Chess Genius 3 Beat Kasparov on a Pentium 90?

[Uri Blass]

It's very interesting how computer chess progresses over time.

Chess Genius 3 playing in the 1994 Intel Grand Prix on a Pentium 90 defeated Gary Kasparov, and also beat GM Nikolic (a very strong GM) 2-0.

With this in mind, I was enormously proud when, as a teenager I drew a 30 0 game against Chess Genius 3.

Recently, I pulled it out and was shocked by how easily I crushed it.

Obviously I have become a stronger player, but for example, I have a lot more trouble against even Comet A90 (another old fav), so it's kind of weird how strong GMs lost to this computer.

Here's my game anyway, clearly 11...0-0?? is a terrible, losing move which proves Kramnik's old assertion that "computer's weakness is tactics".

These words perplexed me at the time, but this game (and others) prove his point.

I think in those days (1994) players assumed that "computers see everything" (they do NOW) and played too safely against them. I'm pretty sure the typical Kasparov attack would have roasted CG3 like a beginner.

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "Macbook Pro"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Norman"]
[Black "Chess Genius 3"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 Bb4 5.Bd2 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Be7 7.Qg4 g6 8.Bd3 d6 9.h4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nc6 11.Nf3 O-O 12.h5 Bc5 13.hxg6 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 fxg6 15.Kg1 Qe7 16.Re1 b6 17.Rh3 Qc5+ 18.Kh1 Ne7 19.Bg5 Nf5 20.Bf6 Qxc3 21.Rg1 Bd7 22.Ng5 h5 23.Qf4 Qc5 24.Ne4 Qd4 25.Qg5 Kf7 26.Rxh5 Rg8 27.Rh7+ 1-0[/pgn]

I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game.

I do not believe that there was a chance for 1.e4 Nf6 in the book of Genius against kasparov.

I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.

I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6.

You're hilarious man.

You are so motivated to sh!t on me that you ignore logic.

Firstly, I wasn't bragging, so there's no need to "bring me down" anyway, but let's handle this properly...

"I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game."

Beginning a biting statement with "I think" kills any form of credibility in the words that follow, but regardless of this...

I am probably 2180-2200 ELO and scored this easy win against Chess Genius 3.

Kasparov was 2800+ and Nikolic around 2680...

Are you saying that this "magical" opening book gave Chess Genius 500-600 ELO - even back in 1994? Wow! Impressive.

I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.

Oh...so a guy who is arguably the strongest player in history and had never lost to a computer is going to play more cautiously against an older program?

Besides this, Kasparov played 1.c4 not 1.e4 in the game he lost, so how was he even to TEST how the program is going to respond to the king's pawn?

I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6.

Who cares what you doubt?

Who was "getting an impression" anyway?

I made the comment that I have more trouble than I did in that game against Comet A90, but never did I say that I'm a stronger player than Chess Genius. I myself was referring to a single game.

I'm gonna just assume that you're another one of the negative-minded, "bring em down if they do something good" types on TC...

So many of you.

I can add that I see your post as a personal attack against me when I do not see where I made a personal attack against you and it seems that you had a misunderstanding.

Maybe you consider the last sentence in my post as a personal attack.

The sentence was:
"I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6."

I explain again that this sentence was not a response to a claim that you did not claim that you are stronger than genius but a response to
"it's kind of weird how strong GMs lost to this computer."


it's kind of weird is the conclusion that you got based on a single game.

Anand played 1.e4 against Genius and won only in pawn endgame after 1.e4 c6 so 1.e4 was not a way for a simple win against it.

[Adam Hair]

It's very interesting how computer chess progresses over time.

Chess Genius 3 playing in the 1994 Intel Grand Prix on a Pentium 90 defeated Gary Kasparov, and also beat GM Nikolic (a very strong GM) 2-0.

With this in mind, I was enormously proud when, as a teenager I drew a 30 0 game against Chess Genius 3.

Recently, I pulled it out and was shocked by how easily I crushed it.

Obviously I have become a stronger player, but for example, I have a lot more trouble against even Comet A90 (another old fav), so it's kind of weird how strong GMs lost to this computer.

