-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
I may be late in this reply. I'm not defending ICB here coz I have noticed it before that he was telling lies about his fights. I can clearly remember when he said he lost one of his fights and then later telling people that he is undefeated. REgarding the chess openings, I've started playing chess when I was 7. I've read a lot of books, mastered the d4 (in reaction to Bilbo's post about d4) when I was in college, constantly played with chessmaster and have beaten Kasparov (in chessmaster7) way back when I was younger. After not playing chess for almost 2 years now, I could hardly remember the names of the openings which I have mastered before. It's probable that ICB and I are having the same experience. Regarding boxing knowledge, ICB has improved a lot after being here for how many years already. I guess that's what matters. He might have cheated in chess and have lied about his boxing life but I guess his knowledge in boxing is solid.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
The only thing I noticed about ICE was a really different change in his posting around 2 years ago, he became really defensive and argumentative, other than that I never thought anything bad of him.
Dunno why he had to lie about anything but I like to think everyone else on here is just a normal fella sharing a laugh and joke, debating and talking about boxing and being REAL.
I'm shocked anyone would go through all that effort to impress a forum he said countless times was 'just a laugh' to him.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kel
The only thing I noticed about ICE was a really different change in his posting around 2 years ago, he became really defensive and argumentative, other than that I never thought anything bad of him.
Dunno why he had to lie about anything but I like to think everyone else on here is just a normal fella sharing a laugh and joke, debating and talking about boxing and being REAL.
I'm shocked anyone would go through all that effort to impress a forum he said countless times was 'just a laugh' to him.
Most people come on here for a laugh, but by his post count Saddo's was probably one of the most integral parts of his life, probably why he gets so defensive when someone calls him out.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
I may be late in this reply. I'm not defending ICB here coz I have noticed it before that he was telling lies about his fights. I can clearly remember when he said he lost one of his fights and then later telling people that he is undefeated. REgarding the chess openings, I've started playing chess when I was 7. I've read a lot of books, mastered the d4 (in reaction to Bilbo's post about d4) when I was in college, constantly played with chessmaster and have beaten Kasparov (in chessmaster7) way back when I was younger. After not playing chess for almost 2 years now, I could hardly remember the names of the openings which I have mastered before. It's probable that ICB and I are having the same experience. Regarding boxing knowledge, ICB has improved a lot after being here for how many years already. I guess that's what matters. He might have cheated in chess and have lied about his boxing life but I guess his knowledge in boxing is solid.
I don't know mate your experience simply makes no sense to me. So you mean you studied a lot of books (I guess by a lot this means more than two at least and most likely 4 or 5 even more). You then played enough chess to be able to defeat Kasparov in Chessmaster 7 which is basically its highest level.
I just have problems with this, firstly becuase there has never been to my knowledge such a product as Chessmaster 7, so I presume you mean Chessmaster 7000 which came out in 2002.
Secondly I believe Chessmaster 7000 had an elo rating of around 2600 which means that if you were able to beat it at its highest level consistently you would easily be among the world's top 200 or so players.
A quick look at the official Fide ratings shows only 6 players from the Phillipines are rated above 2500 so certainly you are one of the best two or three players in your country and should have been playing the Olympiads a couple months ago for your nation certainly.
Then just like Ice you claim to have forgotten all the openings since your time out of college.
I don't like to suggest people talk absolute nonsense but it is the boxing equivalent of saying you used to spar in your back garden and got really good and then knocked out Floyd Mayweather in a closed door sparring session that nobody can recall but never turned pro or had even one documented amatuer fight.
I think people are simply delusional when they talk about their chess ability. Legion last year claimed an Elo of 2800 which would have made him the world's strongest player right now and only about half a dozen or so points away from Kasparov's all time high rating. In the actual event he was about as good as I was back then in April which was probably around the 1100-1200 mark.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Sorry about the chessmaster 7000. I forgot even the name coz I havent played with it since I started to work as an accountant.
Bilbo, I've played against kasparov in that game and I have recorded my win. I've even written it at the back cover of the book entitled "chess openings:traps and zaps" by pandolfini. I also have compilations of the chess olympiads, I have a book entitled: "winning with d4". That's why I've mastered d4. I've given it to my friend who's currently active in chess. I have lots of chess puzzles. Sadly, I haven' opened those books for years now.
I took the book from my old book shelf just to confirm whether I really put it there. I won after 28 moves.
I started with these moves:
I'm white (I like to attack):
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. d3 d6
5. Nc3 Nf6
6. Bg5 h6
7. B xf6 g xf6
8. Nc3-d5 Be6
If you really want how it proceeded I can post all my moves. For the record, I've only beaten Kasparov twice and after that I was not able to replicate again those wins.
Also, I've played with players before but my profession hinders me from going full time with chess.
In my impoverished country, playing chess full time is not very lucrative. People in my country get rich by being a boxer (like Pacquaio) but with chess, you'll go nowhere.
BTW, chess is a game of memory. Right now, I must admit that my memory is not that good anymore. Maybe that's the reason why I can't win anymore and can hardly remember the names of all the openings. Maybe we can play online just to prove that I can play chess. I'll explain my moves while doing it so you will know that I will not be using any cheats.:cool:
Regarding ICB, I've also observed that his grammar had improved. Could it be possible that it was not ICB who's currently posting in here?:-\
Edit: I've decided to post the continuation of the game. Enjoy verifying it.
9. Qd2 h5
10. h4 Bxd5
11. Bxd5 Qc8
12. Bxc6+ b7xc6
13. a3 Qg4
14. Rh1-g1 0-0
15. 0-0-0 f5
16. d4 Bxd4
17. Nxd4 exd4
18. exf5 Qxh4
19. Rh1 Qg4 (edited: sorry)
20. f6 C5
21. Qh6 Qg6
22. Qxh5 Qxh5
23. Rh1x h5 Rf8-e8
24. Rd1 -h1 Re8-e1+
25. Rh1-e1 d4-d3
26. Re1-h1 d3-d2+
27. Kc1 xd2 Ra8 - e8
28. Rh5-h8 1-0
I don't know if there was something wrong with the program but you can play it again and tell me if the computer made a wrong move.
All I can remember is, I won in this game against Kasparov (chessmaster) and I've written it in one of my books so I will not forget about that game.
I have another win actually. I'll post it for your scrutiny if you want me to.
Just for your info, I like mindgames. Remember, it was I who took your crown about that m-memory game we've played before.hehehehe. PM me your yahoo ID so we can play chess.
Peace.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Sorry about the chessmaster 7000. I forgot even the name coz I havent played with it since I started to work as an accountant.
Bilbo, I've played against kasparov in that game and I have recorded my win. I've even written it at the back cover of the book entitled "chess openings:traps and zaps" by pandolfini.
I took the book from my old book shelf just to confirm whether I really put it there. I won after 28 moves.
