|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 'Modeling' recent debates using chess | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
I played one game of chess today against my son’s chess computer and arrived at a situation that reminded me so much of the debate games that people play here against me. After some 30 or so moves, the following position was reached with White to move.
White (me):King on g2 Rook on g8 Pawn on h4 Black (computer):King on e4 Bishop on d4 Knight on f6 Pawn on h6 White seems to be in trouble, but White knows enough about the game to see, already, that Black has no hope of winning. 1. Rg6 Black has no way to safely guard his h pawn, so advances it, leaving everything guarded and maintaining his lead in material. 1. h52. Rxf6! An apparently ridiculous move but actually quite the opposite. White knows so well what’s actually going on on the board that he makes what others might (wrongly) consider a blunder, but he knows utterly ruins Black’s chances of winning. 2. Bxf63. Kh1 White could try to hold his pawn, but why? There’s really no point. He knows that Black cannot now win, and that all White has to do is to shuffle back and forth between g2, g1, and h1, so why bother doing anything else? At this point, anyone who knows what’s really going on on the board knows that Black simply cannot beat White...but Black just doesn’t get it. 3. Bxh44. Kg2 Ke3 5. Kh1 Bg3 6. Kg2 h4 7. Kh1 h3 8. Kg1 Ke2 9. Kh1 h2 Black sees that his king can’t approach White’s king without giving stalemate. So he attempts to make progress the only other way he can, still not realizing the truth. 10. Kg2 Ke1 Black can’t win. White just needs to stick to his guns to make his point...he doesn’t need to try anything new or to take Black on face to face. The following is the part that really reminded me of the exchanges here lately. 11. Kh1 Ke212. Kg2 Bf4 13. Kh1 Be5 14. Kg2 Bd6 15. Kh1 Bc7 16. Kg2 Bb8 17. Kh1 Bc7 18. Kg2 Bd6 19. Kh1 Be5 20. Kg2 Bf4 21. Kh1 Bg3 22. Kg2 Ke3 23. Kh1 Kd3 24. Kg2 Kd4 and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on. Black knows that he can’t repeat the same position three times because doing so would confirm that White achieved his goal and that Black’s attempts to win have been futile. But at the same time, Black, for some weird reason, still thinks that he has the game in the bag! So he avoids the draw and keeps playing for the win, even though he clearly can never make any progress. Black just drags the game on, needlessly, move after move and move, trying futile move after futile move. White just sticks to his guns because he knows that his goal has been reached — and in fact, was reached a long time ago (even though Black isn’t smart enough to know this). This is very analogous to recent debates here such as: 1) Does DNA contain information as I stated? Of course it does, despite Peter’s futile and unending attempts to come out on top. We all knew this 50 moves ago, yet Peter kept trying to win the point, even though he never had a chance of winning. 2) Are there reasons to consider mutations to not be truly random, as I stated? Of course there is, despite Peter’s and Crashfrog’s futile attempts to come out on top on this. 3) Am I a Creationist, even though I’ve explicitly stated that I am not? Of course I’m not a Creationist, despite MrHambre’s repeated, yet totally futile attempts, to show otherwise. If my opponents knew as much about what was going on as I do, they would realize when it is futile for them to continue fighting against me. Yet they press on long after the point of no hope of being victorious has been reached. The two most plausible explanations are that my opponents in fact are oblivious to the truth of the position, or they know they can’t win but continue to make moves hoping to trick others into believing they still have a chance, even though they don’t. PS: There is a major difference betweeh the game of chess and the debates. In the chess game I found a cozy position from which my opponent could not win, thereby obtaining a draw - in the debates here, my finding such an unassailable position guarantees me the win. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-27-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: You may be fond of chess, but you apparently aren't very good. Any decent player realizes that bishop and rook pawn draws if the bishop is the wrong color and the opposing king can occupy the queening square. The game was a book draw a long time before the repetition rule kicked in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
Sorry, but not many people would stand a chance against me. I was a correspondence candidate master in the United States Chess Federation; I was also in the top 10% in OTB (over the board) play (close to 2000 rating), also in the USCF. I also had several of my analyses that trumped grandmaster lines printed in Chess Life, the USCF's national magazine, and beat Dimitri Gurevich, ranked 6th in the USA at the time, in about 20 moves (however, it was during one of his simultaneous exhibitions).