Here's my game anyway, clearly 11...0-0?? is a terrible, losing move which proves Kramnik's old assertion that "computer's weakness is tactics".

These words perplexed me at the time, but this game (and others) prove his point.

I think in those days (1994) players assumed that "computers see everything" (they do NOW) and played too safely against them. I'm pretty sure the typical Kasparov attack would have roasted CG3 like a beginner.

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "Macbook Pro"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Norman"]
[Black "Chess Genius 3"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 Bb4 5.Bd2 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Be7 7.Qg4 g6 8.Bd3 d6 9.h4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nc6 11.Nf3 O-O 12.h5 Bc5 13.hxg6 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 fxg6 15.Kg1 Qe7 16.Re1 b6 17.Rh3 Qc5+ 18.Kh1 Ne7 19.Bg5 Nf5 20.Bf6 Qxc3 21.Rg1 Bd7 22.Ng5 h5 23.Qf4 Qc5 24.Ne4 Qd4 25.Qg5 Kf7 26.Rxh5 Rg8 27.Rh7+ 1-0[/pgn]

I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game.

I do not believe that there was a chance for 1.e4 Nf6 in the book of Genius against kasparov.

I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.

I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6.

You're hilarious man.

You are so motivated to sh!t on me that you ignore logic.

Firstly, I wasn't bragging, so there's no need to "bring me down" anyway, but let's handle this properly...

"I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game."

Beginning a biting statement with "I think" kills any form of credibility in the words that follow, but regardless of this...

I am probably 2180-2200 ELO and scored this easy win against Chess Genius 3.

Kasparov was 2800+ and Nikolic around 2680...

Are you saying that this "magical" opening book gave Chess Genius 500-600 ELO - even back in 1994? Wow! Impressive.

I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.

Oh...so a guy who is arguably the strongest player in history and had never lost to a computer is going to play more cautiously against an older program?

Besides this, Kasparov played 1.c4 not 1.e4 in the game he lost, so how was he even to TEST how the program is going to respond to the king's pawn?

I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6.

Who cares what you doubt?

Who was "getting an impression" anyway?

I made the comment that I have more trouble than I did in that game against Comet A90, but never did I say that I'm a stronger player than Chess Genius. I myself was referring to a single game.

I'm gonna just assume that you're another one of the negative-minded, "bring em down if they do something good" types on TC...

So many of you.

You are completely misreading Uri's intention, Brendan. He is merely expressing a differing opinion. He never tries to bring anybody down or attack them, though his opinions are not always appreciated.

[Vinvin]

+ In AubervilliersRapid Open 1993 and 1994, Chess Genius made a perf of 2530 and 2540 (hardware was probably 486-66 MHz) :
http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/ ... tions-1993

[BrendanJNorman]

+ In AubervilliersRapid Open 1993 and 1994, Chess Genius made a perf of 2530 and 2540 (hardware was probably 486-66 MHz) :
http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/ ... tions-1993

Must have been the magical opening book.

[BrendanJNorman]

It's very interesting how computer chess progresses over time.

Chess Genius 3 playing in the 1994 Intel Grand Prix on a Pentium 90 defeated Gary Kasparov, and also beat GM Nikolic (a very strong GM) 2-0.

With this in mind, I was enormously proud when, as a teenager I drew a 30 0 game against Chess Genius 3.

Recently, I pulled it out and was shocked by how easily I crushed it.

Obviously I have become a stronger player, but for example, I have a lot more trouble against even Comet A90 (another old fav), so it's kind of weird how strong GMs lost to this computer.

Here's my game anyway, clearly 11...0-0?? is a terrible, losing move which proves Kramnik's old assertion that "computer's weakness is tactics".

These words perplexed me at the time, but this game (and others) prove his point.

I think in those days (1994) players assumed that "computers see everything" (they do NOW) and played too safely against them. I'm pretty sure the typical Kasparov attack would have roasted CG3 like a beginner.