I started with these moves:
I'm white (I like to attack):
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. d3 d6
5. Nc3 Nf6
6. Bg5 h6
7. B xf6 g xf6
8. Nc3-d5 Be6
If you really want how it proceeded I can post all my moves. For the record, I've only beaten Kasparov twice and after that I was not able to replicate again those wins.
Also, I've played with players before but my profession hinders me from going full time with chess.
In my impoverished country, playing chess full time is not very lucrative. People in my country get rich by being a boxer (like Pacquaio) but with chess, you'll go nowhere.
BTW, chess is a game of memory. Right now, I must admit that my memory is not that strong anymore. Maybe that's the reason why I can't win anymore and can hardly remember the names of all the openings. Maybe we can play online just to prove that I can play chess. I'll explain my moves while doing it so you will know that I will not be using any cheats.:cool:
Regarding ICB, I've also observed that his grammar had improved. Could it be possible that it was not ICB who's currently posting in here?:-\
Edit: I've decided to post the continuation of the game. Enjoy verifying it.
9. Qd2 h5
10. h4 Bxd5
11. Bxd5 Qc8
12. Bxc6+ b7xc6
13. a3 Qg4
14. Rh1-g1 0-0
15. 0-0-0 f5
16. d4 Bxd4
17. Nxd4 exd4
18. exf5 Qxh4
19. Rh1 Qxh4
20. f6 C5
21. Qh6 Qg6
22. Qxh5 Qxh5
23. Rh1x h5 Rf8-e8
24. Rd1 -h1 Re8-e1+
25. Rh1-e1 d4-d3
26. Re1-h1 d3-d2+
27. Kc1 xd2 Ra8 - e8
28. Rh5-h8 1-0
I don't know if there was something wrong with the program but you can play it again and tell me if the computer made a wrong move.
All I can remember is, I won in this game against Kasparov (chessmaster) and I've written it in one of my books so I will not forget about that game.
I have another win actually. I'll post it for your scrutiny if you want me to.
Are you suggesting that you're past your prime in Chess?
interesting.
I wonder if people who fish for sport have a prime in their career.
This is still a great thread.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CutMeMick
The reason I'm posting this is because I'm real with you all.
You guys might not know all my personal life and there's a lot about me you guys don't know and won't know but I'm real and I would like to think most of you are real with me.
I know who's real and who's not. People that I know are real talk know who they are we've exchanged PM's and had real talks. You know it when you talk to someone even through the net when it's real.
JT, Superheavy, POB, JohnnyKickAss, amat, C-Lo, BIG H, Memphis, Smash, Missy, OumaFan, SweetPea, Scrap, CFH, CGM, Bilbo, Legion, killersheep, Silverback, THIRDMAN, Galaxy, eagle etc. etc. etc. you know it you know it when they post as you read their post you feel it's real talk.
I just think that the game was played this long and the hour glass has ran out and it's time to get some answers to some questions.
Is it surprising that it's not just 1 person it's a couple of people who have encountered this?
I think we just want to him to be real and be himself not pretend to be someone he's not especially cause he's been here this long.
i don't believe you..
in fact, i think that you're stalking some kid who always wears sunglasses that you secretly idolize. ;D
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Sorry about the chessmaster 7000. I forgot even the name coz I havent played with it since I started to work as an accountant.
Bilbo, I've played against kasparov in that game and I have recorded my win. I've even written it at the back cover of the book entitled "chess openings:traps and zaps" by pandolfini.
I took the book from my old shelves just to confirm whether I really put it there. I won after 27 moves.
I started with this moves:
I'm white (I like to attack):
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. d3 d6
5. Nc3 Nf6
6. Bg5 h6
7. B xf6 g xf6
8. Nc3-d5 Be6
If you really want how it proceeded I can post all my moves. For the record, I've only beaten Kasparov twice and after that I was not able to replicate again those wins.
Also, I've played with players before but my profession hinders me from going full time with chess.
In my impoverished country, playing chess full time is not very lucrative. People in my country get rich by being a boxer (like Pacquaio) but with chess, you'll go nowhere.
BTW, chess is a game of memory. Right now, I must admit that my memory is not that strong anymore. Maybe that's the reason why I can't win anymore and can hardly remember the names of all the openings. Maybe we can play online just to prove that I can play chess. I'll explain my moves while doing it so you will know that I will not be using any cheats.:cool:
Regarding ICB, I've also observed that his grammar had improved. Could it be possible that it was not ICB who's currently posting in here?:-\
Definitely post the game Brucelee, I can't actually remember the great Kasparov being an e5 player as he was famous for his Silician Najdorf but whatever.
Actually the line you are playing is the Guiuco Piano especially popular with school kids, there is no way in hell that Chessmaster at its highest level would first of all open with 1.e5 if it was modelling Kasparov and the opening book it played was terrible.
There is no way that chessmaster on its highest level would play 7.gxf6, it would have recaptured with the queen. Even a relative patzer like myself can see that's a duffers move at first glance.
I'm not sure what you beat, or how good it was but It certainly wasn't chessmaster at its highest level.
It would have responded to 1.e5 with 1.c5 gone into a highly theoretical Sicilian defense and most likely drubbed you off the board inside 25 moves.
But post the game up anyway, it will be interesting to see what mistakes Grandmaster Kasparov made in this line. :)
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
He bruce, I tried playing over the game, it looks ok although I didn't carefully analyze or anything.
I noticed an error in your notation. You have ...Qxh4 for black on both the 18th and 19th moves, so I couldn't go any further.
7...gxf6 looks positionally suspect, but it might be ok, because you can follow up with ...f5 at some point, with active play with your pawns in the center.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Bilbo, I was playing white. Yeah, I can remember now. Guiuco Piano that was the name of my opening. Anyway, it's sometimes black who decides where it will go.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
CGM: its Qg4 for 19. .... Qg4
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Bilbo: As to the level of kasparov in that game, I am no longer sure. What I'm sure is, I won against kasparov in that game.
The computer may seem to have played bad but if you take a deeper look at it, it was simply answering to my moves based on its programming. That's why computers can be defeated, not easily though but they can be defeated.
Anyway, I can't control the computer if he chooses to do the e5. I've been playing Sicilian defense and it is not really that impregnable.
Edit: I don't have a chessboard right now. I can't visually my the computer answered 7. ...... gxf6
I have analyzed the game before and if my memory doesn't fail me, capturing it using Q is not a good move.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
This is a pretty good game IMO, though like you say it might not be a really high level setting for the Kasparov computer opponent.
I think Black has to play ...Qg6 a move sooner and attack White's f-pawn. After you play 21.Qh6 as white it looks like game over, unless I am missing something. The point is that it takes several moves to prove that 21.Qh6 is winning, so if your computer is not at a setting where it looks five or six moves deep, it might not see that the move 19...c5 is a losing move.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
This is a pretty good game IMO, though like you say it might not be a really high level setting for the Kasparov computer opponent.
I think Black has to play ...Qg6 a move sooner and attack White's f-pawn. After you play 21.Qh6 as white it looks like game over, unless I am missing something. The point is that it takes several moves to prove that 21.Qh6 is winning, so if your computer is not at a setting where it looks five or six moves deep, it might not see that the move 19...c5 is a losing move.
