Great game played in London

[M ANSARI]

Great game played and won by Aronian. After two tough losses he had a winning game against Luke Mc Shane, but exchanged poorly and allowed a lot of counter play. But with 3 points for a win scoring, he just ground it down to finally beat Luke, who fought tooth and nail all the way through. This game has it all, from a Knight promotion to 2 queens on the board. Not often you see such a game, and it was actually pretty funny to see how clueless the GM's were about what was going on. Engines pretty much understood the positions all the way through.

[Event "4th London Chess Classic"]
[Site "London"]
[Date "2012.12.04"]
[Round "4"]
[White "McShane, Luke"]
[Black "Aronian, Levon"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C84"]
[WhiteElo "2713"]
[BlackElo "2850"]
[Annotator "Robot 9"]
[PlyCount "152"]
[EventDate "2012.??.??"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[TimeControl "40/7200:20/3600:900+30"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. d3 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. a4
Bd7 9. c3 O-O 10. Nbd2 Na5 11. Bc2 c5 12. Re1 Re8 13. Nf1 Nc6 14. Ne3 b4 15. h3
Rb8 16. Nc4 Be6 17. Bb3 h6 18. Be3 bxc3 19. bxc3 d5 20. exd5 Nxd5 21. Qc2 e4
22. dxe4 Nxe3 23. Rxe3 Rxb3 24. Qxb3 Na5 25. Nxa5 Bxb3 26. Nxb3 Qb6 27. Nbd2
Qb2 28. Rae1 Rd8 29. Nf1 c4 30. Ne5 Bc5 31. Rf3 Qb3 32. a5 Rd6 33. Nxf7 Rf6 34.
Rxf6 gxf6 35. Nxh6+ Kf8 36. Ng4 Qxc3 37. Rd1 Qb4 38. Nxf6 Kf7 39. Nd5 Qb2 40.
Nde3 c3 41. Rd5 Be7 42. Rf5+ Ke8 43. g4 c2 44. Nxc2 Qxc2 45. Ng3 Qc7 46. Nh5
Bd8 47. Kg2 Qc6 48. Re5+ Kf7 49. g5 Qa4 50. h4 Bxa5 51. Rf5+ Ke6 52. Nf4+ Kd7
53. f3 Qc2+ 54. Kh3 Qf2 55. Kg4 Be1 56. Ng6 a5 57. Rf7+ Kd8 58. e5 a4 59. e6
Bb4 60. e7+ Bxe7 61. Nxe7 Qc5 62. Kh5 a3 63. Kh6 a2 64. g6 Qc4 65. Nf5 a1=Q 66.
Rf8+ Kc7 67. g7 Qc6+ 68. Kh7 Qxf3 69. g8=N Qh5+ 70. Ngh6 Qe5 71. Ng7 Qxh4 72.
Rf7+ Kb6 73. Ngf5 Qee4 74. Kg6 Qe6+ 75. Kg7 Qg5+ 76. Kf8 Qc8# 0-1


This was the finally position where Aronian delivered mate!

[d]2q2K2/5R2/1k5N/5Nq1/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 77

[IGarcia]

[...] and it was actually pretty funny to see how clueless the GM's were about what was going on. Engines pretty much understood the positions all the way through.

The engines "understood", bla bla, and at same time the computer where enjoying a beer and smoking HAHAHA ROTFL

I dont know is there is a serious problem on what people thinks about what an engine can do, or if its a language problem. A comp+program just count beans, and can give a good result, more precise than a human in some (most) cases. But they don't understand nothing.

But yes, was a great game!

[gbtami]

It was a great game. Pity Luke didn't find 67.h5 in time trouble

[syzygy]

I dont know is there is a serious problem on what people thinks about what an engine can do, or if its a language problem. A comp+program just count beans, and can give a good result, more precise than a human in some (most) cases. But they don't understand nothing.

I think it is safe to assume that the OP is aware that computers do not "think" like humans do. I don't think it is hard to understand the true intention of his words.

[IGarcia]

I dont know is there is a serious problem on what people thinks about what an engine can do, or if its a language problem. A comp+program just count beans, and can give a good result, more precise than a human in some (most) cases. But they don't understand nothing.

I think it is safe to assume that the OP is aware that computers do not "think" like humans do. I don't think it is hard to understand the true intention of his words.

So if it is in that way, why don't say something like "computers where all time calculating the correct moves". Today, with current engines and hardware is pretty ovbious. But is no need to comment like the GM are dumb and computers smart.

The position was incredible dynamic, and the GM where not clueless. On the oposite, computers agree on most moves.

[syzygy]

I dont know is there is a serious problem on what people thinks about what an engine can do, or if its a language problem. A comp+program just count beans, and can give a good result, more precise than a human in some (most) cases. But they don't understand nothing.

I think it is safe to assume that the OP is aware that computers do not "think" like humans do. I don't think it is hard to understand the true intention of his words.

So if it is in that way, why don't say something like "computers where all time calculating the correct moves".

Because there's no problem in writing as if the engine has a mind. You can find this habit all over the forum. "This definitely wasn't what Rybka wanted, she needed a win badly" is something I just read in another thread about Rybka.

Btw, we don't know whether the moves found by engines were "correct".

[M ANSARI]

What do you mean engines are only calculators and don't have a brain ???? Of course they do and they have a personality as well! I would best describe today's top engines personality as "sadistic" ... at least I feel that way when I try the odd game against one .

With regards to the game, I actually thought the endgame was a type of endgame where engines would not do a good job on. I have seen many games that engines fail to understand when a rook and a pawn can create a fortress. There was a fortress theme and Luke tried really hard to get it. But black had one thing to try for and that was for a passed pawn on the a file. The pawn was very far back and I believe that it was extremely risky for black to push the pawn as that was too slow and white could create his own dangerous passed pawns. This is one of these games where a good Centaur with a good engine (or several good engines) would do much better than the top GM or the top engine alone. This is also a game where the ending would have made great use of Monte Carlo search.