ICB Where did you learn to play chess mate?

[brucelee]

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.

[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.

[brucelee]

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.

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.

[brucelee]

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. 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.

[Kev]

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.

[RP33]

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.

[brucelee]

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.

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.

[Kev]

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.

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

[brucelee]

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.

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

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.

[Kev]

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.

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

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.

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.

[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

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.

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.

[brucelee]

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 .

[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.

[X]

I have been watching this thread with some interest now, and have kept quiet so far.

But, I am actually Garry Kasparov.

[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.