I don't know why black made that move but I believe that even the lowest level of Kasparov thinks at least 10 moves ahead. I was fighting kasparov and I'd like someone with a national/fide master level to assess this game. hehehe. There's a reason for that move.
are you a national master, CGM? if you are, I'd accept your opinion. I might have been playing a low level unknown GM in chessmater during that time.
anyway, I'd agree with you at 21.Qh6 i was winning already. I guess the computer could already see by the 18th move that I was on my way to winning the game. I can hardly remember my feeling and what I have been thinking back at this time but vaguely, I can remember my feeling of superiority against the computer.hehehe. most probably a low level GM. Anyway, I can't remember whether I have set it to low level. However, during my college days, I'd usually set it to at least average. I was playing NMs during those times.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Bilbo: As to the level of kasparov in that game, I am no longer sure. What I'm sure is, I won against kasparov in that game.
The computer may seem to have played bad but if you take a deeper look at it, it was simply answering to my moves based on its programming. That's why computers can be defeated, not easily though but they can be defeated.
Anyway, I can't control the computer if he chooses to do the e5. I've been playing Sicilian defense and it is not really that impregnable.
Edit: I don't have a chessboard right now. I can't visually my the computer answered 7. ...... gxf6
I have analyzed the game before and if my memory doesn't fail me, capturing it using Q is not a good move.
Its a very well known schoolboy opening you are playing Bruce, 7.gxf6 is simply the wrong move. Qxf6 is the book move and the computer at its highest level would play the book move.
You say a computer can be defeated and its not that impregnable but chessmaster at its highest level is practically impregnable. It would be perfect tactically, and never make any combinational errors, it would have a grandmaster level opening reportiore with an opening book covering hundreds of thousands of moves and positions and you'd have to be an exceptionally good player to defeat it.
The Kasparov you were playing already went wrong as early as 7.gxf6 not quite a patzer move but positionally a big mistake. Queen takes is the book move followed by 8.Nd5 then back to Qd8.
I'll have a look at the rest of the game in a bit, but already I can see you were playing against a very low strength program.
Not wishing to detract from your win of course but to claim to defeat a virtual model of the worlds greatest player is a pretty big claim to make
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
This is a pretty good game IMO, though like you say it might not be a really high level setting for the Kasparov computer opponent.
I think Black has to play ...Qg6 a move sooner and attack White's f-pawn. After you play 21.Qh6 as white it looks like game over, unless I am missing something. The point is that it takes several moves to prove that 21.Qh6 is winning, so if your computer is not at a setting where it looks five or six moves deep, it might not see that the move 19...c5 is a losing move.
I don't know why black made that move but I believe that even the lowest level of Kasparov thinks at least 10 moves ahead. I was fighting kasparov and I'd like someone with a national/fide master level to assess this game. hehehe. There's a reason for that move.
are you a national master, CGM? if you are, I'd accept your opinion. I might have been playing a low level unknown GM in chessmater during that time.
No, I'm not a master. I probably average somewhere around 1900. On my good days I can play at expert level, which is one step below national master. I have beaten masters, but not regularly I can't.
Your opponent could have been at a strong level. Because it is not immediately obvious that 21.Qh6 is pretty much a forced win.
one more thing, when you say the computer plays at least 10 moves deep, that is probably ten-ply, which is 5 moves by each player. When I say 6 or 7 moves, I mean 6 or 7 moves by each player. So the actual checkmate would be outside of the program's "move horizon" at the point it played ...c5
Note 24...Re1+, which just gives up the rook for nothing. That is the only way to delay the checkmate a couple of moves. A typical computer tactic, which will do anything to delay the checkmate.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Before I go to bed, I'd like to post the second win I had against chessmaster. I can hardly remember if it was kasparov or any other GMs. As far as I can remember, I was only playing against kasparov during this period coz he was the world champion. I was too proud to fight against Bobby F.;D;D;D and Anand was just inferior compared to Kasparov and Karpov had lost his charms with my age category.
I'm playing white again ( it's nice to have the power to play white over and over again).oohhh, I can remember now that I had been playing e4 again and again until I had this win. I had some draws but those were not worth mentioning. The game started 7PM and after some numerous defeats and by around 2 AM, I finally had this memorable win:
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6
3. Nc3 Nc6
4. a3 d5
5. exd5 Nf6xd5
6. Bc4 Nxc3
7. b2xc3 Bd6
8. d3 Be6
9. Bc4xe6 f7xe6
10. Be3 0-0
11. Nf3-g5 Qd8-e7 (i guess, this is Q-e7, i'll just put the position of the pieces where it is currently located for easy visualization)
12. Qd1-h5 h7-h6
13. Ng5-e4 Bd6xa3
14. Qh5-g4 Kg8-h8
15. 0-0 Ra8-d8
16. f2-f4 Rf8-f5
17. f4xe5 Nc6xe5
18. Qg4-h3 Rf5xf1+
19. Ra1xf1 Rd8-a8
20. Ne4-g5 Ra8-e8
21. Ng5-e4 Ne5-C6
22. Ne4-g5 Ba3-c5
23. d3-d4 Bc5-a3
24. Rf1-f7 Qe7-d6
25. Ng5-e4 Qd6-d8
26. Be3xh6 Kh8-g8
27. Rf7xg7+ Resigns (1-0)
Please check if there are errors. I'm typing this at 1:30 AM Philippine time.
This gives me an idea to write my own computer chess program.;D
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Bilbo: As to the level of kasparov in that game, I am no longer sure. What I'm sure is, I won against kasparov in that game.
The computer may seem to have played bad but if you take a deeper look at it, it was simply answering to my moves based on its programming. That's why computers can be defeated, not easily though but they can be defeated.
Anyway, I can't control the computer if he chooses to do the e5. I've been playing Sicilian defense and it is not really that impregnable.
Edit: I don't have a chessboard right now. I can't visually my the computer answered 7. ...... gxf6
I have analyzed the game before and if my memory doesn't fail me, capturing it using Q is not a good move.
Its a very well known schoolboy opening you are playing Bruce, 7.gxf6 is simply the wrong move. Qxf6 is the book move and the computer at its highest level would play the book move.
You say a computer can be defeated and its not that impregnable but chessmaster at its highest level is practically impregnable. It would be perfect tactically, and never make any combinational errors, it would have a grandmaster level opening reportiore with an opening book covering hundreds of thousands of moves and positions and you'd have to be an exceptionally good player to defeat it.
The Kasparov you were playing already went wrong as early as
7.gxf6 not quite a patzer move but positionally a big mistake. Queen takes is the book move followed by 8.Nd5 then back to Qd8.
I'll have a look at the rest of the game in a bit, but already I can see you were playing against a very low strength program.