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "Macbook Pro"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Norman"]
[Black "Chess Genius 3"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 Bb4 5.Bd2 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Be7 7.Qg4 g6 8.Bd3 d6 9.h4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nc6 11.Nf3 O-O 12.h5 Bc5 13.hxg6 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 fxg6 15.Kg1 Qe7 16.Re1 b6 17.Rh3 Qc5+ 18.Kh1 Ne7 19.Bg5 Nf5 20.Bf6 Qxc3 21.Rg1 Bd7 22.Ng5 h5 23.Qf4 Qc5 24.Ne4 Qd4 25.Qg5 Kf7 26.Rxh5 Rg8 27.Rh7+ 1-0[/pgn]

I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game.

I do not believe that there was a chance for 1.e4 Nf6 in the book of Genius against kasparov.

I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.

I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6.

You're hilarious man.

You are so motivated to sh!t on me that you ignore logic.

Firstly, I wasn't bragging, so there's no need to "bring me down" anyway, but let's handle this properly...

"I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game."

Beginning a biting statement with "I think" kills any form of credibility in the words that follow, but regardless of this...

I am probably 2180-2200 ELO and scored this easy win against Chess Genius 3.

Kasparov was 2800+ and Nikolic around 2680...

Are you saying that this "magical" opening book gave Chess Genius 500-600 ELO - even back in 1994? Wow! Impressive.

I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.

Oh...so a guy who is arguably the strongest player in history and had never lost to a computer is going to play more cautiously against an older program?

Besides this, Kasparov played 1.c4 not 1.e4 in the game he lost, so how was he even to TEST how the program is going to respond to the king's pawn?

I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6.

Who cares what you doubt?

Who was "getting an impression" anyway?

I made the comment that I have more trouble than I did in that game against Comet A90, but never did I say that I'm a stronger player than Chess Genius. I myself was referring to a single game.

I'm gonna just assume that you're another one of the negative-minded, "bring em down if they do something good" types on TC...

So many of you.

You are completely misreading Uri's intention, Brendan. He is merely expressing a differing opinion. He never tries to bring anybody down or attack them, though his opinions are not always appreciated.

I'll respond to you level-headedly Adam, since I like some of what you've done over the years and we share some things in common...

If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but how can you assert that the tone of his comment wasn't another way of saying: "I don't care that you beat Chess Genius, the opening book wasn't the same as the one Kasparov faced, so your win is nothing special"

I'm not a sensitive guy (I don't give a F either way), BUT I like to establish truth (something western culture seems to have abandoned, as Socrates roles in his grave)...

The argument presented was, in my opinion, pretty weak, saying that the phenomenon of a computer program on a Pentium 90 defeated the World Champion, 2680 guys and others and this was all due to a magical opening book that Uri "thinks" was used.

On the other hand, the stock opening book and stock program on a 23 years more advanced Quad Core Macbook Pro was demolished in 27 moves by a 2200 guy.

He's saying this is all due to the opening book, although I'm sure if I played 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 etc into the mainline, the computer probably would have equalized.

Playing a weird sideline got the computer OUT of the book early and was responsible for it's poor play - as it had to think on its own.

About the "Can't judge based on a single game" argument:

What I expressed was an amazement and awe at the complexity of computer chess, in how such things can happen.

Meaning: If I played against a guy today who beat Kasparov, Nikolic (2-0) and others back in 1994, I'd probably still be smashed like a patzer.

But I've played two games against Chess Genius 3.

One was, I was as I mentioned, when I was 15 or 16 and it was a 30 0 game with the result of a draw.

Another, the one presented here, was when I was 33 and the result was a crushing win.

Uri also mentioned the conditions I played under being different to Kasparov's...

Yes, Indeed.

Kasparov has an advanced copy of the program to practice and played at a rapid time control in tournament conditions.

I played a random game after figuring out how to run DOS apps on a Macbook in a humid office room in Southern Asia, looking at ugly 2D pieces.

At a blitz time control.

Blitz against computers is supposed to be hopeless for humans, right?

So let's see...

Kasparov:

PROS

- Tournament (Rapid 25+5 I believe) time control
- Prior practice against engine
- Beautiful DGT board to play on
- Nice environment for chess play

CONS

- Has to face the "magical opening book"
- Less advanced knowledge of the weakness of computers

Brendan:

PROS

- More advanced knowledge of computer weaknesses
- I'm not forced to play agains the "magical opening book" Kaspy did


CONS

- Blitz time control
- Terribly hot, humid environment
- Ugly 2d pieces make it tough to concentrate

I'm pretty sure the opening book and "not the same conditions as Kasparov" argument have been met answered pretty clearly.

