chess tricks

Chess Tricks

Grant and you will reveal!
Wild name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
ccmcacollister 91 ( +1 | -1 )
Computer vs Human Who plays the more interesting game of Chess? Who would you rather play?
I made a remark in another topic, that computers may come to out compute us, but will never play with the wealth of interesting ideas that a human puts into a game.
About 4 days a year, I will sit down and play vs Computer, computer, comtuper, et al, and while the day away at it. Other than that, I would rather play vs a human any day. Most any human.
How do you feel about it? Do you live to beat your own diabolical machine? (I will admit to being fascinated with them around the year that the Fidelity s started to crack 1900)
I do like the thought of some machines having modular personalities & styles, but have not really gotten into playing in that mode much. Does it make a big difference? To maintain one"s interest in the games produced?
ccmcacollister 39 ( +1 | -1 )
Well I think that the Original Poster here comes on a little strong. And certainly seems opinionated about chess computers. So bear in mind that he is from an era where computers only played tic tac toe and bad checkers. :)
So if you love your Chess machine, I"d especially like to know. Maybe I am just doing something wrong with mine. How do you keep the relationship fresh and vital?! :))
dena 17 ( +1 | -1 )
well they can't be distracted by women wine or song, and they never make any refreshing blunders so they are even less fun than " "virtual CC chess".
cascadejames 26 ( +1 | -1 )
No love for chess against a machine For me, Chess is a very human activity. I understand why it is useful to use a data base, but
playing a game against a computer or using a computer to select your moves in a game against a
person seems pointless. Your mileage may vary.

James
johnrowell 106 ( +1 | -1 )
CC vs Computer Would Garry Kasparov, or today's best human chess player, be able to beat the best computer, if the human was allowed to play in a Correspondence Chess style of play? The reason I say this is because computers and humans do not play on a level board. The computer is allowed to look up thousands/millions of opening variations much in the same way as a person might play CC using ChessBase. Also, the computer, in its memory, is assessing variations as if actually moving the pieces (very quickly) much like having an Analyze Board feature, whereas Kasparov in the famous games played OTB. We know that computers can analyze millions of variations in very quick time, but would a human's positional superiority be shown if playing in CC mode, where tactical blunders no matter how minor would be minimised?
One of the first things I learned when taking up chess was that you needed to have a plan. When I play a computer, it doesn't seem to have one, but nonetheless it makes extremely strong moves!
ionadowman 78 ( +1 | -1 )
Recall that old tag... ...about playing 'in accordance with the demands of the position'? When you think about it, if you are playing in this way, you don't need a plan. Or maybe that IS the plan! I've always preferred to play the man, not the board (which is why I admire Tal and Lasker ... yes, and Fischer, after a fashion ... they never lost sight of the fact that sitting opposite was another human-type being). And a plan is a human way of 'anchoring' one's play, though I have seen it argued that planning in chess isn't quite the long-range ordering of future events that one would normally expect... This is possibly why playing a computer isn't really satisfying in the long run - a bit like McDonalds versus good old home cooking... Perhaps computer chess ought to be called 'McChess'?
tag1153 207 ( +1 | -1 )
tag? you talking to me? lol....I respong to this thread on 2 counts: a) just couldn't resist the reference to my id & b) I bought the Shredder software about a month ago and have been getting killed by it. I sat down last night for approximately my 20th game vs. that demon. I finally beat him (at ELO 1890 strength). Here is the game along with it's own analysis:
.
.
.
.
[Event "Blitz:90'+5""]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.05.10"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Shredder 9"]
[Black "Gilbreath, Thomas"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E12"]
[WhiteElo "1890"]
[Annotator "Shredder 9 (15s)"]
[PlyCount "108"]