Not wishing to detract from your win of course but to claim to defeat a virtual model of the worlds greatest player is a pretty big claim to make
I don't think it's so obvious that 7...gxf6 is a big positional mistake. I kind of like it. Black can easily undouble the pawns by playing ...f5. 7...gxf6 does make the position more dynamic, with better chances for active play. Black should probably try to castle Queenside after this, and might very well get good play on the Kingside.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
This is a pretty good game IMO, though like you say it might not be a really high level setting for the Kasparov computer opponent.
I think Black has to play ...Qg6 a move sooner and attack White's f-pawn. After you play 21.Qh6 as white it looks like game over, unless I am missing something. The point is that it takes several moves to prove that 21.Qh6 is winning, so if your computer is not at a setting where it looks five or six moves deep, it might not see that the move 19...c5 is a losing move.
I don't know why black made that move but I believe that even the lowest level of Kasparov thinks at least 10 moves ahead. I was fighting kasparov and I'd like someone with a national/fide master level to assess this game. hehehe. There's a reason for that move.
are you a national master, CGM? if you are, I'd accept your opinion. I might have been playing a low level unknown GM in chessmater during that time.
No, I'm not a master. I probably average somewhere around 1900. On my good days I can play at expert level, which is one step below national master. I have beaten masters, but not regularly I can't.
Your opponent could have been at a strong level. Because it is not immediately obvious that 21.Qh6 is pretty much a forced win.
one more thing, when you say the computer plays at least 10 moves deep, that is probably ten-ply, which is 5 moves by each player. When I say 6 or 7 moves, I mean 6 or 7 moves by each player. So the actual checkmate would be outside of the program's "move horizon" at the point it played ...c5
Note 24...Re1+, which just gives up the rook for nothing. That is the only way to delay the checkmate a couple of moves. A typical computer tactic, which will do anything to delay the checkmate.
You've said it well CGM. It was a forced win. I now know that you're really a good player. I was waiting for that. Qh6 was not obvious but for me during this time, I know that the computer was delaying my win.
Hope I could play against you and Bilbo so that my interest in chess would come back.
Please don't forget to play my second game and please make a comment about it.
Regarding thinking moves ahead, during my younger days, I could visualize at least 5 moves ahead. Not really good but I was winning games against average players.:cool:
To bilbo: yeah, I might be playing low level Kasparov but honestly, I can't remember playing low level GM during those period. Anyway, I might have inadvertently set it to low level thus the reason for the win.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
This is a pretty good game IMO, though like you say it might not be a really high level setting for the Kasparov computer opponent.
I think Black has to play ...Qg6 a move sooner and attack White's f-pawn. After you play 21.Qh6 as white it looks like game over, unless I am missing something. The point is that it takes several moves to prove that 21.Qh6 is winning, so if your computer is not at a setting where it looks five or six moves deep, it might not see that the move 19...c5 is a losing move.
I don't know why black made that move but I believe that even the lowest level of Kasparov thinks at least 10 moves ahead. I was fighting kasparov and I'd like someone with a national/fide master level to assess this game. hehehe. There's a reason for that move.
are you a national master, CGM? if you are, I'd accept your opinion. I might have been playing a low level unknown GM in chessmater during that time.
anyway, I'd agree with you at 21.Qh6 i was winning already. I guess the computer could already see by the 18th move that I was on my way to winning the game. I can hardly remember my feeling and what I have been thinking back at this time but vaguely,
I can remember my feeling of superiority against the computer.hehehe. most probably a low level GM. Anyway, I can't remember whether I have set it to low level. However, during my college days, I'd usually set it to at least average.
I was playing NMs during those times.
What national masters were you playing Bruce? In real organised chess competitions you mean? If you remember their names I can most likely find their games in my Chessbase dvd which contains over 4.3 million games.
As for the standard of play in this game its way way way below GM level, I would say about 1200.
Some moves just make no sense whatsoever. Why would a GM as black play 6.h6 then 9.h5?
The exchange it premempted with 10.Bxd5 was just wrong as well, why give up your good bishop for a knight that could easily be kicked off with c6 after Na5 for example?
The idea that it would willing allow for doubled pawns on both the c and f files is dumb as well, black is practically positionally lost by move 12.
Choosing to castle into an open g file seems as the king is safer on f8 and the rook is better in g8 than the king.
15.f5 is another weakening move, blacks kingside is already wrecked don't compound the situation by opening lines. The pawn on f6 at least prevents the knight from having an unassailable outpost on g5 on f5 the knight can now permanently jump lodge himself there and nothing can move him.
The queen h pawn grab on move 18 again just opens the h file and loses by force after R h1, Qg4, Rh3 and doubling rooks on the h file, capturing the undefendable pawn and then mating on the h file with rooks and queen.
I can tell you that sadly your opponent in this game played around the 70 or 80 elo, maybe 1100 level. It shows no positional understanding at all and the real Kasparov could probably defeat 500 of this program in a simultaneous with a couple seconds of think time for each move.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Bilbo: As to the level of kasparov in that game, I am no longer sure. What I'm sure is, I won against kasparov in that game.
The computer may seem to have played bad but if you take a deeper look at it, it was simply answering to my moves based on its programming. That's why computers can be defeated, not easily though but they can be defeated.
Anyway, I can't control the computer if he chooses to do the e5. I've been playing Sicilian defense and it is not really that impregnable.
Edit: I don't have a chessboard right now. I can't visually my the computer answered 7. ...... gxf6
I have analyzed the game before and if my memory doesn't fail me, capturing it using Q is not a good move.
Its a very well known schoolboy opening you are playing Bruce, 7.gxf6 is simply the wrong move. Qxf6 is the book move and the computer at its highest level would play the book move.
You say a computer can be defeated and its not that impregnable but chessmaster at its highest level is practically impregnable. It would be perfect tactically, and never make any combinational errors, it would have a grandmaster level opening reportiore with an opening book covering hundreds of thousands of moves and positions and you'd have to be an exceptionally good player to defeat it.
The Kasparov you were playing already went wrong as early as
7.gxf6 not quite a patzer move but positionally a big mistake. Queen takes is the book move followed by 8.Nd5 then back to Qd8.
I'll have a look at the rest of the game in a bit, but already I can see you were playing against a very low strength program.
Not wishing to detract from your win of course but to claim to defeat a virtual model of the worlds greatest player is a pretty big claim to make
I don't think it's so obvious that 7...gxf6 is a big positional mistake. I kind of like it. Black can easily undouble the pawns by playing ...f5. 7...gxf6 does make the position more dynamic, with better chances for active play. Black should probably try to castle Queenside after this, and might very well get good play on the Kingside.
Bilbo: 7.... gxf6 is not a positional mistake. please try to analyze it again.I'll give you a hint. Using the queen is a bad move early in this game.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Its a very well known schoolboy opening you are playing Bruce, 7.gxf6 is simply the wrong move. Qxf6 is the book move and the computer at its highest level would play the book move.
