{"id":5901,"date":"2019-07-01T13:06:00","date_gmt":"2019-07-01T21:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.danamackenzie.com\/blog\/?p=5901"},"modified":"2019-07-01T13:06:12","modified_gmt":"2019-07-01T21:06:12","slug":"last-computer-game-for-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/?p=5901","title":{"rendered":"Last Computer Game for 2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

If January 1 is a good time for resolutions, then July 1 is a good time for semi-resolutions. I\u2019ve decided that it\u2019s time for me to do away with playing chess against the computer, at least for the rest of the year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One thing that crystallized this decision for me was meeting\nwith Gjon Feinstein for a few blitz games last weekend, and realizing that they\nwere my first serious games against another human, in person, since early\nJanuary. I am excluding the online games I\u2019ve played against humans, which of\ncourse are instructive but not quite the same as playing in person; also I am\nexcluding the games I sometimes play in chess club against the kids, which are\nnot serious games for me and which I only play as a good training exercise for\nthem. (And because they ask me to.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, when I met with Gjon, I showed him one of my recent\ngames against Shredder, and he found it downright unpleasant to watch. Granted,\nthe position was wild and crazy and the tactics amazing, but it just bore so\nlittle resemblance to normal games between humans that you couldn\u2019t after the\ngame answer the question, \u201cWhat have I learned from this game that could enable\nme to play better in the future?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But to end on a high note, I\u2019d like to show you my last game against Shredder this year. It\u2019s also only the second time I have ever beaten it when set at its highest rating (2600). I\u2019ve played somewhere between 50 and 100 games against it at full strength, which should put my 2 victories into context for you. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is also a good chance to show off my favorite opening again, the Bryntse Gambit, which I almost never get to play against humans but is easy to play against computers because they believe (incorrectly, in my opinion) that accepting the queen sac is good for Black. In my opinion it\u2019s equal at best, and Black\u2019s task is much more difficult than White\u2019s. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, Shredder at 2600 is usually up to the task, and\nDana Mackenzie at 2100 (my strength in action chess?) usually makes mistakes\neventually. But in this game, Shredder played with unusual passivity, and I had\nto find only one or two good moves to break through.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dana Mackenzie \u2013\nShredder (2600)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3.\nNf3 de 4. Ng5 Nf6 5. Bc4 Bg4?! 6. Qxg4! Nxg4 7. Bxf7+ Kd7 8. Be6+ Kc6 9. Bxg4 \u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Position after 9. Bxg4. Black to move.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

FEN: rn1q1b1r\/pp2p1pp\/2k5\/2p3N1\/4pPB1\/8\/PPPP2PP\/RNB1K2R b KQ – 0 9<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you haven\u2019t seen it before, this is the tabiyah <\/em>or\u00a0basic\u00a0setup\u00a0<\/em>for the Bryntse Gambit. White gives up his queen for two pieces and a pawn and a massive list of other advantages: better-developed pieces, Black\u2019s shaky pawn structure, Black\u2019s exposed king. Generally speaking, success depends on keeping Black\u2019s stronger pieces (especially the queen) bottled up and ineffective, while White\u2019s smaller and more numerous pieces take over the board and eventually make too many threats for Black to cope with. White typically gets the initiative for at least 30 moves, far too many for a computer to calculate, and therefore computer evaluations of the position are at least somewhat untrustworthy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. \u2026 Qd6<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shredder likes this move and plays it often in the above position. In general, the computer places a little bit too much trust in its ability to generate threats with its queen, while ignoring its other pieces. Humans are more likely to play a move like 9. \u2026 e6 or 9. \u2026 e5 and try to get their pieces out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. O-O Nd7 11. Nxe4\nQd4+ 12. Kh8 Nf6<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, the computer would never fall for 12. \u2026 Qxe4? 13.\nBf3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13. Bf3 Nxe4 14. Nc3 \u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

White has a couple of decisions to make in the next two\nmoves. I think that 14. Nc3 is better than 14. d3, because capturing on e4 with\na pawn would open the d-file for Black, and close the e-file, which is\nsometimes useful for White because Black has a weak pawn on e6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

14. \u2026 Kb6 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, which way would you capture?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Position after 14. \u2026 Kb6. White to move.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

FEN: r4b1r\/pp2p1pp\/1k6\/2p5\/3qnP2\/2N2B2\/PPPP2PP\/R1B2R1K w – – 0 15<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15. Bxe4! \u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I played the less effective 15. Nxe4?! in a few games, but\neventually I realized that the knight is better placed on c3 than e4, while the\nbishop on e4 is better than it was on f3. Just look at how many pieces are in\neach others\u2019 way. After 15. Nxe4 the knight is in the way of the bishop and the\nbishop is in the way of the rook. After 15. Bxe4 nothing is in the way of\nanything else. Another benefit of 15. Bxe4 is that Black is discouraged from\nplaying \u2026 e5 because that makes the beautiful square on d5 available to White\u2019s\nknight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15. \u2026 e6 16. d3 g6?!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shredder starts making some strange decisions. Black\u2019s\nbiggest problem is lack of development, so 16. \u2026 Bd6 makes much more sense.\nRybka evaluates the position as equal after 17. a4 a6 18. a5+ Kc7 19. Ra4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