{E12: Queen's Indian: Unusual White 4th moves, 4 a3, 4 Nc3 Bb7 5 a3 and 4 Nc3
Bb7} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Nc3 b6 5. Bg5 Bb7 6. e3 d5 7. Be2 O-O 8.
O-O Nbd7 {last book move} 9. Qd3 Bxc3 10. Qxc3 Qc8 (10... Ne4 $5 {
should be investigated more closely} 11. Bxd8 Nxc3 12. bxc3 Rfxd8 13. cxd5 Bxd5
$11) 11. cxd5 Bxd5 12. Bxf6 Nxf6 13. Ne5 Ne4 14. Qc2 c5 15. f3 Nd6 16. Bd3 (16.
e4 Bb7 17. dxc5 bxc5 18. Rfc1 $16) 16... g6 $2 {Consolidates f5} (16... Nf5
$142 $5 {and Black can hope to live} 17. Rfc1 f6 $14) 17. e4 $16 Bb7 18. dxc5
Qxc5+ 19. Qxc5 bxc5 20. Nd7 Rfc8 21. e5 (21. Rac1 $5 $18) 21... c4 $14 22. Bxg6
{Demolition of pawn structure} hxg6 (22... fxg6 23. exd6) 23. exd6 Rd8 24. Nc5
(24. Ne5 $142 $5 Bd5 25. Rfd1 $16) 24... Bd5 $11 25. d7 a5 $2 (25... Rab8 $142
$5 {must definitely be considered} 26. Rab1 Rb5 $11) 26. Rac1 (26. b3 $5 Ra7
27. bxc4 Bxc4 $16) 26... Ra7 27. Nxe6 $4 {spoils everything} (27. b3 $142 Rc7
28. Na6 Rcxd7 29. bxc4 $14) 27... fxe6 (27... Bxe6 $142 {
might be the shorter path} 28. Rfe1 Raxd7 $19) 28. b3 (28. f4 $19 {what else?})
28... cxb3 29. Rc8 (29. axb3 {cannot change destiny} Bxb3 30. Rc3 a4 $19) 29...
Ra8 (29... Raxd7 $142 {and Black has it in the bag} 30. Rxd8+ Rxd8 31. axb3
Bxb3 32. Kf2 $19) 30. Rxa8 Bxa8 (30... Rxa8 $142 {seems even better} 31. axb3
Kf8 32. Rb1 $19) 31. axb3 Rxd7 32. Ra1 Ra7 33. Kf2 Bc6 {Black intends a4} 34.
Ke3 Kf7 35. Kd4 Ke7 36. b4 (36. Ke5 {doesn't change anything anymore} Ra8 $19)
36... a4 37. Kc5 Kd7 38. b5 Ra5 39. Kc4 Rxb5 (39... Bxb5+ $6 40. Kb4 Ra8 41.
Kxb5 Rb8+ 42. Kc5 (42. Kxa4 $4 {capturing this pawn is a mistake} Ra8+ 43. Kb5
Rxa1 $19) 42... Rc8+ 43. Kd4 $11) 40. Rxa4 Rb2 41. Ra7+ Kd6 42. Rg7 (42. g3 {
doesn't improve anything} Bxf3 43. Kd3 Rxh2 $19) 42... Rxg2 43. f4 Rxh2 44.
Rxg6 Be4 45. Rg7 Bf5 46. Kd4 Re2 47. Rb7 (47. Ra7 {does not win a prize} Re4+
48. Kc3 Rxf4 $19) 47... Re4+ 48. Kd3 (48. Kc3 {does not solve anything} Rxf4
49. Kd2 e5 $19) 48... Rxf4+ (48... Rb4+ 49. Kc3 Rxb7 50. Kc4 Rb1 51. Kc3 Kd5
52. Kd2 Kd4 53. Ke2 Rb4 54. Kf2 Ke4 55. Kg2 Kxf4 56. Kf2 Rb2+ 57. Kf1 Bd3+ 58.
Ke1 Ke3 59. Kd1 Rb1#) 49. Ke3 Re4+ 50. Kd3 (50. Kf3 {
a fruitless try to alter the course of the game} Ra4 51. Rb3 e5 $19) 50... Ke5
(50... Rb4+ 51. Ke3 Rxb7 52. Kd4 Rb3 53. Kc4 Bc2 54. Kd4 e5+ 55. Kc4 e4 56. Kd4
e3 57. Kc4 e2 58. Kd4 e1=Q 59. Kc4 Qb4#) 51. Rd7 (51. Kc3 $19 {desperation})
51... Rd4+ 52. Ke3 (52. Kc3 {cannot change what is in store for ?} Rxd7 53. Kb4
Kf4 54. Kc5 e5 55. Kb5 e4 56. Kc4 e3 57. Kc3 e2 58. Kb4 e1=Q+ 59. Kb3 Rb7+ 60.
Kc4 Qc1+ 61. Kd4 Rd7#) 52... Rxd7 53. Kf2 (53. Kf3 {doesn't do any good} Be4+
54. Ke3 Rd3+ 55. Ke2 Kf4 56. Kf1 Kf3 57. Kg1 Rd1+ 58. Kh2 Kf4 59. Kh3 Rh1#)
53... Rd3 54. Ke2 (54. Kf1 {doesn't change the outcome of the game} Kf4 55. Kg2
Bh3+ 56. Kh2 Re3 57. Kg1 Kg3 58. Kh1 Re1#) 54... Ra3 (54... Ra3 55. Kd2 Kf4 56.
Ke2 Bd3+ 57. Kf2 Ra2+ 58. Kg1 Kg3 59. Kh1 Ra1#) (54... Kf4 55. Kf2 Bg4 56. Kg2
Rd2+ 57. Kg1 Kg3 58. Kf1 Rd1#) 0-1

