In that postion i would play Ke2 like Kasparov suggested. I am not saying i am even close to Gm lecel. But that move seems logical and very temptive from the first sight.

BigBalls

United States5354 Posts

January 06 2005 06:39 GMT

#22

No point in me playing you surv, im around 1550-1600 level against the chessmaster opponents and im probably 1350 level on yahoo, youd probably school the shit out of me

BigBalls

United States5354 Posts

January 06 2005 06:40 GMT

#23

lately ive been following waitzkin's annotated games against grand masters/IMs. theyre great

pokerforums

Canada52 Posts

January 06 2005 09:34 GMT

#24

Hey if you're playing the 1550-1600 CM levels and beating them most of the time - you're pretty good. Just make sure you give fair time controls to both of you (So many people don't do this.. they will set the computer up at like 1 second a move) to make things fair. I loved incrementally making my way up through the various personalities. I'd read their bios and everything lol..

pheered.user

United States2603 Posts

January 06 2005 11:30 GMT

#25

I would really perfer to play against a computer as to someone online because well i dunno is there any decent free chess game?

PlayJunior

Armenia833 Posts

January 06 2005 12:22 GMT

#26

Someone told of Hydra...I don't think You can get it and run at home...it's a special-hardware program. It beat Shredder because of superior hardware and far superior opening preparation(anti-Shredder). Shredder was in completely lost positions just after they went out of book in 1-2 games.
Guys!
Computers play endings bad. They play certain endings awfuly. No strategy, no sacrifices for activity, no plan, no micro improvements (don't hurry principle), no two weaknesses, and so much pushing!
The computer program problem is that endings need much more planning/knowledge compared with tactics than the midgame. Humans see tendentions in endings, while the computers don't. They just calculate...
The endgame tablebases help a computer very much, but, unless it's a technicaly hard ending with a very small number of pieces left(Rook+f and h pawns vs Rook, try to win this against Fritz with 6-men tablebases installed

)), humans are superior.
Also, it doesn't matter what level you are, play humans, because if you play computers, by the time you will be afraid of all kind of tactics and complications(because the computer will always beat you). This is very bad tendention.

pheered.user

United States2603 Posts

January 06 2005 12:29 GMT

#27

yeah but basically i only know the principles of how to play chess and have played maybe 10 games with friends in total in which i diddnt do too bad but i dunno i dont want to be like the kid with 190 as a rating that everyone laughs at for sucking so bad.

pokerforums

Canada52 Posts

January 06 2005 12:43 GMT

#28

Better than being the kid with a 2500 rating who only studies chess 10 hours a day

pheered.user

United States2603 Posts

January 06 2005 12:53 GMT

#29

True, but i envy a man who can play chess 10hours a day fuck i get bored after like 1game.

soundwave

United States363 Posts

January 06 2005 15:10 GMT

#30

I like to play junior. I have fun playing him when I play to beat him not to draw him

Soun

Poland373 Posts

January 06 2005 15:24 GMT

#31

Endings for computers are hard, only based on calculations, but try to beat something like Nalimov tables. Well, it's impossible unless you reach a won position from midgame. In fact, with that thing installed, midgame will be oriented to reaching one of those won positions by the comp, making them MUCH MORE stronger in endgame, but also in midgame.

PlayJunior

Armenia833 Posts

January 06 2005 21:19 GMT

#32

I don't think that people who train 10 hours regularly and are ~2500 are too many. 8-10 hours a day a is a SUPER-GM schedule. 2500 is a chobo GM. Nada and Myumyung

About endgame:
Nalimoff tablebases help a lot, but it doesn't change the overall picture. Just watch those damn games Kramnik vs Deep Fritz, games 1, 2, 3... Fritz was running on an 8-way Compaq Server with some Gigabytes of RAM and, but had some very big problems playing the endings. The same thing was in Smirin vs Computers match, where various programs used to push vs Smirin in endings and get weaknesses.
It's possible to win an absolutely drawn ending to a computer, a one that you couldn't even dream to win against a descent 2600 GM. You don't need to have a won endgame, just one where there are some hard strategic decisions to be made(exchanges are an example where the comp sucks hard

), there is little tactics and there are not too many or too little pieces left on board. As a proof, just watch those games of Kramnik vs Fritz.

Luhh

Sweden2974 Posts

January 06 2005 21:39 GMT

#33

Hurm, chess is nice, but I'd like to play go myself. Too bad there aren't any people I know interested in that.

Variation and complexity seem a lot higher in this game since it's a balance between capture/battle/territory etc.

BigBalls

United States5354 Posts

January 07 2005 00:55 GMT

#34

from what i experienced with the computers, they are very good at endings UNTIL it becomes a king/pawn ending. they fucking SUCK at king/pawn games. but when the board is open and they have 2-3 pieces the moves are extremely precise

PlayJunior

Armenia833 Posts

January 07 2005 12:11 GMT

#35

Bigballs, it seems we have to run some tests. We can set up some typical endgame positions that have very precise analysys and evaluation and let the comp play them.
I suggest beginning from Rook endings.
Agree?

SurG

Russian Federation798 Posts

January 07 2005 14:14 GMT

#36

On January 07 2005 21:11 PlayJunior wrote:
Bigballs, it seems we have to run some tests. We can set up some typical endgame positions that have very precise analysys and evaluation and let the comp play them.
I suggest beginning from Rook endings.
Agree?

Let's not exploit the fact that computers don't understand fortress concept in rook endings =) How about some queen endings, doubt humans can play that with computer.

iD.Surv

Belgium827 Posts

January 07 2005 16:40 GMT

#37

yea their strongest point is open positions

USMCgamer

Korea (South)255 Posts

January 07 2005 22:41 GMT

#38

I had not played chess since I joined military till about 2 weeks ago when I purchased CM 10th Edition. It is a really cool program. I am not a very strong player, right about the same level and bigballs. I used to be absolutely horrible though. IMO the best way to get decent at chess quickly is go to the store and buy a book like "303 Tactical Chess Puzzles". He has a newer one with a similar title that is even better. But learning how to spot and execute tactics is by far the quickest way to improve. Not to say that strategy is not important but tactics alone can win vs very strong players (2000++) All that book is is a bunch of chess diagrams which have a correct answer using some sort of chess tactic. Eventually you get much better at spotting ways to nab your opponents material.
As far as CM 10 goes I noticed the same thing about the computer opponents. They make very good and very bad moves... I prefer human players. Anyone know what the best free chess site is right now? Sometimes I get frustrated trying to find a game that I want on Yahoo...

Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot about my biggest gripe. I have a dual monitor setup and it doesn't open properly with dual monitors. Most games do this but since it runs in a window the way it does this irks me. O well