Here is a game where Normal Level was able to fight till 38 Moves
against Rybka (Hard Level)

Game Played between sanjay11 and normal at GetClub.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sanjay11: (White)
normal: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...861&game=Chess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White -- Black
(sanjay11) -- (normal)

1. e2-e4{4} c7-c6{0}
2. Nb1-c3{44} d7-d5{110}
3. e4-d5{18} c6-d5{116}
4. Bf1-b5{20} Nb8-c6{120}
5. Ng1-f3{14} Qd8-d6{114}
6. Ke1-g1{18} g7-g6{124}
7. d2-d4{16} Bc8-f5{110}
8. Nf3-e5{26} f7-f6{134}
9. Bc1-f4{28} Qd6-e6{82}
10. Ne5-d3{20} Ra8-d8{142}
11. Bf4-c7{22} Rd8-c8{104}
12. Bc7-g3{16} a7-a6{140}
13. Rf1-e1{14} Qe6-f7{152}
14. Bb5-a4{24} b7-b5{110}
15. Ba4-b3{18} Nc6-d4{132}
16. Bb3-d5{18} e7-e6{98}
17. Nd3-f4{20} Bf8-c5{90}
18. Nc3-e4{18} Bf5-e4{104}
19. Re1-e4{16} f6-f5{80}
20. Re4-e5{24} Rc8-d8{152}
21. c2-c3{22} Ng8-e7{104}
22. c3-d4{16} Bc5-d6{84}
23. Nf4-e6{18} Ne7-d5{146}
24. Ne6-g5{18} Bd6-e5{84}
25. Ng5-f7{20} Ke8-f7{114}
26. Bg3-e5{14} Rh8-e8{104}
27. Qd1-c1{30} Kf7-g8{126}
28. Qc1-c6{12} f5-f4{140}
29. Qc6-a6{56} b5-b4{204}
30. Ra1-c1{22} f4-f3{130}
31. Rc1-c6{16} Kg8-f8{90}
32. Rc6-f6{20} Kf8-g8{80}
33. Rf6-g6{24} Kg8-f8{96}
34. Rg6-g3{20} Kf8-e7{152}
35. Rg3-g7{24} Ke7-f8{146}
36. Rg7-h7{48} Re8-e7{118}
37. Rh7-h8{16} Kf8-f7{98}
38. Rh8-d8{20} Nd5-f6{90}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sanjay11: (White)
normal: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...861&game=Chess

Nowadays no one is able to spot mistakes in GetClub Game. Is it very
tough to analyze these games. Still if you find mistake in GetClubs
game tell me So that I can improve the game.

Are the game lost to Rybka because of poor Calculations or it is
because Depth of Analysis of Rybka is higher.

Normal Level thinks 14 depth deep. How much deep does Rybka think?

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On Feb 19, 8:20 am, Sanny wrote:
Rybka beat GetClubs Normal Level in just 25 Moves.

Game Played between Rybka and normal at GetClub.com. Why do Normal
Level Lost to Rybka? Which were the Wrong Moves that Normal Level
Made?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rybka : (White)
normal: (Black)


Here, the GetClub program first went wrong
when it sat down to play. Yet the crowd did
not truly guffaw until it saw GC's moves... .


-- eval. bot

On Feb 19, 10:57 am, "webfilelib" wrote:

I have a question about fairness:

If computer programs are allowed to have
opening's books (i.e. human-aided analysis)
when playing against humans...

then why can't humans have endgame analysis
from a hand-held calculator
when playing against computers?

Because, only the computers are allowed
to cheat at chess.

When humans do this sort of thing, they
are summarily whipped, keel-hulled, or at
the very least ostracized, excommunicated,
and labeled left-wing radical lunatic-fringers.

You may recall a game or two in which
humans pitted Bobby Fischer against the
dreadful Greenblatt program; so horrible was
the slaughter that from that time forward, it
was decided to just allow computers to
cheat at will! This seemed only fair at the
time... .


-- fairness bot

On Feb 19, 11:12 am, Mike Murray wrote:

channel the game away from anti-computer strategies -- human analysis
is of too low quality to help the silicon monsters these days.

Whoa there, fella! You may speak for yourself, but
a few of us happen to know better. Computers with
no openings book still founder in the opening.

For example, many a book has been written in
which it is carefully explained how blocking the
c-pawn early with N-c3 or N-c6 constricts one's
own pieces; yet even the very best programs
will do exactly this, if you disable their openings
books. Now, while weak players may argue
that perhaps these monstrosities "know better"
than the authors of those books, real chess
players understand that it is merely an
indication that they have been programmed
poorly in this area of the game.

Think of the famous game in which DeepBlue,
or some other killer program, was stomping all
over GM Karpov, UNTIL it had to choose
between grabbing lots of pawns, or keeping the
opponent from getting far-advanced connected
passers which could not be stopped; the
clueless, materialist program grabbed the pawns
as a matter of course, judging it obtained a hefty
material advantage, only to lose the game like a
carrot.

Don't deceive yourself into thinking that these
new programs are near to perfection; they are
better than us, but that is no reason to give
them very much credit at all. It is still apparent
that they suffer from the dreaded horizon effect,
that they will play for spite checks in order to
push the fact that they are making zero head-
way beyond their own sight-lines, much like an
ostrich which buries its head in the sand.

I believe that human analysis can still help
these programs, but it needs to be of the
highest quality-- not the type of stuff typically
found published in Chess Lies magazine,
which I find is easily refuted by these very
programs, sans books and sans table-bases!


-- help bot