Chessgate, imo.
Q.f7.2tehbacksidefreddie4sure.
Printable View
Chessgate, imo.
Q.f7.2tehbacksidefreddie4sure.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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 Bilbo
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
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruceleeBilbo, 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
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
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.
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 .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboQuote:
Originally Posted by bruceleeBilbo, 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
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.
Anyways, I think we all agree it wasn't a very strong computer opponent.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?
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.
I have been watching this thread with some interest now, and have kept quiet so far.
But, I am actually Garry Kasparov.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMAnyways, I think we all agree it wasn't a very strong computer opponent.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?
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.
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by X
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 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by XOn 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by X
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMQuote:
Originally Posted by X
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