Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 17th 07, 01:16 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer

Dr. Phil:

Dutch GM Tim Krabbe compïled website with
"110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"

We did computerevaluations of all of them.
Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like RJF
did.
Amazing.

Greetings from Amsterdam.

Albert H. Alberts, updated website www.howtofoolfritz.com



  #2   Report Post  
Old September 17th 07, 11:32 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 10
Default How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer

" the third run Fritz smells the rat for Topalov and simply refuses the
bishop! It goes 1- Bh3!? 2.Kf2! Kf5 3. Kf3 Bg4+ 4. Ke3 and keeps on driving
black crazy with useless knight moves I thought there was hope for mankind
in this one, but not in this case. A SWINDLE, Mr.Shirov but a nice one and
it took three runs for Fritz to understand."

Eum, 3. Bxg2+ wins easily with same idea as in the game no need for fritz to
see that.. And the list of Tim Krabbe (who is no gm) is about the "most
amazing" moves and spasskys move is pretty amazing, the sacrifice isn't
supposed to be correct.

"Chess One" schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]
Dr. Phil:

Dutch GM Tim Krabbe compïled website with
"110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"

We did computerevaluations of all of them.
Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like RJF
did.
Amazing.

Greetings from Amsterdam.

Albert H. Alberts, updated website www.howtofoolfritz.com





  #3   Report Post  
Old September 18th 07, 11:21 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer

On Sep 17, 7:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Dr. Phil:

Dutch GM Tim Krabbe compïled website with
"110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"

We did computerevaluations of all of them.
Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like RJF
did.
Amazing.

Greetings from Amsterdam.

Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com


Many of these have the loser missing the best defense
by a country mile, so the attack looks better than it really
is. For instance, in the game where White plays Qxh7+
Qxh7, g6, Black could have just defended with ...Ra7 and
reached an ending where he is just barely losing, the same
as before the sac'.

One game had a very young Boris Spassky just moving a
Knight en prise, which shows that you must look beyond
the surface in determining what is "fantastic" (just as with
GM Soltis' book which included at least one obvious
blunder as a "brilliancy").

Not all of GM Fischer's games measure up; I was
reading Chess Life and replaying the games on screen,
and he missed several faster wins which Fritz could see
quite easily; in fact, that particular game was played
very poorly by GM Spassky.

What I don't quite grasp is what this next guy means by:

" the third run Fritz smells the rat for Topalov and simply refuses
the
bishop! It goes 1- Bh3!? 2.Kf2! Kf5 3. Kf3 Bg4+ 4. Ke3 and keeps on
driving
black crazy with useless knight moves I thought there was hope for
mankind
in this one, but not in this case. A SWINDLE, Mr.Shirov but a nice
one and
it took three runs for Fritz to understand."

What is a "third run" in Fritz? Did he perhaps set the
program to analyze entire games at ten seconds per move,
then one minute, and then, finally, ten minutes per move?
He talks of "useless knight moves" but in the diagram there
is no Knight to be found. (A lot of hullabaloo over nothing;
I believe GM Shirov was two pawns ahead in that game, so
whether or not this particular trick worked he was likely to
win eventually anyhow.)

One diagram had someone playing Q-g7 in a Najdorf
Sicilian, but what struck me was how deep these lines
are memorized by-rote, just to get that far without any
deviation by either side. I find that in my games, once
the book is left behind the blunders crash the party and
try to take over completely.


-- help bot











  #4   Report Post  
Old September 18th 07, 03:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,931
Default How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer

On Sep 17, 8:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Dr. Phil:


Hmmm, has our Phil been claiming a doctorate in addition to his
nearly-an-IM title? ;-)

Dutch GM Tim Krabbe compïled website with
"110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"

We did computerevaluations of all of them.
Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like RJF
did.
Amazing.

Greetings from Amsterdam.

Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com


It would not surprise me at all if several, or even many, of
Krabbé's featured games/combinations/moves turned out to have sub-
optimal play, or could even be refuted. The point is not that they are
the "110 most accurate chess moves ever," but that they are the most
fantastic, in the true sense of the word, i.e. belonging to the realm
of fantasy. They are the moves Krabbé considers the most imaginative,
and most importantly for the human aspect of chess, the most
surprising. While suprise is meaningless to a computer program, to a
human player it carries a force far beyond the objective merits of the
move.
I can't lay my hands on the exact quote, but I recall Tartakower
saying something to the effect that making a strong move against your
opponent is good, but it is even better to surprise him. This is a
very human aspect of chess, which Krabbé celebrates. There is nothing
wrong with subjecting these games to computer analysis, but the
presence of errors does not diminish the amazing nature of these
moves, nor the courage of those who played them - two purely human
factors a computer can never appreciate.


  #5   Report Post  
Old September 18th 07, 05:30 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,365
Default How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer

Computers will rule over Humans one day, This is just the beginning.

Bye
Sanny

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






  #6   Report Post  
Old September 18th 07, 06:36 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 163
Default How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer

On 18 Sep, 11:21, help bot wrote:
On Sep 17, 7:16 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Dr. Phil:


Dutch GM Tim Krabbe compïled website with
"110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"


We did computerevaluations of all of them.
Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like RJF
did.
Amazing.


Greetings from Amsterdam.


Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com


Many of these have the loser missing the best defense
by a country mile, so the attack looks better than it really
is. For instance, in the game where White plays Qxh7+
Qxh7, g6, Black could have just defended with ...Ra7 and
reached an ending where he is just barely losing, the same
as before the sac'.


39. ... Ra7, 40. gxh7+ Kxh7, 41. Rg7+ Rxg7, 42. hxg7+ Kg6, 43. Rh8
seems to win easily - what am I missing?

  #7   Report Post  
Old September 18th 07, 10:39 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer

On Sep 18, 9:47 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Dr. Phil:


Hmmm, has our Phil been claiming a doctorate in addition to his
nearly-an-IM title? ;-)


After mastering the little-known Andean language, Mr.
Innes took his doctorate at the Sorbonne; he had to take
it, you see, because they would not give it to him.


Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com


It would not surprise me at all if several, or even many, of
Krabbé's featured games/combinations/moves turned out to have sub-
optimal play, or could even be refuted. The point is not that they are
the "110 most accurate chess moves ever," but that they are the most
fantastic, in the true sense of the word, i.e. belonging to the realm
of fantasy. They are the moves Krabbé considers the most imaginative,


One of these had Boris Spassky moving a Knight
en prise for no apparent reason. Fantastic? Or just
lame? How many other selections were wacky?


and most importantly for the human aspect of chess, the most
surprising. While suprise is meaningless to a computer program, to a
human player it carries a force far beyond the objective merits of the
move.


I think it is because these moves are hyped all over
as being so great that they have called attention to
themselves; what Gary Kasparov termed "the test of
time" has now arrived.


I can't lay my hands on the exact quote, but I recall Tartakower
saying something to the effect that making a strong move against your
opponent is good, but it is even better to surprise him. This is a
very human aspect of chess, which Krabbé celebrates. There is nothing
wrong with subjecting these games to computer analysis, but the
presence of errors does not diminish the amazing nature of these
moves, nor the courage of those who played them - two purely human
factors a computer can never appreciate.


Perhaps courage is a factor when the player is weak,
and cannot begin to fathom the variations but still plays
a "fantastic" move knowing full well that his Class C
prize is on the line. But most of these guys were
grandmasters, and well able to at least partially grasp
the ramifications; how many of "Dutch GM" Krabbe's
selections were born of courage, and how many of
recklessness or the pursuit of brilliancy prizes, we may
never know.

Where I play, there are players who consistently
attempt to play "brilliant" games just for the sake of
hoping to be thought of as a brilliant chess player;
most of them are wild "attackers", meaning they will
attack when they should, as well as when they should
not, and even when they ought to be defending or
packing up the pieces and going home.

In rgc, there is Sam Sloan, who singlehandedly
defends Damiano's Defense unaware that it died many
years ago. Perhaps he feels this gains attention,
notoriety.

In a recent Chess Life magazine, one article celebrated
an NM's nearly-a-victory over a grandmaster via multiple
piece sacrifices; but to me, his inability to finish the job
brings doubts, such as why did he leave the board after
nearly every move? Where did he go, and who did he talk
to (about his game)? I have seen far too much to just
naively accept that he envisioned the entire attack, yet
lacked the ability to convert when things got easy.

