The opponent was Deep Shredder 12 64 bit on a 2 processor Linux box. 24 hours or more most moves, typically 26-28 ply.
Chess.com Alliance's only titled player, http://www.chess.com/members/view/IMCheap did not take part in the game.
Can the top players beat the best computers anymore?
Sort:
Oct 14, 2010
0
#103
@notlesu, I play chess entirely within the rules of the site (I can't see the appeal of not doing so), and have respect for other honest, intelligent and civilised people who do likewise.
You have played a handful of quick games on the site, make accusations about players for no other reason than that they have a high rating in a form of chess in which you have not a single game's experience, and have exhibited utter contempt for the rules of the site concerning communication.
You have as a result lost my respect entirely. Clean up your act, and give up the begging.
Judge engine-assistance based on a single game? Might as well flip a coin!
I don't think that we are "judging," just pointing out that, as evidence that a team of human players can have good results against an engine due to the ability to discuss moves between themselves, this example is highly dubious.
Well, it depends on how strong are the people discussing the moves on this team. I think the average elo of chess.com alliance is below 2000. But we will never know until they disclose their real names and their real elos. Just looking over the roster I see one guy, j iueke, with a USCF rating of 1348 and another guy krill57 with a rating of 2810 (this guy must be Kasparov's brother). We all know that the weak players have equal voting rights and that their vote (usually) diminishes the overall strength of the team. Why dont they come forward and tell us their real name and their true rating? Some ratings have a ring of truth to them USCF 1348---and some dont ring true---2810
This post shows a complete lack of comprehension about how the chess.com Alliance chose to maximise the quality of their play. It was firmly agreed that no-one would vote until after two days of discussion. The most active participants in the discussions were most of the strongest players in the team, but everyone was free to put in ideas, and many did. [It is amusing that notlesu picked jlueke out, as he was operating the computer and, of course, unable to participate in the discussion]. The idea of the discussion was to come to a conclusion about what the best move was, and vote unanimously for it (not always successful, but often so).
A mistake that many people make is to believe that there should be a very close relationship between standard of play at OTB chess and at turn-based chess. This is like relating someone's marathon time to their 1500m time. They are obviously correlated, but they are not the same event. If I recall correctly, there have been world correspondence chess champions who were no more than NM level over the board. Similarly there are unexceptional turn-based players who have higher FIDE titles. In my opinion, OTB chess and turn-based chess are less closely related than standard tournament chess and blitz chess are.