17. a4 Rc8?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is definitely a blunder; Black has to play 17. \u2026 a6 to\ncreate luft for his king.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

18. a5+ Ka6<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After this I was sure that I was at least better, if not winning. The king on a6 is a permanent target; he cannot get away without allowing \u2026 a5xb6, which will leave him in a hugely compromised position. One of Shredder\u2019s weaknesses is that it does not understand permanent weaknesses or trapped pieces (which this king sort of is). It goes back to the horizon effect. Because Shredder does not have a concept of \u201cmove infinity\u201d (i.e., a problem that cannot ever <\/strong>be solved in a reasonable way), it systematically underestimates that kind of disadvantage. I believe that is why it was willing to let its king be chased to a6: it sees that square as a short-term, maybe even medium-term safe haven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

19. Ra4 Qd8 20. Be3\nBe7?!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This move highlights another quirk (I won\u2019t say it\u2019s a\nweakness) of computer chess: inconsistency. A human, after playing 16. \u2026 g6,\nwould surely want to justify that move by fianchettoing his bishop. But\nShredder, after feinting that way, says, \u201cNah, I want to put it on e7.\u201d In this\ncase, consistent was better: 20. \u2026 Bg7 would be a little bit more challenging\nfor White. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Position after 20. \u2026 Be7. White to move.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

2<\/strong>FEN: 2rq3r\/pp2b2p\/k3p1p1\/P1p5\/R3BP2\/2NPB3\/1PP3PP\/5R1K w – – 0 21<\/p>\n\n\n\n

21. d4! …<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After this move, White\u2019s game plays itself. The threat of 22. Bd3+ is too strong — Black cannot allow it, so he has to play 21. … c4. Incidentally, if Black had played 20. \u2026 Bg7 21. d4! would also have been good, and maybe this is why Shredder didn\u2019t see any value to playing the fianchetto. However, the difference is that after 20. \u2026 Bg7 21. d4! is actually a piece sacrifice, so White would have had to do some calculation to make sure that 21. \u2026 cd 22. Bd3+ b5 23. Nxb5! de 24. Nd6+ leads to mate. That being said, I do think I would have found this variation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

21. \u2026 c4 22. Rb1! \u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The last move that required serious thought for me. I really wanted to play 22. b4 but the variations after 22. \u2026 cb were still a little bit too murky. I finally realized that bringing my rook into play first makes the break b2-b4 stronger, and there is nothing that Black can do with his extra tempo. Rybka agrees with me, giving White an advantage of 1.7 pawns after 22. b4, but an overwhelming advantage of 3.8 pawns after 22. Rb1. In this case, computer chess and human chess are in agreement: Maximize the power of all of your pieces before <\/em>you launch the final assault.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

22. \u2026 Qd7 23. b4 Qxa4<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Black\u2019s defense is lamer than lame, but there just isn\u2019t any\ngood defense for Black, so Shredder pitches some material to slow down White\u2019s\nattack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

24. Nxa4 Rhe8 25. Bf3\nRed8 26. Nc5+ Bxc5 27. bc Rc6<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Throwing away even more material. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

28. Bxc6 \u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technically speaking, 28. Be2 is even better, but I figured\nthat being a full piece up in a position where Shredder doesn\u2019t have the\nslightest iota of counterplay was plenty good to win, even if it takes longer.\nThe remaining moves need no comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

28\u2026. bc 29. Kg1 Rd7\n30. Kf1 Kxa5 31. Ke2 Ka6 32. Kd2 Rb7 33. Rxb7 Kxb7 34. Kc3 Kc7 35. Kxc4 Kb7 36.\nKb4 Kc7 37. Ka5 Kb7 38. Bf2 a6 39. Bh4 Ka7 40. Bd8 Kb7 41. Bb6 h6 42. h4 Black\nresigns.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Definitely what the White player is hoping for in the\nBryntse Gambit!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If January 1 is a good time for resolutions, then July 1 is a good time for semi-resolutions. I\u2019ve decided that it\u2019s time for me to do away with playing chess against the computer, at least for the rest of the year. One thing that crystallized this decision for me was meeting with Gjon Feinstein […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":80,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[37,11,9],"tags":[962,1869,653,3934,103,4372,1151,1245,4371,3749,4370],"class_list":["post-5901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chess-clubs","category-games","category-openings","tag-bryntse-gambit","tag-computer-chess","tag-gjon-feinstein","tag-horizon-effect","tag-queen-sacrifice","tag-resolution","tag-rybka","tag-shredder","tag-stepping-on-each-others-toes","tag-tabiyah","tag-trapped-king"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5901","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/80"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5901"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5901\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5905,"href":"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5901\/revisions\/5905"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danamackenzie.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}