'Modeling' recent debates using chess

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 h4Black (computer):
King on e4
Bishop on d4
Knight on f6
Pawn on h6White seems to be in trouble, but White knows enough about the game to see, already, that Black has no hope of winning.1. Rg6Black has no way to safely guard his h pawn, so advances it, leaving everything guarded and maintaining his lead in material.1. h5
2. 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. Bxf6
3. Kh1White 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. Bxh4
4. Kg2 Ke3
5. Kh1 Bg3
6. Kg2 h4
7. Kh1 h3
8. Kg1 Ke2
9. Kh1 h2Black 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 Ke1Black 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 Ke2
12. 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 Kd4and 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]

quote:

---

Being fond of chess myself, it sounds like DNAunion went into the endgame down on material and was fortunate enough to squeak out a defensive stalemate by repetition posture.

---

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.

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]

quote:

---

Eta_Carinae: In US rating system I was about 2400.

---

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:

---

Eta_Carinae: I beat Nigel Short once.

---

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:

---

Eta_Carinae: Don't play much anymore. Last time was about a year ago.

---

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]

quote:

---

Eta_Carinae: Ok I should be more clear. I had a BCF rating of 239. This translates roughly to an ELO of around 2400. I believe currently USCF ratings are inflated about 120 points compared to FIDE.

---

So a US rating of roughly 2500. Okay, we can skip the game...you win!

quote:

---

Eta_Carinae: I played Nigel Short in a 'friendly' game or two about 1981 or so, a friend of mine went to high schol with him. We are only about 3 days apart in age - so we were 16 at the time.

---

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.

quote:

---

Tell me - do you play online?

---

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:

---

I never have but I am told it is becoming a farce because people will sit there and run a program like Fritz and pretend it is them playing.

---

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:

---

A program like that for $60 plays at what - about 2400-2600?

---

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.

quote:

---

The hardest part of chess for most non-savants without eidetic memories is learning the openings.

---

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:

---

When I first started I used the Caro-kahn defense as black because it often put my white opponent in unfamiliar territory,...

---

And to do the same back to them, I threw them a curve as follows:1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. exd5 cxd5
4. c4This 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:

---

...but I had a lot of trouble with d4 openings.

---

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.

quote:

---

You ever play the grob or spike to mess with people. It's good playing for money with people who don't know you because they think you are an idiot.

---

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]

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 Nc6
2. 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 e5
2. fxe5 d6
3. exd6 Bxd6
4. Nf3 g5
5. h3 Bg3#

quote:

---

P.S. to DNAunion: Yes, I am aware that trading the rook for the knight in that position assures the stalemate. My point was that you had to have the opportunity for the double attack to begin with. Since Nf6 was obviously black's last move prior to your double attack on the knight & pawn with your rook, I would be interested to know what space this knight occupied prior to this move and if the move to f6 was a capturing move or just a move to a clear square. Those are the details that will make all the difference in the analysis.

---

Here's the position a move earlier.White:
King on g2
Rook on g8
Pawns on h4Black:
King on e4
Bishop on d4
Knight on g4
Pawns on h6What can Black do to win? Obviously, I am threatening the knight.1. ... h5
2. 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. ... Nf6
2. Rg6 = (which occurred in the game)1. ... Ne5
2. 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 d5
2. 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 Nxe5I 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, h2Black:
King on e6
Rook on c3
Bishop on d6
Knight on d3
Pawns on g7, h7My threat is 1. Rxd6+ Kxd6 2. Ke2. Black decided to trade down with.1. ... Rc1
2. Rxc1 Nxc1
3. Kg2And 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]

quote:

---

DU and EC, ... if you know other easy puzzles...

---

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 mateWhite:
King on d1
Queen on g4
Rook on h1
Bishop on d2
Knights on a3, e6
Pawns on a2, f2, g2, h2Black:
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 mateWhite:
King on c1
Queen on c2
Rooks on d1, g1
Knight on e7
Pawns on a3, b2, f6, h4Black:
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]

Solve it instantly...am I allowed to post the solution?

1. Qf8+ Bxf8 2. Nf6+ Kh8 3. Rh7#

Okay, all play! This was our masterpiece.: we believe it's mate in 16!!White to move and mateWhite:
King on h2
Queen on c4
Rooks on c8, f7
Bishop on c2
Knight on d6
Pawns on e4, g2, h4Black:
King on g6
Queen on a1
Rooks on a8, g4
Bishop on f6
Knights on e5, g8
Panws on g7, h5

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+ Rxe8
2. Bd5+ Re6
3. Bxe6+ Qxe6
4. fxe6That'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. ... f5
5. e7 (other moves win as well) Nf6
6. Rg6 Ne8
7. h5and 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]