A little while back, Sanny asked me if I had just hung
my Rook against his program, and I explained that no,
I got the idea from this game in Chess Life and it was
a deliberate, calculated sacrifice. So how does the guy
in Chess Life explain where he got his idea from? He
tells us that in spite of his 2200+ rating, he is basically
a GM in the middle game (who is also good in the
opening and good in endings). Right. It could never be
that maybe he got some "help", as young Mr. Botvinnik
did when he defeated GM Capablanca in a simul.

To me, true brilliance is not demonstrated in finding
these one-movers insomuch as it is in a game which
demonstrates a grand strategy. These deep thinkers
conceptualize entire crusades, not merely a single,
deadly blow in one battle -- impressive as it might be.
To use a common phrase: my proof is that Frank
Marshall found ...Qg3!!!, yet he lost 0-7 to positional
players and counter-punchers. That move, in effect,
only exists because of a lack of technique which
brought him to the brink of defeat.


-- help bot




  #8   Report Post  
Old September 18th 07, 10:44 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer

On Sep 18, 12:36 pm, "Andrew B." wrote:

39. ... Ra7, 40. gxh7+ Kxh7, 41. Rg7+ Rxg7, 42. hxg7+ Kg6, 43. Rh8
seems to win easily - what am I missing?


I don't know exactly, not having the position on screen
now. My computer saw that as "best play" for both
sides, and gave White the edge -- but not a very big one.

My take was that perfect technique carries the day, but
then, as Black had erred much earlier, White was winning
before the sac; as we saw, the attack on the a-file is
nothing next to White's devastating attack on the other
wing. To put it another way, if you tell Fritz he cannot
play that sac on h7, he will still say White is doing fine.
In fact, I may try this if I can find a function that makes
the program display its second-best move; or I can
watch carefully and spot it on-the-fly.

When I said that someone is "barely winning", all I
meant here was that my computer thinks the score is
reasonably close, after a good, long think. Nobody is
getting mated, and no one has to give up a Rook to
stop a pawn from Queening. According to my computer's
analysis, most of these games have serious errors in the
defense which provided aid and assistance to the enemy.
As the saying goes, it is easier to attack than to defend
because the defender must anticipate every possible
attack (including ones the attacker never imagined).

This is relevant because in making their choices, a sac'
which lost because of a later blunder would be rejected,
while one which won, though unsound, obviously was
not. One site critiqued the other for including a piece
hang by GM Spassky, and without bothering to enter
the position in Fritz, it was plain as day that such a
move could be nothing more, though it passed that
fellow's (I don't recall offhand which site was which)
selection process!


Let's go at this another way: if I put this into Fritz
and he says White has a 2 point advantage, then
after your line above he still says White has two
points more, what exactly was the hullabaloo about?
White getting himself into a fix where only the Queen
sac' would maintain his position? This reminds me
of the "shower of gold" game of Frank Marshall; how
on earth did he get himself into such a fix that he had
to find that move? Wasn't he just winning earlier?
Mightn't he have resigned had he not found his
famous ...Qg3? My guess is the annotators would
have never imagined such a move could exist, and
would attribute his "loss" to the earlier fumbling.

One fellow stated flatly that even a cow could spot
the Qxh7 sac'; but I think he was wrong. Even so,
the game was lost earlier, not on account of this one
"fantastic" move.


-- help bot

  #9   Report Post  
Old September 19th 07, 02:59 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer

On Sep 18, 12:36 pm, "Andrew B." wrote:

Dutch GM Tim Krabbe compïled website with
"110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"


We did computerevaluations of all of them.
Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like RJF
did.
Amazing.


Greetings from Amsterdam.


Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com


Many of these have the loser missing the best defense
by a country mile, so the attack looks better than it really
is. For instance, in the game where White plays Qxh7+
Qxh7, g6, Black could have just defended with ...Ra7 and
reached an ending where he is just barely losing, the same
as before the sac'.


39. ... Ra7, 40. gxh7+ Kxh7, 41. Rg7+ Rxg7, 42. hxg7+ Kg6, 43. Rh8
seems to win easily - what am I missing?


Okay, now I have the position on screen again and
can tell you precisely why I was not very impressed
by this particular example (number ten of How to
Fool Fritz).

