Blackadder: Kindly include the Rybka version, strength settings and other add-ons that you may have used such as a certain Rybka Opening Book.
How To Beat The Chess.com COMPUTER!!!!!!!
Sort:
chessroboto wrote:
Blackadder wrote:
"Computers Don't expect you to keep chasing their army around the board"
This advice is rubbish: we dont see Rybka playing such crap
Blackadder: Please provide us with an illustrated game (or two) showing how Rybka does not fail for the same anti-computer trap.
it won't, that's what I stated, I could show you a diagram, but unfortunately, Rybka's pgn needs a transfer download, and it's not worth it because it's quite obvious, thanks for the request though, and the comment!
ZporeSuperMaster wrote:
chessroboto wrote:
Blackadder wrote:
"Computers Don't expect you to keep chasing their army around the board"
This advice is rubbish: we dont see Rybka playing such crap
Blackadder: Please provide us with an illustrated game (or two) showing how Rybka does not fail for the same anti-computer trap.
it won't, that's what I stated, I could show you a diagram, but unfortunately, Rybka's pgn needs a transfer download,
EDIT: If played within the Chessbase environment, can't you just copy the move list fromt the right panel then paste the data into a blank PGN template through Notepad or in a simple text editor. You can then upload the PGN file into the diagram engine used by chess.com?
chessroboto wrote:
ZporeSuperMaster wrote:
chessroboto wrote:
Blackadder wrote:
"Computers Don't expect you to keep chasing their army around the board"
This advice is rubbish: we dont see Rybka playing such crap
Blackadder: Please provide us with an illustrated game (or two) showing how Rybka does not fail for the same anti-computer trap.
it won't, that's what I stated, I could show you a diagram, but unfortunately, Rybka's pgn needs a transfer download,
EDIT: If played within the Chessbase environment, can't you just copy the move list fromt the right panel then paste the data into a blank PGN template through Notepad or in a simple text editor. You can then upload the PGN file into the diagram engine used by chess.com?
oh cool, thanks, I'll do that, but what I meant was the Rybka program's on a different computer currently
bsrasmus wrote:
ZporeSuperMaster wrote:
bsrasmus wrote:
Blackadder wrote:
"Computers Don't expect you to keep chasing their army around the board, in their searches, that logic isn't easy to program. That's how many chess players can sneak in perpetual checks, and amazing comeback wins against strong computers. That's the trick"
This advice is rubbish: I'm no programmer but i'm sure it is easy to program, which is why we dont see Rybka playing such crap (that said, it just occured to me that by "strong" chess engine you might not have been refering to the likes of mighty rykba. If by "strong engine" you mean something under 1800 then you may have a point...But even then, this 'advice' would only ever be true if such an >=1800 had no access to a decent opening database.)
as for the game you post, both sides played a terrible game of chess: white completly fails to correctly use its central advantage, and black embarks on some rubbish wingplay. if you continue to play chess like that, then that computer will always be rated 400pts higher than you.
There is no need to program the computer to include "chasing their army around the board" in their searches. Computer algorithms create a list of candidate moves for each position, then examine all of the responses for both sides and evaluate the resulting positions. Using a min/max algorithm they find the best line for a given depth. The "chasing their army around the board" line is just one of millions of possible lines that the computer will eventually examine, given enough time.
it's not a computer principle, it's a strategical principle, however good attempt to transform that statement into computer language, but once again, it's not a series of numbers, it's a strategy. If you take a look at the evaluation function, and the in deph search 4 quadrent depths in Rybka, for example, the attack on pieces makes an immediate threat (unless there's pins) of that piece being captured so the computer concentrates more possibilities on that, by attack the same piece multiple times, it causes an extreme depth search that only overlaps the other searches of the same general algorithm, this is not true for strong computers such as Rybka, but it is true for perhaps Computer_3_Hard, with only minor search engines, ONCE AGAIN, I have to say, read the title
Dude, it's obvious that Chess.com computer on hard isn't given enough time to play accurately in the line that you played against it. But that's all that it is: not enough time. I know that you are only talking about the Chess.com computer, but generalizing this to all computer programs: there are no chess programs, not even Rybka, that are specifically programmed to avoid having their pieces chased around. It's simply not needed. If the computer has enough time it will consider your line and find a way to crush it. If the computer isn't given enough time to play accurately then it will play like a fish as the Chess.com computer did in your game.