About the "make a judgement from a single game" argument...

Can you point out where I did that?

I feel I was simply sharing some reflections and the recent game that brought back those memories.

[BrendanJNorman]

...

The themes I marked in my set "hard-CCC-2009-beta1" are :

Code: Select all

Attack the castled king
crippled position
Deep combination
deep mate threats
Deflection sacrifice
Endgame
Fortress
King's attack
King's attack threats
Long mate threats
Manoeuvres
Mate
Mate threats
Pawns endgame
perpetual threats
Pertpetual check
Pin
Positional move
Positional squeeze
promotion
promotion threat
queens endgame
Rising the pressure
sac for 2 linked passed pawns
sac winning tempo
Sacrifice
Sacrifice for the initiative
Simplification
Stalemate
Trapped piece
underpromotion
Zugzwang

Awesome list...How can I check them out?

The 2009 is quite old and a lot of positions are solved quickly now : http://home.scarlet.be/vincentlejeune/hardsets.html
The 2016 version (beta 6 currently) is here :
EPD : https://www.dropbox.com/s/d3pqj6amz3mrb ... P.epd?dl=0
PGN : https://www.dropbox.com/s/s4qeumzcxz4yu ... 5.pgn?dl=0

Downloaded it and it's a fantastic collection of positions.

Thanks so much, let me know if I can share any files with you in future.

[Guenther]

+ In AubervilliersRapid Open 1993 and 1994, Chess Genius made a perf of 2530 and 2540 (hardware was probably 486-66 MHz) :
http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/ ... tions-1993

Must have been the magical opening book. :wink:

All he (Uri) wanted to say is, that 1.e4 Nf6 probably NEVER was played by any program for the Black side in serious Human vs. Comp games.
(Aljechin will be blocked for such a match for good reasons... the link below verifies it for Genius, which means he is right)

http://www.chessgames.com/player/chess_genius.html

Interesting though that they once allowed Genius to play a Pirc defense, which is also an opening C players judge as bad.

[Uri Blass]

It's very interesting how computer chess progresses over time.

Chess Genius 3 playing in the 1994 Intel Grand Prix on a Pentium 90 defeated Gary Kasparov, and also beat GM Nikolic (a very strong GM) 2-0.

With this in mind, I was enormously proud when, as a teenager I drew a 30 0 game against Chess Genius 3.

Recently, I pulled it out and was shocked by how easily I crushed it.

Obviously I have become a stronger player, but for example, I have a lot more trouble against even Comet A90 (another old fav), so it's kind of weird how strong GMs lost to this computer.

Here's my game anyway, clearly 11...0-0?? is a terrible, losing move which proves Kramnik's old assertion that "computer's weakness is tactics".

These words perplexed me at the time, but this game (and others) prove his point.

I think in those days (1994) players assumed that "computers see everything" (they do NOW) and played too safely against them. I'm pretty sure the typical Kasparov attack would have roasted CG3 like a beginner.

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "Macbook Pro"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Norman"]
[Black "Chess Genius 3"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 Bb4 5.Bd2 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Be7 7.Qg4 g6 8.Bd3 d6 9.h4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nc6 11.Nf3 O-O 12.h5 Bc5 13.hxg6 Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 fxg6 15.Kg1 Qe7 16.Re1 b6 17.Rh3 Qc5+ 18.Kh1 Ne7 19.Bg5 Nf5 20.Bf6 Qxc3 21.Rg1 Bd7 22.Ng5 h5 23.Qf4 Qc5 24.Ne4 Qd4 25.Qg5 Kf7 26.Rxh5 Rg8 27.Rh7+ 1-0[/pgn]

I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game.

I do not believe that there was a chance for 1.e4 Nf6 in the book of Genius against kasparov.

I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.

I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6.

You're hilarious man.

You are so motivated to sh!t on me that you ignore logic.

Firstly, I wasn't bragging, so there's no need to "bring me down" anyway, but let's handle this properly...

"I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game."

Beginning a biting statement with "I think" kills any form of credibility in the words that follow, but regardless of this...