You say a computer can be defeated and its not that impregnable but chessmaster at its highest level is practically impregnable. It would be perfect tactically, and never make any combinational errors, it would have a grandmaster level opening reportiore with an opening book covering hundreds of thousands of moves and positions and you'd have to be an exceptionally good player to defeat it.
The Kasparov you were playing already went wrong as early as 7.gxf6 not quite a patzer move but positionally a big mistake. Queen takes is the book move followed by 8.Nd5 then back to Qd8.
I'll have a look at the rest of the game in a bit, but already I can see you were playing against a very low strength program.
Not wishing to detract from your win of course but to claim to defeat a virtual model of the worlds greatest player is a pretty big claim to make
I don't think it's so obvious that 7...gxf6 is a big positional mistake. I kind of like it. Black can easily undouble the pawns by playing ...f5. 7...gxf6 does make the position more dynamic, with better chances for active play. Black should probably try to castle Queenside after this, and might very well get good play on the Kingside.
Bilbo: 7.... gxf6 is not a positional mistake. please try to analyze it again.I'll give you a hint. Using the queen is a bad move early in this game.
I am very aware of the line Bruce, its one of the most common schoolboy openings. Black played a terrible game, way below Grandmaster level, way below master level, way below even Grade C level.
It played like a weak casual player with no strategic understanding.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
This is a pretty good game IMO, though like you say it might not be a really high level setting for the Kasparov computer opponent.
I think Black has to play ...Qg6 a move sooner and attack White's f-pawn. After you play 21.Qh6 as white it looks like game over, unless I am missing something. The point is that it takes several moves to prove that 21.Qh6 is winning, so if your computer is not at a setting where it looks five or six moves deep, it might not see that the move 19...c5 is a losing move.
I don't know why black made that move but I believe that even the lowest level of Kasparov thinks at least 10 moves ahead. I was fighting kasparov and I'd like someone with a national/fide master level to assess this game. hehehe. There's a reason for that move.
are you a national master, CGM? if you are, I'd accept your opinion. I might have been playing a low level unknown GM in chessmater during that time.
anyway, I'd agree with you at 21.Qh6 i was winning already. I guess the computer could already see by the 18th move that I was on my way to winning the game. I can hardly remember my feeling and what I have been thinking back at this time but vaguely,
I can remember my feeling of superiority against the computer.hehehe. most probably a low level GM. Anyway, I can't remember whether I have set it to low level. However, during my college days, I'd usually set it to at least average.
I was playing NMs during those times.
What national masters were you playing Bruce? In real organised chess competitions you mean? If you remember their names I can most likely find their games in my Chessbase dvd which contains over 4.3 million games.
As for the standard of play in this game its way way way below GM level, I would say about 1200.
Some moves just make no sense whatsoever. Why would a GM as black play 6.h6 then 9.h5?
The exchange it premempted with 10.Bxd5 was just wrong as well, why give up your good bishop for a knight that could easily be kicked off with c6 after Na5 for example?
The idea that it would willing allow for doubled pawns on both the c and f files is dumb as well, black is practically positionally lost by move 12.
Choosing to castle into an open g file seems as the king is safer on f8 and the rook is better in g8 than the king.
15.f5 is another weakening move, blacks kingside is already wrecked don't compound the situation by opening lines. The pawn on f6 at least prevents the knight from having an unassailable outpost on g5 on f5 the knight can now permanently jump lodge himself there and nothing can move him.
The queen h pawn grab on move 18 again just opens the h file and loses by force after R h1, Qg4, Rh3 and doubling rooks on the h file, capturing the undefendable pawn and then mating on the h file with rooks and queen.
I can tell you that sadly your opponent in this game played around the 70 or 80 elo, maybe 1100 level. It shows no positional understanding at all and the real Kasparov could probably defeat 500 of this program in a simultaneous with a couple seconds of think time for each move.
Bilbo you should teach me some general strategy.. I don't feel like reading it in a book, and frankly, you seem like you have enough time and would actually enjoying imparting your knowledge.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
This is a pretty good game IMO, though like you say it might not be a really high level setting for the Kasparov computer opponent.
I think Black has to play ...Qg6 a move sooner and attack White's f-pawn. After you play 21.Qh6 as white it looks like game over, unless I am missing something. The point is that it takes several moves to prove that 21.Qh6 is winning, so if your computer is not at a setting where it looks five or six moves deep, it might not see that the move 19...c5 is a losing move.
I don't know why black made that move but I believe that even the lowest level of Kasparov thinks at least 10 moves ahead. I was fighting kasparov and I'd like someone with a national/fide master level to assess this game. hehehe. There's a reason for that move.
are you a national master, CGM? if you are, I'd accept your opinion. I might have been playing a low level unknown GM in chessmater during that time.
anyway, I'd agree with you at 21.Qh6 i was winning already. I guess the computer could already see by the 18th move that I was on my way to winning the game. I can hardly remember my feeling and what I have been thinking back at this time but vaguely,
I can remember my feeling of superiority against the computer.hehehe. most probably a low level GM. Anyway, I can't remember whether I have set it to low level. However, during my college days, I'd usually set it to at least average.
I was playing NMs during those times.
What national masters were you playing Bruce? In real organised chess competitions you mean? If you remember their names I can most likely find their games in my Chessbase dvd which contains over 4.3 million games.
As for the standard of play in this game its way way way below GM level, I would say about 1200.
Some moves just make no sense whatsoever. Why would a GM as black play 6.h6 then 9.h5?
The exchange it premempted with 10.Bxd5 was just wrong as well, why give up your good bishop for a knight that could easily be kicked off with c6 after Na5 for example?
The idea that it would willing allow for doubled pawns on both the c and f files is dumb as well, black is practically positionally lost by move 12.
Choosing to castle into an open g file seems as the king is safer on f8 and the rook is better in g8 than the king.
15.f5 is another weakening move, blacks kingside is already wrecked don't compound the situation by opening lines. The pawn on f6 at least prevents the knight from having an unassailable outpost on g5 on f5 the knight can now permanently jump lodge himself there and nothing can move him.
The queen h pawn grab on move 18 again just opens the h file and loses by force after R h1, Qg4, Rh3 and doubling rooks on the h file, capturing the undefendable pawn and then mating on the h file with rooks and queen.
I can tell you that sadly your opponent in this game played around the 70 or 80 elo, maybe 1100 level. It shows no positional understanding at all and the real Kasparov could probably defeat 500 of this program in a simultaneous with a couple seconds of think time for each move.
Bilbo: I have started playing chess when I was 7. How old were you when you started playing it?
I respect though your passion for chess but as to questioning whether I was playing against a GM in chessmaster during those time, I can assure you that I was indeed playing against GMs in chessmaster. What you think as weak positions, please try to analyze them again. GMs in chessmaster made those moves. I have been playing games of real grandmasters (chess olympiad results) and at my level, I don't see them as positional mistakes.:cool:
Anyway, I'm past my best and I'm the DLH in chess. hehehe. I could hardly win against an F-level at this time.A friendly game of chess would be nice some time in the future.