There's so many doubters, but in reality it's worked so many times it's not just coincidence, I've beaten many chess.com computers in LITTLE amount of time, it's the choice of people whether or not to take the advice, and you can accept or doubt the advice at your own risk. I mean no disrespect to your comment, I'm just honestly stating that it works well for me, (and others I know), so I'm sending this proven helpful (to an extent) information so people can use it to their advantage, If you don't like it you can just leave.
whoops, I quoted my own comment, to prove POWER!
chessroboto wrote:
Blackadder: Kindly include the Rybka version, strength settings and other add-ons that you may have used such as a certain Rybka Opening Book.
ok, will do so soon, but what does this have to do with the advice?
XanatosGambit wrote:
ZporeSuperMaster wrote:
Blackadder wrote:
"Computers Don't expect you to keep chasing their army around the board, in their searches, that logic isn't easy to program. That's how many chess players can sneak in perpetual checks, and amazing comeback wins against strong computers. That's the trick"
This advice is rubbish: I'm no programmer but i'm sure it is easy to program, which is why we dont see Rybka playing such crap (that said, it just occured to me that by "strong" chess engine you might not have been refering to the likes of mighty rykba. If by "strong engine" you mean something under 1800 then you may have a point...But even then, this 'advice' would only ever be true if such an >=1800 had no access to a decent opening database.)
as for the game you post, both sides played a terrible game of chess: white completly fails to correctly use its central advantage, and black embarks on some rubbish wingplay. if you continue to play chess like that, then that computer will always be rated 400pts higher than you.
You can just leave this forum if you're going to criticize my advice. Also, why would you suddenly compare Rybka to my advice? Of course Rybka wouldn't make that move, it has extreme depths in its searches, and sometimes key positioning, by the way, I'm very knowledgeable on Rybka. Why would you assume that Rybka is programmed against my advice specifically just because it plays very good chess? And if you actually read the title, it said how to beat the computer on chess.com, not Rybka, and by the way, who knows if this technique was challenged to Rybka? I'm just giving the chess community some advice to play against the Computer-3-Hard.
If you want to really know something about Rybka, and all chess computers, here you go:
EVALUATION FUNCTION:
-Predicts exponential growth of possibilities
-Branches cut off if violates evaluation function
advantage (see below)
-Pawn=1
-Bishop=3.15
-Knight=3.10
-etc.
-Doubled Pawns=-O.5
(There are many more variables
that effect the evaluation function,
such as isolated pawns, and some programs such as Rybka can even evaluate key positions, but the protection of the chase advice would be difficult due to the probability of interference with its own evaluation function, and in absence of the objective score for this rule.)
-If the score is negative, it means the
human is winning, if its positive, it means
the computer is winning.
Expert.
You may not know this, but I've had stronger wins on stronger computers before, using this technique. Thank you for commenting though. I hoped you learned some new information :) By the way, I'm not arguing, just giving information, so you can leave this forum without feeling like arguing.
Your wining or loossing has nothing to do Rybka. Many modern programs are programmed with anti human chess. So humans have very less chance to win against it. Not only Rybka it applys to all top chess programs. You can't fluke against a modern chess program on a fast hardware and the games posted is a joke. I am not aware how you won against so called stronger computers.
IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE I'VE BEATEN EVEN STRONGER COMPUTERS, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE FORUM. I CAN POST SOME GAMES THAT I'VE PLAYED AGAINST SOME STRONGER COMPUTERS, BUT MOST OF YOU WOULD PROBABLY SAY IT'S "FAKE" PGN. I HAVE, IT'S JUST THAT ACCESSING COMPUTER_4_IMPOSSIBLE IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ACCESS ON CHESS.COM actually 'anti-human' chess is a pretty rare function, used mainly on highly advanced computers and the 'anti-human'-specific functions are very primitive, and serve very little compared to the 'evaluation-functions' and 'search dephs'. Also, the game posted was not a joke, if you think so, then that would be even more illogical. You can refute this 'proven' advice for the 'circumstances' (once again the specific chess.com computers), but you don't have to comment that, if you ACTUALLY read my other comments, you would know that I have said multiple times, just to not say anything. Obviously, your refutes of this 'proven' advice are not helping, so please just don't say anything if that's what you think. This is just a specific category of requirements that I posted in my forum, and I mean no offense, I'm just simply posting a preference, which hopefully you all should know by now: Only post things that contribute. If it is positive and adds to the possibility of better 'against-computer techniques', then post it, the reason is to save space so I can quickly access the 'important' comments for extra advice and discussion on beating computers. It's ridiculous to say this AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, BUT JUST UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gambitking wrote:
OK, hold on people! Way too much arguing over pointless topics!
The point is, you DIDN'T win the game--and to be honest, since you'd moved both rooks, your king was doomed to be in the centre of the board throughout the game, even if you were up a piece!
