ACM 1994: Spector's games
Steven J Edwards
[Site "Cape May, NJ USA"]
[Date "1994.06.25"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Star Socrates"]
[Black "Spector"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4
f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. Nc3 a6 13. Bg5 O-O 14. Bh4 Nh5 15.
Rc1 g6 16. Bg5 Nf4 17. Bh6 Nxd3 18. Bxf8 Nxc1 19. Bxd6 Qxd6 20. Qxc1 Bd7 21.
Re1 Kh8 22. Na4 Qc7 23. Ne5 Be8 24. Nxc6 Bd7 25. Ne5 Qxc1 26. Rxc1 Bxa4 27. Rc7
Kg8 28. b3 Bb5 29. a4 Bc6 30. Nxc6 bxc6 31. Rxc6 Rb8 32. Rxe6 Rxb3 33. h3 Rb4
34. Rxa6 Rxd4 35. Kf1 Re4 36. a5 Ra4 37. Ra7 Ra2 38. a6 d4 39. f4 d3 40. Ke1
Re2+ 41. Kd1 Rxg2 42. Re7 Ra2 43. a7 Kf8 44. Rxh7 Kg8 45. Rd7 Kf8 46. Rd8+ 1-0
[Event "24th ACM Computer Chess Championship"]
[Site "Cape May, NJ USA"]
[Date "1994.06.25"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Spector"]
[Black "NOW"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. Bc4 e6 5. Nf3 Bb4 6. O-O Nf6 7. a3 O-O 8.
Rb1 Be7 9. b4 Qf5 10. Nb5 Na6 11. Nbd4 Qg4 12. h3 Qh5 13. Bxa6 bxa6 14. Nc6 Bd6
15. Nfe5 Bxe5 16. Qxh5 Nxh5 17. Nxe5 f6 18. Nd3 e5 19. Nc5 Nf4 20. d3 Ne2+ 21.
Kh1 Nd4 22. c3 Ne6 23. Ne4 Rd8 24. Rd1 a5 25. Be3 f5 26. Nc5 f4 27. Bc1 Nxc5
28. bxc5 f3 29. g4 Ba6 30. d4 Be2 31. Rd2 Rab8 32. Rxb8 Rxb8 33. Rb2 Rxb2 34.
Bxb2 h5 35. dxe5 hxg4 36. hxg4 Bc4 37. Kh2 Kf7 38. Kg3 Ke6 39. Kf4 Kd5 40. Bc1
a4 41. Kxf3 Kxe5 42. Bf4+ Kd5 43. Bxc7 Kxc5 44. Be5 Bd5+ 45. Kf4 g6 46. Bd4+
Kc4 47. Bxa7 Kb3 48. Bc5 Kxc3 49. Ke3 Kc4 50. Be7 Bc6 51. f3 Bb5 52. Ke4 Bc6+
53. Kf4 Kd3 54. Kg3 Bd5 55. Kf2 1/2-1/2
[Event "24th ACM Computer Chess Championship"]
[Site "Cape May, NJ USA"]
[Date "1994.06.26"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Evaluator"]
[Black "Spector"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3
Qc7 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. Be2 b5 11. Kb1 Bb7 12. a3 O-O 13. Qe3 h6 14. Bxf6 Bxf6
15. g3 e5 16. Nf5 exf4 17. gxf4 Bxc3 18. bxc3 Qc5 19. Qg3 g6 20. Rxd6 Kh8 21.
Qh4 h5 22. Bxh5 Qf2 23. Qxf2 Nf6 24. Qd4 1-0
[Event "24th ACM Computer Chess Championship"]
[Site "Cape May, NJ USA"]
[Date "1994.06.26"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Spector"]
[Black "Innovation II"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. e4 c6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 g6 4. Ngf3 Bg7 5. g3 e5 6. Bg2 Ne7 7. O-O O-O 8. b4 a5
9. bxa5 Qxa5 10. Nb3 Qc7 11. exd5 cxd5 12. Be3 Bg4 13. Qd2 Rc8 14. Bc5 Nf5 15.