I am probably 2180-2200 ELO and scored this easy win against Chess Genius 3.

Kasparov was 2800+ and Nikolic around 2680...

Are you saying that this "magical" opening book gave Chess Genius 500-600 ELO - even back in 1994? Wow! Impressive.

I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.

Oh...so a guy who is arguably the strongest player in history and had never lost to a computer is going to play more cautiously against an older program?

Besides this, Kasparov played 1.c4 not 1.e4 in the game he lost, so how was he even to TEST how the program is going to respond to the king's pawn?

I think that getting conclusions based on a single game is wrong and I doubt if you can beat Genius3 with different openings when it does not choose 1....Nf6.

Who cares what you doubt?

Who was "getting an impression" anyway?

I made the comment that I have more trouble than I did in that game against Comet A90, but never did I say that I'm a stronger player than Chess Genius. I myself was referring to a single game.

I'm gonna just assume that you're another one of the negative-minded, "bring em down if they do something good" types on TC...

So many of you.

You are completely misreading Uri's intention, Brendan. He is merely expressing a differing opinion. He never tries to bring anybody down or attack them, though his opinions are not always appreciated.

I'll respond to you level-headedly Adam, since I like some of what you've done over the years and we share some things in common...

If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but how can you assert that the tone of his comment wasn't another way of saying: "I don't care that you beat Chess Genius, the opening book wasn't the same as the one Kasparov faced, so your win is nothing special"

I'm not a sensitive guy (I don't give a F either way), BUT I like to establish truth (something western culture seems to have abandoned, as Socrates roles in his grave)...

The argument presented was, in my opinion, pretty weak, saying that the phenomenon of a computer program on a Pentium 90 defeated the World Champion, 2680 guys and others and this was all due to a magical opening book that Uri "thinks" was used.

On the other hand, the stock opening book and stock program on a 23 years more advanced Quad Core Macbook Pro was demolished in 27 moves by a 2200 guy.

He's saying this is all due to the opening book, although I'm sure if I played 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 etc into the mainline, the computer probably would have equalized.

Playing a weird sideline got the computer OUT of the book early and was responsible for it's poor play - as it had to think on its own.

About the "Can't judge based on a single game" argument:

What I expressed was an amazement and awe at the complexity of computer chess, in how such things can happen.

Meaning: If I played against a guy today who beat Kasparov, Nikolic (2-0) and others back in 1994, I'd probably still be smashed like a patzer.

But I've played two games against Chess Genius 3.

One was, I was as I mentioned, when I was 15 or 16 and it was a 30 0 game with the result of a draw.

Another, the one presented here, was when I was 33 and the result was a crushing win.

Uri also mentioned the conditions I played under being different to Kasparov's...

Yes, Indeed.

Kasparov has an advanced copy of the program to practice and played at a rapid time control in tournament conditions.

I played a random game after figuring out how to run DOS apps on a Macbook in a humid office room in Southern Asia, looking at ugly 2D pieces.

At a blitz time control.

Blitz against computers is supposed to be hopeless for humans, right?

So let's see...

Kasparov:

PROS

- Tournament (Rapid 25+5 I believe) time control
- Prior practice against engine
- Beautiful DGT board to play on
- Nice environment for chess play

CONS

- Has to face the "magical opening book"
- Less advanced knowledge of the weakness of computers

Brendan:

PROS

- More advanced knowledge of computer weaknesses
- I'm not forced to play agains the "magical opening book" Kaspy did


CONS

- Blitz time control
- Terribly hot, humid environment
- Ugly 2d pieces make it tough to concentrate

I'm pretty sure the opening book and "not the same conditions as Kasparov" argument have been met answered pretty clearly.

About the "make a judgement from a single game" argument...

Can you point out where I did that?

I feel I was simply sharing some reflections and the recent game that brought back those memories.

I did not claim that everything was because of the opening book.
I did not know the second game of you was blitz and I agree that humans should have more problems in blitz but again the main point is that a single game proves nothing and attacking the king is not a plan that works against every opening choice.

The point is that you cannot say that kasparov could win easily with no risk against Genius3 only because kasparov could easily win against you and you had one game when you won easily against Genius3.

For the complain about ugly 2D pieces I do not think that there is a significant difference in the ability to concentrate and I think that people do not play worse when they play with 2D pieces relative to a real board.

Maybe today it is the opposite and I know that few children because of too many games in the internet did the illegal move Ke1-g1 instead of castling and lost because of an illegal move because they are used to the fact that if they move the king from e1 to g1 the rook come immediately to f1 when it does not happen in a real board.

[BrendanJNorman]

+ In AubervilliersRapid Open 1993 and 1994, Chess Genius made a perf of 2530 and 2540 (hardware was probably 486-66 MHz) :
http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/ ... tions-1993

Must have been the magical opening book.

All he (Uri) wanted to say is, that 1.e4 Nf6 probably NEVER was played by any program for the Black side in serious Human vs. Comp games.
(Aljechin will be blocked for such a match for good reasons... the link below verifies it for Genius, which means he is right)

http://www.chessgames.com/player/chess_genius.html

Interesting though that they once allowed Genius to play a Pirc defense, which is also an opening C players judge as bad.

Hey Guenther,

I don't think the Alekhine (or any "inferior" opening) was blocked, otherwise CG3's opening book would be consistent across the game range.

Instead we see Pirc (known as a "come and get me" opening among strong players), Caro Kann (another "come and get me" opening for computers, but more solid than the Pirc), and 1...e5 (Petrov, Ruy Lopez and Two Knights).

I'd say that it's opening book is/was weighted to play 1...e5 more often, but throw in other openings based on some statistical distribution (as in, play the Caro Kann 40% of the time, Pirc 25% of the time or whatever), and that the only reason we don't see Alekhine's in the chessgames list is due to a relative lack of 1.e4 games.

As I alluded to before, the MAINLINE Alekhine (where white plays 3.d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 etc isn't so bad for black - especially against a human (who might have more trouble holding the center together against a computer's tactical powers.

My playing an offbeat idea 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 Bb4 5.Bd2 brought the computer out of its book and provoked a strategic mistake immediately since 5...Nxc3 6.bxc3 Be7 (6...Bf8 MIGHT be better) 7.Qg4 is already much better for white.

So would you say the opening book was still the problem if I'd played the mainline?

[Uri Blass]

+ In AubervilliersRapid Open 1993 and 1994, Chess Genius made a perf of 2530 and 2540 (hardware was probably 486-66 MHz) :
http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/ ... tions-1993

Must have been the magical opening book.

All he (Uri) wanted to say is, that 1.e4 Nf6 probably NEVER was played by any program for the Black side in serious Human vs. Comp games.
(Aljechin will be blocked for such a match for good reasons... the link below verifies it for Genius, which means he is right)

http://www.chessgames.com/player/chess_genius.html

Interesting though that they once allowed Genius to play a Pirc defense, which is also an opening C players judge as bad.

Hey Guenther,

I don't think the Alekhine (or any "inferior" opening) was blocked, otherwise CG3's opening book would be consistent across the game range.

Instead we see Pirc (known as a "come and get me" opening among strong players), Caro Kann (another "come and get me" opening for computers, but more solid than the Pirc), and 1...e5 (Petrov, Ruy Lopez and Two Knights).

I'd say that it's opening book is/was weighted to play 1...e5 more often, but throw in other openings based on some statistical distribution (as in, play the Caro Kann 40% of the time, Pirc 25% of the time or whatever), and that the only reason we don't see Alekhine's in the chessgames list is due to a relative lack of 1.e4 games.

As I alluded to before, the MAINLINE Alekhine (where white plays 3.d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 etc isn't so bad for black - especially against a human (who might have more trouble holding the center together against a computer's tactical powers.

My playing an offbeat idea 3.Nc3 e6 4.d4 Bb4 5.Bd2 brought the computer out of its book and provoked a strategic mistake immediately since 5...Nxc3 6.bxc3 Be7 (6...Bf8 MIGHT be better) 7.Qg4 is already much better for white.

So would you say the opening book was still the problem if I'd played the mainline?

I think that 1...Nf6 is relatively a rare move so it is easier to find good sidelines after 1.e4 Nf6 to get the computer out of book.