It sure felt good:)

Be cool guys,

tag1153
dokesa 36 ( +1 | -1 )
computer correspondence johnrowell, I would expect the human to still excel at correspondence chess. Because of the the huge number of possible moves in the middle game, doubling its thinking time does not double the number of moves into the future the computer can see. It progresses at a much slower rate.
stendhar 60 ( +1 | -1 )
No fun... Usually when I play chess, I'm surrounded by lost of friends or at leats people that I know. They're always kibitzing and coming up with hilarious lines as the game unfolds. No computer has yet made a joke or come back with a snappy remark. That and the look of someone's face after you just crushed them with a Kingside attack are two reasons why I'll always preffer human chess to computer chess.
Also, after you've beat your program once, the challenge disappears and all the drive to play versus the silicon monster disipates.
ccmcacollister 25 ( +1 | -1 )
stendhar However, there IS a program out there on the market that will INSULT YOU, while you play! :)
I am not sure which one it is tho. (As if I dont get enough insults playing blitz across the Net!! Today ran into a Good Sport tho, which makes it worthwhile in the end. :)
stendhar 33 ( +1 | -1 )
That's not what I meant I am not a masochist. I do not play chess to get insulted.
I play chess to see human creativity born. Be it with a witty remark, a good move or something else, there is nothing a computer can produce in that area. It may make good moves, but it is incredible sterile to inspire anything compared to a human played game.
greenrat777 66 ( +1 | -1 )
computer vs human johnrowell said that computers r aloud 2 look up openings and this is sort of like cheating. i agree with that.if u turn opening book of then the computer would have a much harder time beating the best players in the world.some chess computers let u typ in a name.like ronald macdonald 4 example then u can turn opening book off and set it 2 play attacking chess.another player could b called madona 4 example. on madona u can leave opening book on and set it 2 play a defensive game.this way u get 2 play some one u know and every player has there own style and level of play.
greenrat777 55 ( +1 | -1 )
computer vs human i had lots of chess computers that i used 2 play b 4 i played people on the net.in some ways they r like playing people. the thing about chess is u need a opponent and there is not always a human opponent that wants 2 play when u do.with a chess computer u can get a game any time u want.i still have my old chess challenger 7 that i got back in the early seventies.it did not work at first so i got it sent in 4 repairs and it has worked ever since. i have owned about 15 chess computers over the years.
greenrat777 64 ( +1 | -1 )
computer vs human one thing i like about some computer programs is the way they let u type in a name. i gave 2 examples earlier ( ronald macdonald and madona) . they then let u have a wide variety of openings that u can give 2 each player.here r some examples.u can set the players in many ways. gambit openings, weird openings clasical openings or modern openings. u can also program them 2 play the opening that the famous players liked playing . fischer and karpov 4 example.some times u spend so much time setting up the players that u never get around 2 playing chess.
greenrat777 42 ( +1 | -1 )
computer vs human ccmcacollisters question was who plays the more ineresting game? i think people play the more interesting game but computers r a close second.with computers u can play openings most people never play and they do a lot of other chess related stuff. whether u play a human or computer opponent in chess it is still 10 times better than playing any other type of game.