yea..but better thn u lost..
Is It even possible to beat the Expert computer?
Sort:
Ya thats true but I can never beat the computer its too smart.
It must have a weakness maybe the weirdest opening over like some kind of sacrafice with the rook. idk
lol..idk..im not gud player..
I beat him before by luck
didiz1016 wrote:
I beat him before by luck
Thats by luck though I want to beat that computer by skill. then I will have bragging rights.
Lol brag to a computer about beating it thats a weird concept.
[COMMENT DELETED]
3.g3 ? looks wrong. Why lose a tempo to weaken the kingside and place the bishop on a square where he is blocked by his own pawn ?
6.Na4 ? just places the knight on the rim, or 'wins' an unimportant pair of bishop to the cost of an open a file for Black (after 6...Bb4+ 7.c3 Ba5 8.b4 Bb6 9.Nxb6 axb6)
11.b5 ? does not win a pawn, as the game proves, so it just weakens.
19.Qh5 is not a serious threat, and computers do not blunder. I admit I don't see any real plan for White though.
27...Kxh6 ? : the 'expert' gives back the exchange he could have kept by ...Kh8
47...gxh4 : I bet ...Rg6 is better.
As for 46.Qd2+, 46...Kg7 and White has won nothing.
[COMMENT DELETED]
yes.is possible
I think so, kasparov said, "is mathematically infinite number of possible moves is greater than the number of atoms in the solar system, that goes beyond the calculation of a machine! chess not be deciphered."
matematicaxadre wrote:
I think so, kasparov said, "is mathematically infinite number of possible moves is greater than the number of atoms in the solar system, that goes beyond the calculation of a machine! chess not be deciphered."
Hum... no, first because the computer can use tricks to avoid having to calculate all the moves. And second because calculating more operations than there are atoms in the universe is possible, provided you don't make them simultaneously and you don't have to store all the results.
It's not the Computer Impossible she's talking about. (I've beaten that one, too, in a 10 minute game :D)
She played the Expert Computer. It's on the options in the menu bar on the top left: Play: Vs. Computer.
And yes, Vanessa, the Expert comp is beatable. You're on your way to getting there. Nice game! *thumbs up*
Irontiger wrote:
3.g3 ? looks wrong. Why lose a tempo to weaken the kingside and place the bishop on a square where he is blocked by his own pawn ?
6.Na4 ? just places the knight on the rim, or 'wins' an unimportant pair of bishop to the cost of an open a file for Black (after 6...Bb4+ 7.c3 Ba5 8.b4 Bb6 9.Nxb6 axb6)
11.b5 ? does not win a pawn, as the game proves, so it just weakens.
19.Qh5 is not a serious threat, and computers do not blunder. I admit I don't see any real plan for White though.
27...Kxh6 ? : the 'expert' gives back the exchange he could have kept by ...Kh8
47...gxh4 : I bet ...Rg6 is better.
As for 46.Qd2+, 46...Kg7 and White has won nothing.
Buddy you can post your game agaisnt the computer on expert because you seem you know more about what I should do than I do myself.
pellik wrote:
I've beaten computer (impossible) in live chess a few times. As far as computers go the chess.com one is very weak.
are you saying im weak as a chess player? lol
makikihustle wrote:
It's not the Computer Impossible she's talking about. (I've beaten that one, too, in a 10 minute game :D)
She played the Expert Computer. It's on the options in the menu bar on the top left: Play: Vs. Computer.
And yes, Vanessa, the Expert comp is beatable. You're on your way to getting there. Nice game! *thumbs up*
maybe we should play. it would be great for me to beat you
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
Buddy you can post your game agaisnt the computer on expert because you seem you know more about what I should do than I do myself.
I do not play against computers. So I don't have anything to show. The problem is you (well at least I) learn less against computers than against people, they play 20-moves tactics to win a pawn and then blunder every positional asset in the late middlegame.
I have no pretention that I would do better than you, but I still think my analysis is not totally flawed.
Irontiger wrote:
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
Buddy you can post your game agaisnt the computer on expert because you seem you know more about what I should do than I do myself.
I do not play against computers. So I don't have anything to show. The problem is you (well at least I) learn less against computers than against people, they play 20-moves tactics to win a pawn and then blunder every positional asset in the late middlegame.
I have no pretention that I would do better than you, but I still think my analysis is not totally flawed.
Lol not the expert computer hes a monster and not like me im a cookie monster hes a chess monster.
Not really it was more or a draw more than anything. And it was a really long game.