CGM: its Qg4 for 19. .... Qg4
Printable View
CGM: its Qg4 for 19. .... Qg4
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceleeQuote:
Originally Posted by CGM
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.
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboIts 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMNo, 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceleeQuote:
Originally Posted by CGM
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceleeQuote:
Originally Posted by CGM
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.
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: 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMI 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboIts 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceleeBilbo: 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMI 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
It played like a weak casual player with no strategic understanding.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboWhat 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceleeQuote:
Originally Posted by CGM
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboWhat 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceleeQuote:
Originally Posted by CGM
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceleeBilbo: I have started playing chess when I was 7. How old were you when you started playing it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboWhat 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
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.
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