Buddy, I'm not going to harshly criticise your play--maybe it's your own style! However, I will say that the advice you gave is NOT useful in beating computers, at least from my experience.
Furthermore, if you wanna' see something REALLY interesting, check this out:
CHECKMATE...
IN TEN MOVES...
AGAINST THE HARD COMPUTER...
AS BLACK!
(In other words: The Latvian Gambit!!)
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/how-to-beat-the-chesscom-computer-on-hard-level-in-only-10-moves
btw, see the variation... even if White doesn't play into a mate-in-one, he's still busted!
(Of course, Nunn and Watson suggest 4. d4! ... but a materialistic beast such as a computer will ALWAYS play the riskier 4. Qh5+)
... it's THIS kind of decision that you can punish computers for... you can't hope to beat them by making rubbish flank moves!
The Gambit King
thanks for the interesting comment, however the arguments they were doing were pointless, correct, but the topics were very important, NOT, pointless, thanks for commenting
ZporeSuperMaster wrote:
Hello everyone, even as a non-serious player, I can get a pretty easy win against the Computer-3-Hard chess computer on chess.com, (These computer series are on live chess). I did not end up winning the game, but I got a huge lead, and if I was a little better about not making blunders on chess.com, I could have won.
Note: I was playing the black pieces, so you should flip the board.
Here's the game, but be aware that the computer may not always do the same thing if you always make the same moves.
Here's how, watch the game: Computers Don't expect you to keep chasing their army around the board, in their searches, that logic isn't easy to program. That's how many chess players can sneak in perpetual checks, and amazing comeback wins against strong computers. That's the trick, this computer was rated 400 more than me, but I just calmly symmetrically moved, let the other army charge, and then chase the knight away until it forced white to lose a minor piece.
You probably won't encounter the same position, but you can try to use this game to help your (against computer play). One last time. Principle: Chase the enemy pieces around the board!
Note: I was playing the black pieces.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT NOT NOT (triple-negative) post rude or conceited comments, for example, one very RUDE commenter put "the advice is rubbish"........ even though in reality THE ADVICE IS EXCELLENT. Once again, please refrain from comments against this advice, I've heard enough of that, the logic behind those comments were very illogical. However on the pro-side, the comments made sense, and were helpful, and of course, actually intelligent.
There is a grammatical error in the title, when you have more than three exclamation points together you must insert a "1" in between them
I've played some of the strongest engines available today, and consider myself quite an expert at beating engines such as Rybka and Shredder. And I can guarantee to you, you will NEVER beat the impossible computer using such "tactics". I have beaten it before, and here are some tips I can give that will at least give you an edge against a comuter
Computers also have a very difficult time evaluating positions with long pawn chains, so I suggest playing something like the Accelerated Meran Variation of the Semi-Slav Defence, which leads to a long sequence of pawns on the queenside. This pawn chain divides the board into two sections, and both player and computer can then move around their section of the board; the human player can then make "pointless" moves purely for the sake of moving. Computers do not follow human logic, and they will eventually start to repeat moves, again purely for the sake of moving.
Computers also play many common openings by the book, which is why many have changeable Opening Books built in. Therefore play Opening Systems, which work against a variety of defences, rather than sequences of by the book analysis. My favourite anti-computer opening system is the Stonewall Attack, but the Colle-Z System and to a lesser extent the Kings indian Attack will also work, if you know how to use them.
Finally, use your brain! This is the one vital thing the computer lacks.
Aug 30, 2011
0
#34
ZporeSuperMaster wrote:
XanatosGambit wrote:
ZporeSuperMaster wrote:
Blackadder wrote:
"Computers Don't expect you to keep chasing their army around the board, in their searches, that logic isn't easy to program. That's how many chess players can sneak in perpetual checks, and amazing comeback wins against strong computers. That's the trick"
This advice is rubbish: I'm no programmer but i'm sure it is easy to program, which is why we dont see Rybka playing such crap (that said, it just occured to me that by "strong" chess engine you might not have been refering to the likes of mighty rykba. If by "strong engine" you mean something under 1800 then you may have a point...But even then, this 'advice' would only ever be true if such an >=1800 had no access to a decent opening database.)
as for the game you post, both sides played a terrible game of chess: white completly fails to correctly use its central advantage, and black embarks on some rubbish wingplay. if you continue to play chess like that, then that computer will always be rated 400pts higher than you.
You can just leave this forum if you're going to criticize my advice. Also, why would you suddenly compare Rybka to my advice? Of course Rybka wouldn't make that move, it has extreme depths in its searches, and sometimes key positioning, by the way, I'm very knowledgeable on Rybka. Why would you assume that Rybka is programmed against my advice specifically just because it plays very good chess? And if you actually read the title, it said how to beat the computer on chess.com, not Rybka, and by the way, who knows if this technique was challenged to Rybka? I'm just giving the chess community some advice to play against the Computer-3-Hard.
If you want to really know something about Rybka, and all chess computers, here you go:
EVALUATION FUNCTION:
-Predicts exponential growth of possibilities
-Branches cut off if violates evaluation function
advantage (see below)
-Pawn=1
-Bishop=3.15
-Knight=3.10
-etc.
-Doubled Pawns=-O.5
(There are many more variables
that effect the evaluation function,
such as isolated pawns, and some programs such as Rybka can even evaluate key positions, but the protection of the chase advice would be difficult due to the probability of interference with its own evaluation function, and in absence of the objective score for this rule.)
-If the score is negative, it means the
human is winning, if its positive, it means
the computer is winning.
Expert.
You may not know this, but I've had stronger wins on stronger computers before, using this technique. Thank you for commenting though. I hoped you learned some new information :) By the way, I'm not arguing, just giving information, so you can leave this forum without feeling like arguing.
Your wining or loossing has nothing to do Rybka. Many modern programs are programmed with anti human chess. So humans have very less chance to win against it. Not only Rybka it applys to all top chess programs. You can't fluke against a modern chess program on a fast hardware and the games posted is a joke. I am not aware how you won against so called stronger computers.
IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE I'VE BEATEN EVEN STRONGER COMPUTERS, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE FORUM. I CAN POST SOME GAMES THAT I'VE PLAYED AGAINST SOME STRONGER COMPUTERS, BUT MOST OF YOU WOULD PROBABLY SAY IT'S "FAKE" PGN. I HAVE, IT'S JUST THAT ACCESSING COMPUTER_4_IMPOSSIBLE IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ACCESS ON CHESS.COM actually 'anti-human' chess is a pretty rare function, used mainly on highly advanced computers and the 'anti-human'-specific functions are very primitive, and serve very little compared to the 'evaluation-functions' and 'search dephs'. Also, the game posted was not a joke, if you think so, then that would be even more illogical. You can refute this 'proven' advice for the 'circumstances' (once again the specific chess.com computers), but you don't have to comment that, if you ACTUALLY read my other comments, you would know that I have said multiple times, just to not say anything. Obviously, your refutes of this 'proven' advice are not helping, so please just don't say anything if that's what you think. This is just a specific category of requirements that I posted in my forum, and I mean no offense, I'm just simply posting a preference, which hopefully you all should know by now: Only post things that contribute. If it is positive and adds to the possibility of better 'against-computer techniques', then post it, the reason is to save space so I can quickly access the 'important' comments for extra advice and discussion on beating computers. It's ridiculous to say this AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, BUT JUST UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you didn't want other advice, why did you post this thread? All you do is block anyone with a different perspective in an open forum. IF YOU CAN'T STAND OPPOSING VIEWS, DON'T POST THREADS! Simple as that.
Someone tell me how to beat computer impossible
!!!!!!!
coolking777 wrote:
Someone tell me how to beat computer impossible
!!!!!!!
First get your rating past 1700. Then I might tell you.
i can't beat computer 4.
Computers work by predicting you next move. You can always mess them up by moving something random in the middle of the game.
Marcus_Leonardo_333 wrote:
I've played some of the strongest engines available today, and consider myself quite an expert at beating engines such as Rybka and Shredder. And I can guarantee to you, you will NEVER beat the impossible computer using such "tactics". I have beaten it before, and here are some tips I can give that will at least give you an edge against a comuter
Computers also have a very difficult time evaluating positions with long pawn chains, so I suggest playing something like the Accelerated Meran Variation of the Semi-Slav Defence, which leads to a long sequence of pawns on the queenside. This pawn chain divides the board into two sections, and both player and computer can then move around their section of the board; the human player can then make "pointless" moves purely for the sake of moving. Computers do not follow human logic, and they will eventually start to repeat moves, again purely for the sake of moving.
Computers also play many common openings by the book, which is why many have changeable Opening Books built in. Therefore play Opening Systems, which work against a variety of defences, rather than sequences of by the book analysis. My favourite anti-computer opening system is the Stonewall Attack, but the Colle-Z System and to a lesser extent the Kings indian Attack will also work, if you know how to use them.
Finally, use your brain! This is the one vital thing the computer lacks.
Which brings me to this thread:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/chesscom-computers
And this game against computer hard:
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=914739062
Good Game
thanks, you are so much more right then those other commenters who criticize the advice