16044 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Ok here take a look at this match I just played. Me vs Christian 1205. I was doing just fine up until about move 28 and then I did make a bit of a mistake. I lose my queen and I acknowledge that mistake. But hopefully now you will understand what I mean about chessmaster suddenly start playing like Kasparov. After move 76 I resigned... the computer refused to let me checkmate it and this is exactly what I mean with Chessmaster and other computer programs like this, they play god awful and then when you're on the verge of winning they really, really up their ELO skill.
Please watch the game and I know I made some mistakes, I'm not a pro after all but look how impossible it is to mate the computer, I tried everything but suddenly the computer becomes Kasparov.
What sort of computer lets you take their queen in plain site on move 11 and then evades a checkmate for 20 moves.
and here is the difference between a computer 1200 apponent and a real person rated 1200
I noticed right away my apponent wasn't the best player... but at least he doesn't turn into Kasparov when he is about to lose.
I'm not fixating on openings, but GM's use openings for a reason, I assume the reason is because it either creates a solid defence or solid attack, allows your minor peices good coverage of the board ect.
But if you guys check out the gam I played with fritz a few posts up, fritz doesn't suddenly turn into Kasparov, it played at a consistant ELO and the match was quite tough for me. I quite like trading off pieces.
I'm trying to find where I play strongest, openings, middle game, endgame, trading peices, defensive, attack? ect... I want to try all the types to see where my strengths lie, if any :P
If you imagine playing a game of chess as if building a castle, the castle can't be any better than the foundation it's built upon. While trying to construct a masterpiece, why not try to do it with the best foundational moves that you can ?
You know what? I don't think the computer got any better. I think your problem is that you don't know how to finish a won game. I have the same problem, but this was really an extreme. You made several poor decisions after you were clearly winning, but let's just discuss how you handled the blunder after move 56.
You're still winning by a bajillion points! First, the most important thing to do in that situation is to realize that his queen isn't doing anything, so don't give him an opportunity to move it somewhere better. If you just made every move a check, you would have gotten him eventually because you had so many pieces.
Even at the end, when you resigned, you should have just played something like 76. Rf7+ Kg8 77. g6 Qg5+ 78.Kh3 Qe3+ 79. Bf3 Qe6+ 80. Rf5 and he has no more checks. You can just push the pawns to the end.
[there] is [a] difference between a computer 1200 apponent and a real person rated 1200
@Matt, yeah, I know you won't believe me, but I don't think the computer played a particularly strong game. I mean he tried to give you an exchange (rook for knight) for a couple of moves, and you wouldn't bite. And going into the endgame, you had an easy win. Take his last pawn (instead you let him queen it), push your passed pawns, etc. Once the computer got a new queen and you dropped your rook, he had lots more power to make useless checks. It didn't help that you didn't keep your king tucked safely away.
I will concede that the comp's 10th and 11th moves were horrendous, and it never played that bad thereafter, but do you really expect the comp to give away two queens in one game?
One thing that you might not be aware of is that online ratings tend to be a bit inflated compared to OTB ratings. A 1200 OTB in real life (I think the Chessmaster guys were trying to emulate OTB ratings, although they might not have succeeded in every case) might be 1500 or 1600 here.
I thought someone figured out ratings here were deflated compared to FIDE.
Yeh I made some silly mistakes, I can't believe I let him queen the pawn, I totally overlooked it to be honest, I saw the rook and I took it without even thinking. But I think you will all agree how the computer suddenly started to play better after losing the queen? Also I admit my checking abilities need some serious work.
The reason I didn't push passed pawns is because I don't want to be the kid who needs a queen, 2 rooks, a knight, a bishop, some pawns ect to checkmate someone... I want to learn how to do it with a few pieces, 2 or 3 maybe, like a knight and bishop or rook and knight..
I don't have the impression that the computer player was all that great throughout the game (unless you were expecting him to blunder away all his remaining pieces like he did with his queen). He continued to make mistakes, but unfortunately you haven't exploited them all to well, and rather made a slew of your own.
Can you maybe name some of these artificial personalities? (I don't own Chessmaster, that's why ...)
Sorry, I forgot about your post.
A few random personalities from Chessmaster 10...
Chessmaster (2967 - "The Brains behind the Finest Chess Program in the World" (what, you expect modesty?))
Frederic (2872 - Older book openings)
Lori (2250 - Balanced)
Toni (1960 - Pawwngrabber)
Guillaume (1676 - Attacker)
Amo (1480 - Trader)
Josh - Age 7 (Waitzkin) (1365 - Attacks; Strong middle and endgame; weak openings)
Miranda (1213 - Neglects center)
Jonesie (904 - Sacrifices queen)
Skippy (643 - Drops pieces)
Pete (37 - Holds onto knights)
And if you go to the kid's room, you can play Stanley (1 - Completely random) (Stanley is a chimpanzee with a propeller beanie)
vs Josh age 7I admit the endgame took longer than I hoped for.Time controls were 20|10
have you tried stanely??
(If my memory is right it is the monkey with rating 1 lol)
what personality are you playing??
a) souldn't have let chessmaster queen.
b)should have taken the rook with the knight when chessmaster gave it to you.
c)shouldn't have given your queen away and exchanged stuff instead.
and have you ever played c3 hard here??It does the same thing.
It gives away a minor piece and still finds a win (against me atleast).
"chessmaster is the biggest load of crap ever"
is a harsh way to say "It drops a pieces and suddenly starts playing better".
simply speaking...Chess master didn't become kasparov.It just started playing regular chess.
You expected it to continue playing like stanley and blundered the game away.(you could have still won)
Chess master ratings are trying to emulate OTB ratings.
someone rated 1200 OTB will probably be rated 500 in chess.com
Two examples of play against stronger Chessmaster "personalities." The first is with an old mobile version of Chessmaster on its strongest setting--a Motorola RAZR phone was the device. Note that it blundered a pawn early, but vigorous play was needed to maintain the advantage. The second was against Vlad (Chessmaster 10th edition) on my desktop computer. Vlad makes positionally suspect moves early (usually deviating from book at move four or five), but it's tactics are mostly commensurate with its rating. You will see late in the game that its tactics horizon is shallow (only a few moves deep), which costs it a minor piece, and results in its failure to comprehend the strength of tripled pawns!
In both games, I missed opportunities. 32.Bf6+ in the second, for example.
I know what you're saying, I got an old version of Fritz and I think it's defective cause it never loses, just crushes me all the time, what's up with that?
it is programmed in a way that its strong in the opening and middlegame and blunders in the endgame to make up for it. At least that how i remember it, but i was even weaker than im now and im still very weak so my memory might be flawed.
I haven't read the whole thread, and this has already been covered. But, the way you described it sounds exactly like playing the computer here on the website on easy. I posted about it before.
You can not let your gaurd down. When it makes a pointless move and a blunder at the beginning of the game, that is the end of the "easy" part. I actually think it's good practice and need to go back to it. If you focus and watch every move, you will win. Lose focus for one second, and your done.
The Ultimate Test of Engine Fanatics
by Haiku575 a few minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by bigpoison a few minutes ago
The Worlds First Officially Approved Cheaters Chess Tournament!
by TheARBChessSystem a few minutes ago
What is your favorite kind of tactic??
by harryz 2 minutes ago
5 year olds and chess
by bigpoison 6 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by Jaglavak 9 minutes ago
Feature request pretty please
by TurboFish 12 minutes ago
by yeres30 12 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by gimmewuchagot 12 minutes ago
Help Arena GUI
by EscherehcsE 13 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!