@CGM, if you have the time,please post your comment about my second game.hope to have a game with you at yahoo.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
I don't know why black made that move but I believe that even the lowest level of Kasparov thinks at least 10 moves ahead. I was fighting kasparov and I'd like someone with a national/fide master level to assess this game. hehehe. There's a reason for that move.
are you a national master, CGM? if you are, I'd accept your opinion. I might have been playing a low level unknown GM in chessmater during that time.
anyway, I'd agree with you at 21.Qh6 i was winning already. I guess the computer could already see by the 18th move that I was on my way to winning the game. I can hardly remember my feeling and what I have been thinking back at this time but vaguely, I can remember my feeling of superiority against the computer.hehehe. most probably a low level GM. Anyway, I can't remember whether I have set it to low level. However, during my college days, I'd usually set it to at least average. I was playing NMs during those times.
What national masters were you playing Bruce? In real organised chess competitions you mean? If you remember their names I can most likely find their games in my Chessbase dvd which contains over 4.3 million games.
As for the standard of play in this game its way way way below GM level, I would say about 1200.
Some moves just make no sense whatsoever. Why would a GM as black play 6.h6 then 9.h5?
The exchange it premempted with 10.Bxd5 was just wrong as well, why give up your good bishop for a knight that could easily be kicked off with c6 after Na5 for example?
The idea that it would willing allow for doubled pawns on both the c and f files is dumb as well, black is practically positionally lost by move 12.
Choosing to castle into an open g file seems as the king is safer on f8 and the rook is better in g8 than the king.
15.f5 is another weakening move, blacks kingside is already wrecked don't compound the situation by opening lines. The pawn on f6 at least prevents the knight from having an unassailable outpost on g5 on f5 the knight can now permanently jump lodge himself there and nothing can move him.
The queen h pawn grab on move 18 again just opens the h file and loses by force after R h1, Qg4, Rh3 and doubling rooks on the h file, capturing the undefendable pawn and then mating on the h file with rooks and queen.
I can tell you that sadly your opponent in this game played around the 70 or 80 elo, maybe 1100 level. It shows no positional understanding at all and the real Kasparov could probably defeat 500 of this program in a simultaneous with a couple seconds of think time for each move.
Bilbo: I have started playing chess when I was 7. How old were you when you started playing it?
I respect though your passion for chess but as to questioning whether I was playing against a GM in chessmaster during those time, I can assure you that I was indeed playing against GMs in chessmaster. What you think as weak positions, please try to analyze them again. GMs in chessmaster made those moves. I have been playing games of real grandmasters (chess olympiad results) and at my level, I don't see them as positional mistakes.:cool:
Chessmaster is a computer program Bruce they are not real grandmasters. What real grandmasters have you played? Name a couple? What international tournaments did you play in? Which Olympiad? What country was it held? What year?
No offense mate but you are talking crap ;D
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Chessgate, imo.
Q.f7.2tehbacksidefreddie4sure.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
What national masters were you playing Bruce? In real organised chess competitions you mean? If you remember their names I can most likely find their games in my Chessbase dvd which contains over 4.3 million games.
As for the standard of play in this game its way way way below GM level, I would say about 1200.
Some moves just make no sense whatsoever. Why would a GM as black play 6.h6 then 9.h5?
The exchange it premempted with 10.Bxd5 was just wrong as well, why give up your good bishop for a knight that could easily be kicked off with c6 after Na5 for example?
The idea that it would willing allow for doubled pawns on both the c and f files is dumb as well, black is practically positionally lost by move 12.
Choosing to castle into an open g file seems as the king is safer on f8 and the rook is better in g8 than the king.
15.f5 is another weakening move, blacks kingside is already wrecked don't compound the situation by opening lines. The pawn on f6 at least prevents the knight from having an unassailable outpost on g5 on f5 the knight can now permanently jump lodge himself there and nothing can move him.
The queen h pawn grab on move 18 again just opens the h file and loses by force after R h1, Qg4, Rh3 and doubling rooks on the h file, capturing the undefendable pawn and then mating on the h file with rooks and queen.
I can tell you that sadly your opponent in this game played around the 70 or 80 elo, maybe 1100 level. It shows no positional understanding at all and the real Kasparov could probably defeat 500 of this program in a simultaneous with a couple seconds of think time for each move.
Bilbo: I have started playing chess when I was 7. How old were you when you started playing it?
I respect though your passion for chess but as to questioning whether I was playing against a GM in chessmaster during those time, I can assure you that I was indeed playing against GMs in chessmaster. What you think as weak positions, please try to analyze them again. GMs in chessmaster made those moves. I have been playing games of real grandmasters (chess olympiad results) and at my level, I don't see them as positional mistakes.:cool:
Chessmaster is a computer program Bruce they are not real grandmasters. What real grandmasters have you played? Name a couple? What international tournaments did you play in? Which Olympiad? What country was it held? What year?
No offense mate but you are talking crap ;D
Bilbo, I've said I was playing games of real grandmasters (chess olympiad results)...... I was trying to tell you that I'm familiar with their games through the results of the olympiad. I have told you that I had no time to be playing professionally but once in a while during my younger days, I was playing with NMs in my country.
regarding the game and calling it a game made by schoolboy, you can judge it that way but I will not make some lies about some silly chess results. I was playing GMs in chessmaster.
Please play my opening in chessmaster if you have the program and I'm telling you, the computer sometimes do the same move, especially move number 7.:cool:
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Bilbo: I have started playing chess when I was 7. How old were you when you started playing it?
I respect though your passion for chess but as to questioning whether I was playing against a GM in chessmaster during those time, I can assure you that I was indeed playing against GMs in chessmaster. What you think as weak positions, please try to analyze them again. GMs in chessmaster made those moves. I have been playing games of real grandmasters (chess olympiad results) and at my level, I don't see them as positional mistakes.:cool:
Chessmaster is a computer program Bruce they are not real grandmasters. What real grandmasters have you played? Name a couple? What international tournaments did you play in? Which Olympiad? What country was it held? What year?
No offense mate but you are talking crap ;D
Bilbo, I've said I was playing games of real grandmasters (chess olympiad results)...... I was trying to tell you that I'm familiar with their games through the results of the olympiad. I have told you that I had no time to be playing professionally but once in a while during my younger days, I was playing with NMs in my country.
regarding the game and calling it a game made by schoolboy, you can judge it that way but I will not make some lies about some silly chess results. I was playing GMs in chessmaster.
Please play my opening in chessmaster if you have the program and I'm telling you, the computer sometimes do the same move, especially move number 7.:cool:
I don't understand what you mean Bruce, that you were playing real Grandmasters in chessmaster? Chessmaster is a computer program, you are not playing a real grandmaster. And I don't know what you mean about playing grandmasters in Olympiads? So you are saying you studied the games from the Olympiads, but you didn't play in them?
When I say it is a schoolboy opening I'm not being patronising, it literally IS a schoolboy opening. In school chess, under 12's virtually all the games are either the Guioco Piano, as in this game or else the Four Knights, as in your second game.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Regarding chess olympiads, I'll mention one which I can still remember. Moscow Russia, December 1994 (31st Chess Olympiad). Regarding the games of the grandmasters, favorite game is by vladmir kramnik at investbanka grandmaster tournament in Belgrade against topalov (sicilian). Favorite lady player: judit polgar because of her love for sicilian .
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Chessmaster is a computer program Bruce they are not real grandmasters. What real grandmasters have you played? Name a couple? What international tournaments did you play in? Which Olympiad? What country was it held? What year?
No offense mate but you are talking crap ;D
Bilbo, I've said I was playing games of real grandmasters (chess olympiad results)...... I was trying to tell you that I'm familiar with their games through the results of the olympiad. I have told you that I had no time to be playing professionally but once in a while during my younger days, I was playing with NMs in my country.
regarding the game and calling it a game made by schoolboy, you can judge it that way but I will not make some lies about some silly chess results. I was playing GMs in chessmaster.
Please play my opening in chessmaster if you have the program and I'm telling you, the computer sometimes do the same move, especially move number 7.:cool:
I don't understand what you mean Bruce, that you were playing real Grandmasters in chessmaster? Chessmaster is a computer program, you are not playing a real grandmaster. And I don't know what you mean about playing grandmasters in Olympiads? So you are saying you studied the games from the Olympiads, but you didn't play in them?
When I say it is a schoolboy opening I'm not being patronising, it literally IS a schoolboy opening. In school chess, under 12's virtually all the games are either the Guioco Piano, as in this game or else the Four Knights, as in your second game.
You know why I used four knights? It was because, computers are difficult to defeat. You play unorthodox opening against them and you will not last 20 moves. I know you know that if you're really playing chess against computer.
REgarding being patronized, I don't want you to patronize me. Chess is game of honesty. If it's a bad move, it's a bad move especially if your playing against a computer.
Bilbo, have you won already against a computer, even the low level ones? I'm telling you, the only way to defeat them is to be conservative in your opening and you continue to be conservative at the end while attacking it. My moves may seem schoolboy for those who hasn't learned the principles of openings but let a chess master assess it so it can be judged properly.
If you really try to analyze my game, you would see that it's a mixture of basic moves. The secret to winning is to remember the principles of the chess openings not memorize them, at least that how I've learned it.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
This is a pretty good game IMO, though like you say it might not be a really high level setting for the Kasparov computer opponent.
I think Black has to play ...Qg6 a move sooner and attack White's f-pawn. After you play 21.Qh6 as white it looks like game over, unless I am missing something. The point is that it takes several moves to prove that 21.Qh6 is winning, so if your computer is not at a setting where it looks five or six moves deep, it might not see that the move 19...c5 is a losing move.
I don't know why black made that move but I believe that even the lowest level of Kasparov thinks at least 10 moves ahead. I was fighting kasparov and I'd like someone with a national/fide master level to assess this game. hehehe. There's a reason for that move.
are you a national master, CGM? if you are, I'd accept your opinion. I might have been playing a low level unknown GM in chessmater during that time.
anyway, I'd agree with you at 21.Qh6 i was winning already. I guess the computer could already see by the 18th move that I was on my way to winning the game. I can hardly remember my feeling and what I have been thinking back at this time but vaguely,
I can remember my feeling of superiority against the computer.hehehe. most probably a low level GM. Anyway, I can't remember whether I have set it to low level. However, during my college days, I'd usually set it to at least average.
I was playing NMs during those times.
What national masters were you playing Bruce? In real organised chess competitions you mean? If you remember their names I can most likely find their games in my Chessbase dvd which contains over 4.3 million games.
As for the standard of play in this game its way way way below GM level, I would say about 1200.
Some moves just make no sense whatsoever. Why would a GM as black play 6.h6 then 9.h5?
9...h5 might be played because Black wants to move the pawn away from the attack of the Queen, thus freeing up the rook. a subsequent ...h4 by black would prevent the knight from occupying h4 and thus controlling the square f5. Maybe black wants to push on to h3 with a view to weakening the White Kingside.
If white had played 9.Nh4 right away, instead of 9.Qd2 then 9...h5 would be almost mandatory to keep the Queen out of h5.
The exchange it premempted with 10.Bxd5 was just wrong as well, why give up your good bishop for a knight that could easily be kicked off with c6 after Na5 for example?
An immediate ...Na5 by Black loses the knight. Maybe Black wants to remove the knight from a very strong outpost on d5, where it attacks the f6 pawn, tying down the Black Queen to it's defense. So 10...Bxd5 frees up the Black Queen.
The idea that it would willing allow for doubled pawns on both the c and f files is dumb as well, black is practically positionally lost by move 12.
Not necessarily. This very formation is common in some variation of the Ruy Lopez. Black gets a mobile pawn center, and open files for the rooks. Black can possibly now play ...d5 or ...f5 with possible dynamic play.
Choosing to castle into an open g file seems as the king is safer on f8 and the rook is better in g8 than the king.
I would tend to agree. May as well leave the King where it is.
15.f5 is another weakening move, blacks kingside is already wrecked don't compound the situation by opening lines. The pawn on f6 at least prevents the knight from having an unassailable outpost on g5 on f5 the knight can now permanently jump lodge himself there and nothing can move him.
The queen h pawn grab on move 18 again just opens the h file and loses by force after R h1, Qg4, Rh3 and doubling rooks on the h file, capturing the undefendable pawn and then mating on the h file with rooks and queen.
Yeah 20.Rh3 looks pretty good. There is also the threat of 21.Rg3 after Rh3
I can tell you that sadly your opponent in this game played around the 70 or 80 elo, maybe 1100 level. It shows no positional understanding at all and the real Kasparov could probably defeat 500 of this program in a simultaneous with a couple seconds of think time for each move.
More likely a case of a low move horizon setting. The positional understanding early on wasn't all that that bad, I wouldn't call it 1100. Later on move horizon limitations caused it some grief.
Anyways, I think we all agree it wasn't a very strong computer opponent.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
I have been watching this thread with some interest now, and have kept quiet so far.
But, I am actually Garry Kasparov.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelee
I don't know why black made that move but I believe that even the lowest level of Kasparov thinks at least 10 moves ahead. I was fighting kasparov and I'd like someone with a national/fide master level to assess this game. hehehe. There's a reason for that move.
are you a national master, CGM? if you are, I'd accept your opinion. I might have been playing a low level unknown GM in chessmater during that time.
anyway, I'd agree with you at 21.Qh6 i was winning already. I guess the computer could already see by the 18th move that I was on my way to winning the game. I can hardly remember my feeling and what I have been thinking back at this time but vaguely, I can remember my feeling of superiority against the computer.hehehe. most probably a low level GM. Anyway, I can't remember whether I have set it to low level. However, during my college days, I'd usually set it to at least average. I was playing NMs during those times.
What national masters were you playing Bruce? In real organised chess competitions you mean? If you remember their names I can most likely find their games in my Chessbase dvd which contains over 4.3 million games.
