What surprised me was the fact that after Mephisto scored four straight wins like this, its 5th opponent took the same aggressive approach, losing again. Only in round 6 did somebody have the wit to play solidly and draw.

Human pride was felt to be at stake in those days. I can remember a whole series of 'firsts' -- first comp to score a master norm, first comp to beat a GM in blitz, first to beat a master in a classical match, and so on. Eventually, human pride knew it was beaten.

BTW, one anomaly that I've never found a good explanation for: Tigran Petrosian. Even recently, I played through several of his best games with Fritz running in the background. In some cases - enough to be of statistical interest - Petrosian would get a negative eval from the engine almost up to the point where his opponent resigned.

The standard explanation is that his 'difficult' positional style, with latent dynamics, would 'mesmerise' his opponents and lure them into a fatal error. At which point Petrosian pounced.

I haven't seen evidence of this yet. Admittedly I haven't checked Petrosian on the latest Rybka.

recently I have played against a guy called <Highendman> who defeated the Rybka forum and he often aims for paradoxical positions that are difficult for the engine to evaluate...

White: Highendman
Black: Rybkaforum

Maybe it's interesting to draw attention to the choice of <highendman> to play the Wing Gambit here, and the fascinating apparent contra indication to open the game up like this, when facing massive B-Force from Centaur opposition..

However, since HEM was of course *also* allowed to use his maximum HW/SW recources there is this fascinating challenge to establish a lasting positional advantage, mainly due to swift development and (thus) an opportunity for better piece placement- and coordination. If the Gambit is accepted.

In a Human vs Engine match with standard TCs, this is of course much more difficult, and a different strategy is likely more fruitful.

I chipped in on this discussion because of my CC experience with the Smith-Morra, and a subsequent study I did following a Wing Gambit with <Hitman84>, where I had very strong play as white. Later I played a number of test games with the help of my engine vs The Engine, where it became clear to me that the evaluations were mostly useless, as, - like Deffi said - the long term advantages of the dominating and dynamic position only dawned on the "opposing" engine "when it was too late."

How can it be otherwise.

So - very interesting that in Human vs Engine games, there are several approaches that may lead to disaster/success, emanating from <both> ends of the "closed--Open" spectrum, depending on the conditions, amount of (Opening-)preparation, and time.

Discussing this and experimenting with it is most illuminating from various angles, actually.

Hence here are a few links that may be of interest - in case anyone wants to look at the history of GM-Engine Chess, and eg Bronstein's amazing head-to-"head":

Bronstein vs Chessmaster, 1995

<Bronstein vs Computers.> Compiled by lostemperor

<Creator vs Creation? Creativity vs Calculator? Sorcerer vs Apprentice. The old man, 4 decades after his title match, vs the best machines. 39 games; 36 wins!>

Game Collection: Bronstein vs Computers.

Game Collection: Computer - GM games 1963-2002

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear in getting my points acroos due to time limitation, but having looked up some material and links I thought:

<From the Erse “Ba mhaith liom bheith i Mhá mhá mhá”, anon>

I wish I was in Wawawa
On the world wide web with you
Where cypher text meets hypertext
And no-one has a clue.

I’d lay you down on fields of cyan
And hold on to your handle
Like something out of Life of Brian
To which none can hold a candle.

“Aitch tee em ell” we’d cry as one
“Slash slash (the forward kind)”
The URL of Moray and his son
Ne’er saw such data mined.

I wish I were in Wawawa
Subjunctive verbs are tricky.
But there’s a site - it’s quite a sight
Beyond the reach of Wiki.

The dark web falls. Night closes in.
The year’s midnight is passing
Yet pixels whisper in my ear
And evil trolls are massing.

Thanks. It was a bit *chessy*, wasn't it? I admit I get carried away sometimes: I go so wildly off-topic that I wind up back where I'm supposed to be.

But I think it wouldn't be very surprising because in order to win in chess one must have a significant advantage, a slight one won't do. Petrosian may have intentionally lured his opponents into positions where defensive play is easier.

As I think I wrote in my profile, I tend to prefer playing *with* chess to playing chess.

btw, what do you think of the survey on chess aesthetics in which CG members participated? There's a link to its preliminary results on the homepage.

Unless these are *very* preliminary, it looks to me like the most pointless kind of data mining. There are too many hidden variables, such as the difference between real games and compositions -- some players dislike compositions because of their unreality, however 'pretty' the solution. And how can anyone place a numerical value on a standard smothered mate: it's familiar, it can still excite wonder in people seeing it for the first time, but I don't think it can be compared to a 21st century combination.

http://www.chess.com/download/view/...

and also see: