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.BrendanJNorman wrote:You're hilarious man.Uri Blass wrote:I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game.BrendanJNorman wrote: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.
[Site "Macbook Pro"]
[Black "Chess Genius 3"]
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 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 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...
Beginning a biting statement with "I think" kills any form of credibility in the words that follow, but regardless of this..."I think that chess genius used a different opening book against kasparov so kasparov could not play this game."
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.
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?I also know that kasparov believed he was playing genius2 and not genius3 during the game.
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?
Who cares what you doubt?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 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.
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.