I dropped chess in favor of something that could make me money - got my BS in CIS. I've sold all but about a dozen of my chess books and having not played much over the years, amd very rusty now. I'm nowhere near as strong as I was at my prime, but still, I just achieved a rating of 1800+ at the AOL chess site (that rating is based mostly on blitz games). ***************************** PS: Why the emphasis on people above? Because for $50 or so anyone can buy a chess program (such as those based on the Fritz chess engine) rated in the 2400's or higher. I won't play anyone without seeing them face to face because there's no way of knowing whether I am playing a person or someone who's letting a 2400+ computer do the work. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-27-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: So about what, 2200 international (last I heard, years ago, US ratings were inflated about +200 points relative to global ratings)? Are you an IM?
quote: Really? Wow! Short is an IGM (international grandmaster), rated what, near 2600. ***************************Came back to add: I just checked one of the only two FIDE Informants I still have (#49, from way back in 1990) and Nigel Short is listed as 2610. **************************** Wait a tick. If you're "only" about 2200 internationally that's somewhere near a 400 point difference between you and Short. Probability indicates that you wouldn't be able to beat Short unless you two played numerous games against each other. And it seems unlikely that a 2200 would play against a 2600 so many times. Was your victory against Short in a simultaneous exhibition of his, or was it during an actual tournament game?
quote: With about a 400-rating-point spread between us, I'd have only about as much of a chance of beating you as you had against Short. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-27-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: So a US rating of roughly 2500. Okay, we can skip the game...you win!
quote: I once played this little boy who held and talked to a stuffed dog throughout the game. At that time, to get people out of book, I was playing my own opening... 1. e4 d6 2. d4 f5!!! (found out later that it has actually been played in tournaments, by transposition: 1. d4 f5 2. e4 d6. Can't remember the name, but "folly" is in there, I believe). Of course the move isn't good (actually deserves a ?! or worse), but no one up to that point had been able to show its weakness. This little stuffed-puppy-playing boy didn't win material immediately but he put me in such a terrible position and kept the pressure on that it wasn't long before my position started to crumble. And he never relented: it's as if he didn't make any mistakes. I felt bad losing to toy-puppy petting youngster. His name was Alex Sherzer. Ring a bell? A couple of years after he easily beat me he was in Informants, beating some of the world's best. PS: Here's one of my favorite saying about chess...paraphrasing... When studying as White no opening guarantees advantage; when studying as Black, no opening guarantees equality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Only rarely, and when I do, it's almost always just blitz. Blitz helps rule out people cheating by using computers because they have to waste time using it and they have so little to begin with (the waste-to-play ratio is pretty high for blitz and costs them).
quote: Yeah, that's one big problem. A couple smaller ones are (1) getting disconnected during a game and not being able to get back on in time, so you lose the game (I still have dial up access to the Net...this might not affect DSL or cable modem customers as much), and (2) people getting into a clearly losing position but instead of resigning, just leaving the board, which makes you have to sit there and wait a certain amount of time before you can claim the win (the service believes the person has been disconnected and allows them so long to come back...you have to twiddle your thumbs).
quote: I have a dedicated chess computer and a chess program based on Fritz. The computer (Mephisto Milano Pro, from back around 1997) is rated about 2400 (US); the program (at least 5 years old) cost me about $25 and is even stronger (I've played them head to head a couple of times). I'd guess it's around 2450 - 2500 (US). I imagine newer programs are even better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Surely the part that demands the most time. I used to have tons of lines I expected to encounter memorized out 15 to 20 moves (not plies, but moves). But ever hear of the saying "If you don't use it you lose it"? Well, that's definitely true with opening variations. If you leave the game for a few years all those variations just diffuse out of your brain. For the middlegame (tactics in general), I think just one book is all anyone really needs: the Encyclopedia of Chess Middlegames (by FIDE, the Informant people). The endgame is actually a lot more difficult than many people believe (there's a slew of rook and pawn vs rook principles, for example). However, if one plays "attacking chess" then he/she hardly ever gets into an endgame.
quote: And to do the same back to them, I threw them a curve as follows: 1. e4 c62. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 This is more open than the typical Caro-Kann mainlines and requires a different set of skills on Black's part (handling an isolated d-pawn on White's part). It can transpose into a "reverse Tarrasch" if Black fianchetto's king side or into lines of the Nimzo Indian if he develops his king bishop classically.
quote: Against 1. d4 I played the Gruenfeld almost exclusively (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nf3 d5). It's quite lively for Black (as opposed to classical defenses such as the Queen's gambit declined, and even more so that many lines of the King's indian) and leads to very active play.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Without looking them up, I think they are 1. b4 and 1. g4. Am I close? (They're rather obscure and not seen frequently in IGM tournaments so, as you indicate, most people don't study them). I never played those openings to throw someone off, but I did use several others at the chess clubs I frequented: 1. a3, 1. d3, and 1. e3. And in tournaments I often times opened with either 1. Nf3 of 1. g3. But in general, I played 1. e4: I gave up 1. d4 because of the Nimzo indian. So in general I opened with 1. e4, and as Black played the Sicilian Dragon against 1. e4 and the Gruenfeld against 1. d4. What were your pet openings? [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-31-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
The fastest mate occurs in two moves (Black mates White on his second move). I won't post it since the mod decided to hide EC's solution. I believe it's called Fools Mate. The funny thing is (at least EC may find this funny), is that on an episode of Columbo a world champion killed his opponent the match was with and while giving a simultaneous, Columbo was questioning the player. He was so rattled that he fell into the Fools Mate! Sorry, but there's no way a world champion would ever non-intentionally fall prey to that mate.
