A game from ICC . Crafty was running on 1.8ghz and 256mb ram . Time limit was 10 10 .

Another one.. Are you saying that CRAFTY didnot see mate in 1 ??? At what ELO rating was it performing? 1200?

Hi yuri , this was a blitz game and Crafty made moves very fast , never taking longer than 3-4 seconds so it must have missed that after 29.Qxd6 black can force mate .

after 29...Qb7 the mate is forced. So probably crafty saw the mate, but didn't have a way to prevent it. But it surprises me how weak crafty played in this game.., I really wonder to what dephts you let crafty calculate. If you give it less then a second for every move, then it doesn't surprise me he calculates only 2 moves ahaid, and doesnt have a possibility to evaluate positionally that well...as it can't see the consequences of its moves a few moves ahaid, simply because he didnt calculate that far.

Good game TalFan.Your game deserve much higher rating but stop lose on time

Dinkydoe wrote: after 29...Qb7 the mate is forced. So probably crafty saw the mate, but didn't have a way to prevent it. But it surprises me how weak crafty played in this game.., I really wonder to what dephts you let crafty calculate. If you give it less then a second for every move, then it doesn't surprise me he calculates only 2 moves ahaid, and doesnt have a possibility to evaluate positionally that well...as it can't see the consequences of its moves a few moves ahaid, simply because he didnt calculate that far.

---

Thanks for your comment . Believe me I know ,  I am not anywhere close Crafty's strength , just that when I played against this version I won rather easily . I am not sure how long it was calculating for , as this was a game online , and I didn't have access to the engine ( It was like playing live chess against the computers on chess.com) .

29...Qb7 ? You mean 29... Qf3 ?

(eh right Qf3, looked at the board upside down, I'm used to look at the side from whit's prospective).

I see:]

Well it's anyway interesting to see how an engines evaluates. It just checks all available moves, gives them a score, and calculates a following series of moves, each with their own score. If it doesn't calculate far enough it will go for the highest score thusfar, in nearly any case the materialistic option, as it gives an immediate good score....until a better one has been calculated. Thanks for the post, very interesting :)

I think white have infinite check...

White played some horrible moves and didnt even try to improve his (its) position. Didnt make use of the open a file and didnt try to position his knights on advanced outposts. Im pretty sure a knight could have gone to f5 and if black tried to exhcange for his light sqaured bishop the a8 square would become vulnerable if white had played along the open a file. With a closed position the knights should be better than the bishop pair but not if they just sit there and do nothing. Easy win for Black. White very weak.

There are allways reasons for a win or loss, but it doesn't take away it was a nice win. It is great to see how a computer calculates, as it doesn't make obvious blunders but just doesn't have a good way to evaluate a position for what it's worth. As Talfan played positionally strong, he fairly won a good game.

Where`d my analysis go to?!

Dinkydoe wrote: There are allways reasons for a win or loss, but it doesn't take away it was a nice win. It is great to see how a computer calculates, as it doesn't make obvious blunders but just doesn't have a good way to evaluate a position for what it's worth. As Talfan played positionally strong, he fairly won a good game.

---

 I have to disagree. I cant believe a 1900 player has said that. I actually posted my analysis of the game but it didnt appear. Black did not initiate anything, came worse out of the opening, misplayed the middlegame, failed to take advantage of Whites errors at times, played some passive moves and won a game against a very weak player. The engine lacked understanding of the middlegame and did not know how to use his knight or rooks! Black just didnt play as bad as white and got a win. That may seem blunt but i will post analysis again backing my point. (I typed the same post up twice and didnt appear, really irritating and i cant type it up again tonight because im going out now). 

 

[can Erik find the lost post?! if not, it looks like i will have to post it again. Its unfair to comment like i did without backing. But i will show my analysis when i get home].  

Graw81 wrote: Dinkydoe wrote: There are allways reasons for a win or loss, but it doesn't take away it was a nice win. It is great to see how a computer calculates, as it doesn't make obvious blunders but just doesn't have a good way to evaluate a position for what it's worth. As Talfan played positionally strong, he fairly won a good game.

---

 I have to disagree. I cant believe a 1900 player has said that. I actually posted my analysis of the game but it didnt appear. Black did not initiate anything, came worse out of the opening, misplayed the middlegame, failed to take advantage of Whites errors at times, played some passive moves and won a game against a very weak player. The engine lacked understanding of the middlegame and did not know how to use his knight or rooks! Black just didnt play as bad as white and got a win. That may seem blunt but i will post analysis again backing my point. (I typed the same post up twice and didnt appear, really irritating and i cant type it up again tonight because im going out now). 

 

[can Erik find the lost post?! if not, it looks like i will have to post it again. Its unfair to comment like i did without backing. But i will show my analysis when i get home].  

---

There is no such thing as being blunt in chess . I would love to see your analysis  :)

Dinkydoe wrote: There are allways reasons for a win or loss, but it doesn't take away it was a nice win. It is great to see how a computer calculates, as it doesn't make obvious blunders but just doesn't have a good way to evaluate a position for what it's worth. As Talfan played positionally strong, he fairly won a good game.

---

Thank you :) I didn't spend too much time on this game , as it was a fairly fast game but I am glad to hear that I played positionally strong , an area where I am not the best at .