Ng5 h6 16. h3 Bh5 17. g4 Na6 18. Be3 d4 19. Ne4 dxe3 20. fxe3 Nb4 21. gxf5 Nxc2
22. Rac1 Rxa2 23. Nec5 Bf8 24. Rxc2 Rxc2 25. Qxc2 b6 26. fxg6 Bxg6 27. Rf6 bxc5
28. Rc6 Qd7 29. Rxc8 Qxc8 30. Qc3 Bf5 31. Kh2 Bd6 32. e4 Be6 33. Nd2 Qd7 34.
Nc4 Bc7 35. Na3 Qd4 36. Qd2 Qb4 37. Qc1 Kg7 38. Bf3 f5 39. Nc2 Qc3 40. exf5
Bxf5 41. Be4 Bxe4 42. dxe4 c4 43. Qg1+ Kf7 44. Qf2+ Ke8 45. Qe2 Qd3 46. Qg2 c3
47. Qg8+ Kd7 48. Qg4+ Kd6 49. Qg6+ Kc5 50. Qg1+ Kb5 51. Qb1+ Ka5 52. Qa2+ Kb6
53. Qb3+ Ka7 54. Qa2+ Kb7 55. Qb3+ Bb6 56. Qd5+ Qxd5 57. exd5 Kc7 58. Kg3 Kd6
59. Kg4 Kxd5 60. Kf5 e4 61. Kf4 Bf2 62. Na1 Kd4 63. Nc2+ Kd3 64. Nb4+ Kc4 65.
Na2 e3 0-1
[Event "24th ACM Computer Chess Championship"]
[Site "Cape May, NJ USA"]
[Date "1994.06.27"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Cray Blitz"]
[Black "Spector"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. e5 Qe7 7. Qe2 Nd5 8.
c4 Ba6 9. Nd2 Nb6 10. b3 Qb4 11. Qf3 Bc5 12. a3 Qa5 13. Bb2 Nc8 14. e6 fxe6 15.
Bxg7 Rf8 16. Bxf8 Bxf8 17. Rd1 Bxa3 18. Qf6 Rb8 19. Qh8+ Ke7 20. Qxh7+ Ke8 21.
Qg6+ Ke7 22. Qg7+ Ke8 23. Bd3 Qc5 24. Bg6+ Kd8 25. Ra1 d5 26. Qf7 Qe7 27. Rxa3
Bb7 28. Qg8+ Kd7 29. Rxa7 c5 30. Nf3 d4 31. Ne5+ Kd6 32. Rxb7 Rxb7 33. Qxc8 1-0
-- Steven (s...@world.std.com)
David Weller
Steven J Edwards <s...@world.std.com> wrote:
>[article deleted]
Um, is it just me, or is Spector a synonym for "Punching bag for good
chess programs"? :-)
--
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2)
For all sorts of interesting Ada 9X tidbits, run the command:
finger dwe...@starbase.neosoft.com | more
Ada 9X is to programming languages as OS/2 is to operating systems :-)
Steven J Edwards
>Um, is it just me, or is Spector a synonym for "Punching bag for good
>chess programs"? :-)
I think it's more accurate to say that Spector's results are not
surprising for first year software-only entries.
"Wait 'til next year!"
-- Steven (s...@world.std.com)
Jon Dart
>
>Um, is it just me, or is Spector a synonym for "Punching bag for good
>chess programs"? :-)
>
This was unkind. The effort required to write even a medium-strength
chess program is measured in man-years. SJE was brave enough to enter
his program in a field that included several professional-caliber
programs, written by people who do this for a living. It is no
shame to score badly in this kind of event. Also, one of the main
purposes of the ACM competition is to gain information on the relative
strengths and weaknesses of chess programs. This is interesting to
computer chess enthusiasts and valuable to programmers. I'm sure
Steven Edwards is analyzing his program's games and will use the results
to improve its performance.
--Jon
--
--
-- Jon Dart, Rational Software Corp., jd...@rational.com
Hal Bogner
David,
This was Spector's first appearance at the ACM International Computer Chess
Championships. Have you examined the games? (In fact, have you tried writing
a chess program yourself? You imply that it must be easy to do better!)
You might note that the task is difficult, and that the experienced
competitors are quite strong. In each of the previous two ACM tournaments,
there was a first-time entrant that failed to score at all. One of these -
Innovation - was back this year, and scored 40% in its second appearance.
I played some blitz chess with Innovation, and found it a pretty strong
opponent. But then, as chess masters go, I'm a fairly weak one (about 2300).
When you have a damn strong program that you have written, I hope that you
enter the ACM championship and find out were you stand. I'm sure that you
will find it a valuable learning experience.
Meanwhile, you owe Steven Edwards an apology.
-hal bogner
Mike Westbrook
-}In article <2ur2gq$p...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dwe...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:
-}>In article <Cs54G...@world.std.com>,
-}>Steven J Edwards <s...@world.std.com> wrote:
-}>>[article deleted]
-}>
-}>Um, is it just me, or is Spector a synonym for "Punching bag for good
-}>chess programs"? :-)
-}>
-}...
-}David,
-}
-}This was Spector's first appearance at the ACM International Computer Chess
-}Championships. Have you examined the games? (In fact, have you tried writing
-}a chess program yourself? You imply that it must be easy to do better!)
-}
-}...
-}
-}When you have a damn strong program that you have written, I hope that you
-}enter the ACM championship and find out were you stand. I'm sure that you
-}will find it a valuable learning experience.
-}
-}Meanwhile, you owe Steven Edwards an apology.
-}
-}-hal bogner
-}
Jeez, guys, lighten up already!! This is the second reply to David's posting
that seems to think that he was *serious*!!
(Didn't you see the smiley? Didn't the brevity of the response tip you off?!)
> Mike <
"I say, it's a, I say, it's a *joke*, son!" -- Foghorn Leghorn
Dave Gomboc
As a joke it qualifies only under the category of poor taste.
I second Hal's comment regarding the apology.
--
Dave Gomboc
drgo...@acs.ucalgary.ca
Mike Westbrook
-} mw...@hcsd.hac.com (moi) writes:
-}> h...@netcom.com (Hal Bogner) writes:
-}>-} dwe...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:
-}>-}>Steven J Edwards <s...@world.std.com> wrote:
-}>-}>>[article deleted]
-}>-}>
-}>-}>Um, is it just me, or is Spector a synonym for "Punching bag for good
-}>-}>[...]
-}>-}>
-}>-}David,
-}>-}
-}>-}This was Spector's first appearance at the ACM International Computer Chess
-}>-}a chess program yourself? You imply that it must be easy to do better!)
-}>-} [...]
-}>-}When you have a damn strong program that you have written, I hope that you
-}>-}will find it a valuable learning experience.
-}>-}Meanwhile, you owe Steven Edwards an apology.
-}>-}
-}>-}-hal bogner
-}>
-}>Jeez, guys, lighten up already!! This is the second reply to David's posting
-}>
-}>(Didn't you see the smiley? Didn't the brevity of the response tip you off?!)
-}> [...]
-}
-}As a joke it qualifies only under the category of poor taste.
-}I second Hal's comment regarding the apology.
-}
-}--
-}Dave Gomboc
-}drgo...@acs.ucalgary.ca
Well, it might qualify as poor taste, and was also called "unkind"
(without an apology demanded), but it also qualifies as a "friendly
insult", for which the appropriate arbiter of propriety is the
"insulted" party.
My interpretation, which has _not_ been explicitly confirmed, of
the posting by Steven Edwards in response to David Weller's original
post, is that Mr Edwards was not so terribly offended by the posting.
Perhaps Mr Edwards wishes to clarify his reaction to Mr Weller's
"joke", but *I* will certainly leave that action up to Mr Edwards.
(His original response is included below so that we can all review
it.)
My submission is that the responses to Mr Weller's attempt at wit
were overreactions and too overbearing, and with an unfortunate tinge
of self-righteousness.
These responses also presumed to speak on behalf of Mr Edwards, which
I also submit is unwarranted, as Mr Edwards has every indication of
being an adult with access to rec.games.chess and the ability to speak
for himself, for which see his response (which preceded, on my system
at least, all other replies).
I'm very sorry if I have presumed or mis-stated anyone's opinions or
motivations, or have offended anyone by speaking plainly rather than
trying to use humour as before. However, I don't think that a lecture
and a demand for an apology _to_someone_else_, no matter how many
others support it, was warranted in this case. Nor is it likely to be
"proper Netiquette".
If we're going to ask for apologies to others, perhaps Hal Bogner owes
an apology to Mr Edwards for demanding an apology on his his behalf?
Perhaps Mr Bogner should also apologize to Mr Weller for putting words
into _his_ mouth as well? ("You imply that it must be easy to do
better!" I have read Mr Weller's post, the whole sentence, and I can
see no such implication.)
Here is the previously-posted reply by Steven Edwards:
In article K...@world.std.com, s...@world.std.com (Steven J Edwards) writes:
-}dwe...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:
-}
-}>Um, is it just me, or is Spector a synonym for "Punching bag for good
-}>chess programs"? :-)
-}
-}I think it's more accurate to say that Spector's results are not
-}surprising for first year software-only entries.
-}
-}"Wait 'til next year!"
-}
-}-- Steven (s...@world.std.com)
To me, this doesn't sound like someone who is particularly offended by
the joke, or is secretly hoping someone else will ask for an apology
for him. But then, I don't know Mr Edwards personally. (However, I
*will* be waiting 'til next year with interest, especially to see how
this year's experience translates into improvements in Spector's results!)
> Mike <
"All this in response to a one-line post ending with a smiley..." :-(
John Hogatt
[ Well reasoned, totally apposite stuff elided for brevity's sake ]
|> "All this in response to a one-line post ending with a smiley..." :-(
Bravo, Mr. Westbrook!
Hal Bogner
front, and then my entire comments...the wasteful quoted stuff is all after
that, for those who really give a hoot anymore! -hmb]
Geez, Mike, what a complicated piece of work! Since the original poster has
not seen fit to apologize, and I imagine everyone who cares has already formed
their opinions, why not let this thread die?
I am quite appalled at your suggestion that Edwards did not suffer insult just
because he ignored it. Is this country (US) so lawyer-happy that you require
Edwards to scream like a wounded banshee just to prove he was insulted? I
hope not. It's to his credit that he just let it roll off his back.
I spoke up because it was insulting, and I just plain felt like doing so.
I wasn't speaking for Edwards, or anyone else.
Over the years, people have sometimes stuck up for me or products I was
associated with without having to do so, and I have always appreciated it.
I'm not here to preach, but I said what I thought, and can't believe that I
owe anyone an apology for having done so.
That's it for this one as far as I'm concerned.
-hal