There's also a quicky called Scholar's Mater, I believe. Here's a mate on move 3 I just made up. 1. c4 Nc62. e3 Nb4 3. Ne2 Nd3# Here's one from a "real line": one that has at least some chance of occurring in a real game. 1. f4 e52. fxe5 d6 3. exd6 Bxd6 4. Nf3 g5 5. h3 Bg3#
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Here's the position a move earlier. White:King on g2 Rook on g8 Pawns on h4 Black:King on e4 Bishop on d4 Knight on g4 Pawns on h6 What can Black do to win? Obviously, I am threatening the knight. 1. ... h52. Rg5 Nf6 3. Rg6 Nd5 (if 3. ... Ng4 then 4. Rg5 again) 4. Rg5 Nf4+ 5. Kh1 followed by 6. Rxh5 = 1. ... Kf5 (or Kf4)2. Rxg4 = So Black cannot protect the knight...he needs to move it. 1. ... Nf62. Rg6 = (which occurred in the game) 1. ... Ne52. Re8 = (intending 3. Rxe5) 1. ... Ne3+! ("box")2. Kh3 From this position, it's going to be hard for Black to win. He has to always avoid White's giving up his rook for the knight, which makes it hard for him to approach and win White's pawn...and Black's pawn is weak. It would be an interesting position to play out. **********************************Let me point out that this was a "blitzish" game. I remember the opening moves. 1. d4 d52. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 b5 5. a4 c6 6. Nc3 b4 7. Na2 b3 8. Nc3 Ba6 9. Ne5 e6 10. Bxc4 Bxc4 11. Nxc4 c5 12. Qxb3 cxd4 13. Qb5+ Nbd7 14. exd4 Rb8 15. Qa6 Rc8 16. Bf4 Nb6 17. Nxb6 axb6 18. O-O Rc6 19. Rad1 Bd6 20. Qb5 Qd7 21. d5 Rxc3 22. Qxd7+ Nxd7 23. bxc3 Bxf4 24. Rfe1 Ke7 25. dxe6 fxe6 26. g3 Bd6 27. f4 e5 28. fxe5 Nxe5 I can't remember the next several moves. But withing a few moves we ended up at: White:King on f1 Rooks on a6, d1 Pawns on g3, h2 Black:King on e6 Rook on c3 Bishop on d6 Knight on d3 Pawns on g7, h7 My threat is 1. Rxd6+ Kxd6 2. Ke2. Black decided to trade down with. 1. ... Rc12. Rxc1 Nxc1 3. Kg2 And in a few more moves, we ended up in the orginal position I brought up. As we can see, several errors were made in the opening and middle game, but it was a blitz game, where I played the move that popped into my mind first, without analysis. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-01-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: I used to like composing problems, just for fun, sometimes with my chess friend. Here are a couple. I would prefer that EC not reply: I think we all know that he could solve these quite easily. ***************************(1) This one has a lesson: a theme that shows up a lot in actual games. White to move and mate White:King on d1 Queen on g4 Rook on h1 Bishop on d2 Knights on a3, e6 Pawns on a2, f2, g2, h2 Black:King on c8 Queen on b2 Rook on a8, h8 Knight on a1 Pawn on a7, b7, c7, d6, e7, g6, h7 ****************************(2) White to move and mate White:King on c1 Queen on c2 Rooks on d1, g1 Knight on e7 Pawns on a3, b2, f6, h4 Black:King on h8 Queen on a4 Rooks on a8, c8 Bishops on b7, e5 Pawns on b4, g7, h7 [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-01-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
Solve it instantly...am I allowed to post the solution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
1. Qf8+ Bxf8 2. Nf6+ Kh8 3. Rh7#
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
Okay, all play! This was our masterpiece.: we believe it's mate in 16!!
White to move and mate White:King on h2 Queen on c4 Rooks on c8, f7 Bishop on c2 Knight on d6 Pawns on e4, g2, h4 Black:King on g6 Queen on a1 Rooks on a8, g4 Bishop on f6 Knights on e5, g8 Panws on g7, h5
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
Took me a couple of seconds because I started by looking at Qxh7+, which does nothing (well, it loses for White, but most winning combinations begin by "losing"). Once I rejected that I immediately saw 1. Qe8+ and wins.
1. Qe8+ Rxe82. Bd5+ Re6 3. Bxe6+ Qxe6 4. fxe6 That's as far as I needed to get mentally to see the win. The rest I worked on by physically moving pieces around the board. White threatens 5. e7 so ... 4. ... f55. e7 (other moves win as well) Nf6 6. Rg6 Ne8 7. h5 and White just marches his h-pawn up and wins. For example, 7. ... a5 (7. ... Nc7 8. Rc6!? Ne8 9. Rc8)8. h6 b4 9. h7+ Kxh7 10. g8(Q)# [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-02-2004]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024