The Web site has the writer claiming that Fritz spots
Mr. Bischoff's Qxh7 "in a flash". and so does my
program. Yet even after thinking "forever" the computer
gives White a smaller edge than he had earlier in the
game, after correct defense. Something has gone
awry, and the writer traces this back to earlier errors.

Like me, he is using a computer to spot where the big
shifts in position score have taken place, but I would
not agree that 29. ...Nxe6 was the root of the problem;
to the contrary, Black was horribly cramped, and his
one-way-in attack along the a-file is no match for what
White had on the other wing in conjunction with the
l-o-n-g diagonal. In any case, here is what my
machine thinks is best play for both sides, and the
scores, which to me are less than impressive for such
a "fantastic" move and such a huge space advantage
with such a nice attack:

1. Qxh7+!! Qxh7+

2. g6 Ra7!

3. gxh7+ Kxh7

4. Rg7+ Rxg7

5. hxg7 Kg6 (+1.25)

Note that after all that White did in this game, after
all his efforts, he is not yet Queening his pawn, and
there are opposite-colored Bishops so hope of
escaping with a draw still survive.


Now let's have a look at your move, using my move
numbers above:

5. hxg7 Rh8

6. Kf7

Where is the "easy" win? Don't forget that although
White has a *very* dangerous passed pawn on the
seventh rank, Black has one of his own, though not
so far advanced, and there are opposite-colored
Bishops. This looks more like a problematic win to
me; something like the example where GM Anand
won as White in a Ruy Lopez with Rxh4, but only
after his opponent decided he was not struggling to
draw but going for a win, though a piece behind!


-- help bot







  #10   Report Post  
Old September 19th 07, 06:05 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 163
Default How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer

On 19 Sep, 02:59, help bot wrote:
On Sep 18, 12:36 pm, "Andrew B." wrote:





Dutch GM Tim Krabbe compïled website with
"110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"


We did computerevaluations of all of them.
Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like RJF
did.
Amazing.


Greetings from Amsterdam.


Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com


Many of these have the loser missing the best defense
by a country mile, so the attack looks better than it really
is. For instance, in the game where White plays Qxh7+
Qxh7, g6, Black could have just defended with ...Ra7 and
reached an ending where he is just barely losing, the same
as before the sac'.


39. ... Ra7, 40. gxh7+ Kxh7, 41. Rg7+ Rxg7, 42. hxg7+ Kg6, 43. Rh8
seems to win easily - what am I missing?


Okay, now I have the position on screen again and
can tell you precisely why I was not very impressed
by this particular example (number ten of How to
Fool Fritz).

The Web site has the writer claiming that Fritz spots
Mr. Bischoff's Qxh7 "in a flash". and so does my
program. Yet even after thinking "forever" the computer
gives White a smaller edge than he had earlier in the
game, after correct defense. Something has gone
awry, and the writer traces this back to earlier errors.

Like me, he is using a computer to spot where the big
shifts in position score have taken place, but I would
not agree that 29. ...Nxe6 was the root of the problem;
to the contrary, Black was horribly cramped, and his
one-way-in attack along the a-file is no match for what
White had on the other wing in conjunction with the
l-o-n-g diagonal. In any case, here is what my
machine thinks is best play for both sides, and the
scores, which to me are less than impressive for such
a "fantastic" move and such a huge space advantage
with such a nice attack:

1. Qxh7+!! Qxh7+

2. g6 Ra7!

3. gxh7+ Kxh7

4. Rg7+ Rxg7

5. hxg7 Kg6 (+1.25)

Note that after all that White did in this game, after
all his efforts, he is not yet Queening his pawn, and
there are opposite-colored Bishops so hope of
escaping with a draw still survive.

Now let's have a look at your move, using my move
numbers above:


moves below corrected for clarity

6. Rh8 Kf7

Where is the "easy" win?


I now see what I was missing - posting in a hurry, I thought after 7.
Rxe8 Kxe8 White could safely queen his g-pawn... apologies for wasting
your time.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bobby Fischer has been reinstated in the USCF [email protected] rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 16 August 29th 06 03:27 AM
Bobby Fischer has been reinstated in the USCF [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 August 27th 06 01:58 PM
Bobby Fischer has been reinstated in the USCF [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 August 27th 06 01:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017