Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Playing the Computer

Just a short blog:
 
As the live chess servers are currently down to maintenance (wondering what the site staff has in store for us.. exciting stuff!) I was coupled with a silicon partner on medium strength. A quick game ensued (I think it took 5 minutes in total) and since I won, I figured why not share it.
 
I'm sure some improvements could be found (and I'm interested in them), some I came across myself. Overall, though, I think I was equal to better most of the game, with a rather solid position. (My worst part could have been after ..0-0 where I seem to lag a bit in development - any ideas?).
 
In the end the computer kinda messed up. I guess it was overheating because of all my brilliant moves Tongue out.
 
 

Comments


  • 4 years ago

    s32

    NICE!!

  • 4 years ago

    indigo_child

    Computers seem to be easier to beat, a 1500 human is tougher to beat than a 1500 computer.

  • 4 years ago

    RC_Woods

    @ baked:

    It said medium. It wasn't the computer in live chess by the way, it was the computer that you play when live chess is temporarily down. It said "medium strength" and "~1600". Therefore it really surprised me that it missed a backrank mate, but then again it is a known issue with chess engines trying to play on lower levels: that they play very well and blunder rather than making human 'sub-optimal' moves most of the time.

    @ kaushikdr:

    I guess that's true. I generally prefer to play humans though, so I haven't got that much experience with it.

    @ eddysalin

    The large head comment is uncalled for, I'm not trying to show off anything, I'm just showing the game. I have no illusions that I could beat deep Rybka. Tongue out The liquid pawn center by the way isn't characteristic of my play, it is a particular trait of a single position where center pawns can move. As far as I know Nimzowitsch came up with the term. He may have had a pretty big chess head, but he was also pretty good and I'm happy he shared stuff! 

  • 4 years ago

    baked1

    Did you play on easy mode? I like you description:)

  • 4 years ago

    kaushikdr

    Dude, no offense, but in a good form, i can even kill computer-hard, and so can most of us here

  • 4 years ago

    95RITZ9BITZ

    @heheindia, The knight is pinned to the king

  • 4 years ago

    heheindia

    I'm not one to talk, but at the very beginning shouldn't you have taken the queen instead of sacking your knight to kill off a bishop? Great Game though, I couldnt have done better

  • 4 years ago

    eddysallin

     hmmm, did anyone notice a rather large chess head running around. try moving to differcult and play black,then, let us know how your liquid center holds up. be very careful the machine can play 15 pawn moves to open.....GL ( you may need it)

  • 4 years ago

    neilUK

    well done, beating a machine nowadays is instant Kudos!

  • 4 years ago

    marinkatomb

    I think 21.Qg3 loks interesting as it defends the e5 pawn but also prepares Rd5..

    If 21..Rxd1 then you get the d-file with tempo. :)

  • 4 years ago

    eddysallin

     WE ALL KNOW THE MACHINES ACT A LITTLE NUTTY. ...PLAY HARD AND LET US KNOW HOW YOU DID! GL---- WHATS WRONG W/ THIS DAMN COMPUTER !

  • 4 years ago

    RC_Woods

    @ jellybeanjunkie:

    I agree that offering the light squared Bishop with 13. Be4 was probably not the best move. The board looks nice after ..Qxc6 though.\

    I think the fact that I also captured black's Bishop eased the potential for trouble, and the fact that I have a liquid pawn center (unrestrained - the pawns can move) might mean the dark squared bishop will become better. Still I admit I was a bit at loss there, so what other move would you have considered?

    @ people commenting on the engine blunder: that surprised me too! I guess this is why engine opponents are generally less fun to play against than humans. They either play pixel perfect chess, or they just toss a piece. It's actually hard for a program to make 'understandable' mistakes, since every move that drops the evaluation of the position hard will look like a ridiculous move to the computer.

    I heard The King (the engine behind the "chessmaster" series) has some good 'human like' opponents, but I'm not sure its really that much better. 

    I might try playing harder computers, but really I just prefer live chess when it's up!

    @ Don_Fusili

    As far as engines are concerned, they are generally weaker in endgames with few pieces. It is true that there are less pieces to perform calculations with, but an endgame can easily last as long as 30 moves. Humans can count king-to-pawn races, use the square rule when promotion is concerned and understand concepts such as gaining the opposition.

    Even with few pieces, the cpu power can not be used for much longer calculations. This is because the power needed is of exponential nature for each next move. So even with 1/2 of the pieces, it may only be able to calculate one step more. In middlegames, 15 moves is a superhuman feat, but in endgames it is common. Therefore, you are actually more likely to beat an engine in an endgame than in the middlegame.

    The exception to this rule is tablebases, where they just put in every winning line for 7 or less pieces. The computer has no idea what it's doing (its actually not even calculating stuff anymore!), but with 14 Gigabyte of all the right lines, it can not really go wrong :P.

  • 4 years ago

    lucifer1860

    dont be tired dear you did a great work against the strong computer program!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    a blunder like my grand mama played chess!

  • 4 years ago

    antinoob2

    what!!!???

    i cant belive that your bot left its rook hanging....

    must have felt pity on u!

  • 4 years ago

    ak87

    demetrios, you turned moves back when playing full strenght rybka :), other wise you should be rated at least FIDE 3000

  • 4 years ago

    Don_Fusili

    Why simplify things? You said it was a timed game, computers tend to calculate a certain amount of steps and then grade stuff. If you exchange too many pieces, it means it can evaluate more possible continuations in a very short time since AI's aren't capable of dismissing futile possibilities like a waiting pawn push just to see what your opponent's up to. You were also clearly playing a partially random and perhaps even downgraded AI, rybka and other models prefer the Sicilian instead of the French.

    Anyways, that's just something I was thinking, overall nice game, of course :-)

  • 4 years ago

    herbanmusic

    In the medium level, the computer offers pieces all over the place... So, uts quite an easy oponent...Nevertheless, you still need to play acurately, as  it will only do it once( i lost a few won games like that in the past, victim of a sudden tactic eh eh  lol)

  • 4 years ago

    algerianbishop

    easy opponentWink

  • 4 years ago

    Jax666

    22. Nxe5 is a nightmare! :D

  • 4 years ago

    markronilodevera

    baga

Back to Top

Post your reply: