Stupid computer made me look bad
Stupid Computer!!!
Sort:
the computer was about 1300, even i can 50 move rule its easy.
shiven101 wrote:
I know I played **** but can a computer at Hard be this stupid
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=257415351
and a computer at medium:
The program looks like it's still in development. I'm guessing it's current aim is to gain material and, in the end game, restrict your kings movement. The programmer obviously hasn't put in a couple of lines of code that would protect against stalemates. Fixing that issue should take the programmer a few minutes and would hopefully raise the programs ELO considerably.
The program can't be all that stupid though as it's currently approx 20 pawns up on you. I'm a bit defensive of the program simply because I write chess programs myself and know it's hard to get computers to play well (feel free to play mine, it's called Fun Chess).
mike_bike_kite wrote:
shiven101 wrote:
I know I played **** but can a computer at Hard be this stupid
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=257415351
and a computer at medium:
The program looks like it's still in development. I'm guessing it's current aim is to gain material and, in the end game, restrict your kings movement. The programmer obviously hasn't put in a couple of lines of code that would protect against stalemates. Fixing that issue should take the programmer a few minutes and would hopefully raise the programs ELO considerably.
The program can't be all that stupid though as it's currently approx 20 pawns up on you. I'm a bit defensive of the program simply because I write chess programs myself and know it's hard to get computers to play well (feel free to play mine, it's called Fun Chess).
Actually I think the chess.com computers are programmed to make a few blunders per game to give the opponent a chance.
Feb 29, 2012
0
#6
Hi,
--Edited To Add: It appears that I didn't look at the game carefully enough - The computer was white, so the diagram below is what the computer should have done to win! I have corrected the post --
In the first game, instead of 43.d5 {Stalemate}, the computer should have played 43.Nd5+ Ke6 44.Qe7# (As shown in the diagram below). It probably made a deliberate blunder as any computer should be able to spot a mate in 2. 
djcaf wrote:
Hi,
In the first game, instead of 43.d5 {Stalemate}, you could have punished the computer seriously for its failure 43.Nd5+ Ke6 44.Qe7# (As shown in the diagram below)
I am not a brilliant player or anything (I sometimes fail to beat the "Easy" computer ), but it does strike me as strange that the computer lost all its pieces - Of course by that point stalemate was its best option!
I think you are misunderstanding- the computer was white.
djcaf wrote:
Hi,
In the first game, instead of 43.d5 {Stalemate}, you could have punished the computer seriously for its failure 43.Nd5+ Ke6 44.Qe7# (As shown in the diagram below)
I am not a brilliant player or anything (I sometimes fail to beat the "Easy" computer ), but it does strike me as strange that the computer lost all its pieces - Of course by that point stalemate was its best option!
No no, the computer was white.
Feb 29, 2012
0
#9
c_pawn wrote:
djcaf wrote:
Hi,
In the first game, instead of 43.d5 {Stalemate}, you could have punished the computer seriously for its failure 43.Nd5+ Ke6 44.Qe7# (As shown in the diagram below)
I am not a brilliant player or anything (I sometimes fail to beat the "Easy" computer ), but it does strike me as strange that the computer lost all its pieces - Of course by that point stalemate was its best option!
I think you are misunderstanding- the computer was white.
Apologies - I was writing quickly when I should have been working! In that case the computer was very stupid - Any computer should have seen the mate, so I think the suggestion that the computer is programmed to make the occasional blunder is probably correct.
Although I can sympathise with the computer, I have made silly blunders and caused a stalemate when I should have found a checkmate, more times than I care to remember. 
Simulating mediocrity is very difficult.
c_pawn : Actually I think the chess.com computers are programmed to make a few blunders per game to give the opponent a chance.
I was wondering if that could be true but that was literally the worse move on the board (a loss of a 20 pawn advantage). This means it would also think nothing of giving you a queen for nothing. Even at the lowest level I suspect a player might feel this is bad and not do it.
ivandh : Simulating mediocrity is very difficult. Apart from being a very quotable phrase it's also very true. Most programs limit their depth of search, turn of certain scoring features and introduce larger random elements to the scoring algorthm. I find it a bit depressing playing most computers because they play with mind numbing accuracy but this method of just randomly throwing the game away wouldn't make me feel any better.
chrisr2212 wrote:
...(picture)...
Great! :)
Interesting thing about computers - they do exactly what they're told to do. This would include the use of "chance" or any other process to simulate operation variability - i.e. randomly blundering, etc.
Stop Hating The Hardware!! Blame The Programmers!! Or the Devil-Spawned End-User!!
I know I played **** but can a computer at Hard be this stupid
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=257415351
and a computer at medium:
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=257399416