As for the standard of play in this game its way way way below GM level, I would say about 1200.
Some moves just make no sense whatsoever. Why would a GM as black play 6.h6 then 9.h5?
9...h5 might be played because Black wants to move the pawn away from the attack of the Queen, thus freeing up the rook. a subsequent ...h4 by black would prevent the knight from occupying h4 and thus controlling the square f5. Maybe black wants to push on to h3 with a view to weakening the White Kingside.
If white had played 9.Nh4 right away, instead of 9.Qd2 then 9...h5 would be almost mandatory to keep the Queen out of h5.
The exchange it premempted with 10.Bxd5 was just wrong as well, why give up your good bishop for a knight that could easily be kicked off with c6 after Na5 for example?
An immediate ...Na5 by Black loses the knight. Maybe Black wants to remove the knight from a very strong outpost on d5, where it attacks the f6 pawn, tying down the Black Queen to it's defense. So 10...Bxd5 frees up the Black Queen.
The idea that it would willing allow for doubled pawns on both the c and f files is dumb as well, black is practically positionally lost by move 12.
Not necessarily. This very formation is common in some variation of the Ruy Lopez. Black gets a mobile pawn center, and open files for the rooks. Black can possibly now play ...d5 or ...f5 with possible dynamic play.
Choosing to castle into an open g file seems as the king is safer on f8 and the rook is better in g8 than the king.
I would tend to agree. May as well leave the King where it is.
15.f5 is another weakening move, blacks kingside is already wrecked don't compound the situation by opening lines. The pawn on f6 at least prevents the knight from having an unassailable outpost on g5 on f5 the knight can now permanently jump lodge himself there and nothing can move him.
The queen h pawn grab on move 18 again just opens the h file and loses by force after R h1, Qg4, Rh3 and doubling rooks on the h file, capturing the undefendable pawn and then mating on the h file with rooks and queen.
Yeah 20.Rh3 looks pretty good. There is also the threat of 21.Rg3 after Rh3
I can tell you that sadly your opponent in this game played around the 70 or 80 elo, maybe 1100 level. It shows no positional understanding at all and the real Kasparov could probably defeat 500 of this program in a simultaneous with a couple seconds of think time for each move.
More likely a case of a low move horizon setting. The positional understanding early on wasn't all that that bad, I wouldn't call it 1100. Later on move horizon limitations caused it some grief.
Anyways, I think we all agree it wasn't a very strong computer opponent.
9.h4 is just a poor move imo, it's wasting time and allows white to play 10.b4 forcing Bb6 followed by a4 which in turn forces a6 then Nxb6 and the black queenside is wrecked.
Black would have been better served with 9.a3 or else 9.f5 which at least threatens to break up whites center with fxe5 and activates the light bishop if exf5.
Regarding the Na5 yeah for some reason I had the queen on e2 my bad.
Regarding the pawn formation, it's pretty bad, Black is positional doomed in an endgame pretty much. He has a bad bishop against a potentially very strong knight. Playing f5 at any time to will give the knight a permanent outpost on g5 and its hard to see what counterplay black will have.
It's not quite a won position but already Black has no realistic winning chances imo especially at grandmaster level.
Its play reminded me of my old chess computer, an actual real board with a built in computer that had supposedly 100 levels and was easy to beat on all of them.
That was nowhere near GM standard play from black, in fact it was below the standard of our own games CGM I'm sure you'll agree?
I think Bruce played pretty well but to be honest I didn't look at his moves much, just paying attention to super gm and greatest player of all time Garry Kasparov :-X:p
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Thank you for explaining the moves CGM. No doubt you know your game very well.
I'll play again the game using a chess board and I will try to give my analysis on why the computer made those moves. Anyway, you've explained some of the moves already.
Honest to goodness, I've already forgotten the names and variations of chess openings. Ruy Lopez, Sicilian, D4 (especially Queen's gambit) were my favorite openings. I could hardly remember the variations. I'll do some review to make it at least a little bit challenging for you when we play at gameknot.
I've done French Opening in a local tournament and failed miserably with it;D so French opening is my most hated opening and I can hardly remember how to do it.;D;D;D
It's already 3AM here and I still have a programming class later. gtg. see you in gameknot.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
I have been watching this thread with some interest now, and have kept quiet so far.
But, I am actually Garry Kasparov.
On this subject, while taking a well earned break from my political campaigning in Armenia, I read an article the other day which claimed that over 70% of our bishops were gay.
In order to bring the game up to date, we should change the rules of chess now to resemble this fact.....the bishops would still move in the same directions but could only be taken from behind.
It's just this level of quality debate on wide ranging issues that makes this forum so worthwhile. I think Scrap is the ghost of Bobby Fischer and I'm sure he'll concur with my idea.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
I have been watching this thread with some interest now, and have kept quiet so far.
But, I am actually Garry Kasparov.
On this subject, while taking a well earned break from my political campaigning in Armenia, I read an article the other day which claimed that over 70% of our bishops were gay.
In order to bring the game up to date, we should change the rules of chess now to resemble this fact.....the bishops would still move in the same directions but could only be taken from behind.
It's just this level of quality debate on wide ranging issues that makes this forum so worthwhile. I think Scrap is the ghost of Bobby Fischer and I'm sure he'll concur with my idea.
haha :D
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
I think Bilbo is determined to expose everyone as chess frauds. He'll be after the real Kasparov next :p
Not to get away from this topic too much, but has anyone done Chessboxing? I bet ICB was the world champ ;D
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
I think Bilbo is determined to expose everyone as chess frauds. He'll be after the real Kasparov next :p
Not to get away from this topic too much, but has anyone done Chessboxing? I bet ICB was the world champ ;D
Interestingly I played in a chess tournament in November with Andy Costello who was challenging for the world chess boxing heavyweight title. We both finished joint second in our section but didn't play each other.
He was a really nice guy, he said he got into chessboxing after a month as Michael Bispings sparring partner convinved him he couldn't make it in the UFC. Very honest guy, he said Bisping and Rampage just kicked the shat out of him in training and so he knew he couldn't compete at that level so got into chessboxing as he was a good chess player as a junior.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
I have been watching this thread with some interest now, and have kept quiet so far.
But, I am actually Garry Kasparov.
Hey Garry. I have a question if you don't mind
In your 1982 book on the Scheveningen Sicilian, you suggested that a certain move for Black was not that good, then you played that very move in your first game of the first match against Karpov in 1984. What are your thoughts about that? I'm sure you recall the move.
-
Re: ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CGM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
I have been watching this thread with some interest now, and have kept quiet so far.
But, I am actually Garry Kasparov.
Hey Garry. I have a question if you don't mind
In your 1982 book on the Scheveningen Sicilian, you suggested that a certain move for Black was not that good, then you played that very move in your first game of the first match against Karpov in 1984. What are your thoughts about that? I'm sure you recall the move.
Lol I wish you'd have hit Ice with one! ;D
