Choose to go first (play white)
move king’s pawn 2 spaces ahead
let game respond
move king one square ahead
let game respond (it can NOT threaten check at this point, usually)
move King’s pawn one square ahead
let game respond
Move King ahead one more square (at this point Human player would be saying/thinking “WTF is that fool doing??!!”
Computer will begin a “willy nilly attempt” to deploy pieces to attack/trap/check your king
deploy a few power peices into pawn defended positions (Q, Kn,B esp)
spend next few moves “retracting king”/ reinforcing power pieces
wreak havoc…
(an average player can usually beat agood chess program with this technique in less than 25 moves)
Being somewhat of a chess player, I find that interesting. It’s funny that at certain high levels of proficiency (be it chess, poker, bridge, etc) players seem to know what the others will be doing and are not used to dealing with highly unorthodox styles of play.
It reminds me of a quote from a movie I saw a long time ago (I forget the title):
“The best swordsman in France doesn’t fear the second best - he fears the worst, because he is unpredictable”.
Being somewhat of a chess player, I personally doubt the wisdom of this advice (and the OP posts like someone who doesn’t know a lot about the game). Chess programs, IME, experience less difficulty in opposing weak play than human players do - we humans rely a lot on pattern recognition and so forth, whereas computers just examine lines of play from the current position and choose the line that appears to lead to the best position.
I knew a program once that could easily be duped as Black in the following line:
e4 Nf6 (Alekhin’s Defence)
Bc4 (Kreijcik Variation
… Nxe4
Bxf7+ Kxf7
in which the correct line is to return the piece soon to allow the King to return to safety, when Black has slightly the better game. The computer couldn’t bear to give up the material advantage and boldly marched its King into mid-board where it could be easily mated. But that was twenty years ago, and programming has improved since then.
While the grandmasters who play the top computers in tournaments often try to get “out of book” as soon as possible in order to make the computer “think harder,” they usually do not do it by wasting three of their first four moves (and more later, when retreating the king to safety).
And regarding humans relying on patterns, some suggest that’s why a grandmaster (Vladimir Kramnik) overlooked a mate in 1 while playing against computer Deep Fritz in 2006.
Kramnik was on the attack, when the computer moved its knight to the back rank, a square away from Kramnik’s king. A knight on the back rank is kind of odd (knights are usually most useful in the middle of board, where they can attack more squares), and a knight participating in a checkmate from the back rank is likewise unusual. This pattern, being unusual in skilled play, isn’t one that grandmasters have much experience seeing and with much of the action on the queenside, Kramnik was focused there. He moved to offer a queen trade, and was mated instantly.
He didn’t see it coming, and neither did the announcers, who after Kramnik’s move started discussing the computer’s options, completely missing the mate. This link talks a bit about the psychology involved and possibilities for why he may not have seen it.
Sounds about right to me. Growing up, I thought my father was amazing at chess. I could just never figure out his strategy, try as I might. He easily beat me about 80% of the time. It wasn’t until I was at least 16 when he clued me in that he just randomly moved pieces around until something worked. :smack:
I’m an international chess player who has been asked to test chess programs and give commentary on a World Computer Championship.
I would appreciate your definitions of ‘average player’ and ‘good chess program’. Better yet, can you post a game between a human and a chess program using your idea successfully?
(Here is an explanation of chess notation)
I assure you that experienced chess players are not bothered by weak openings such as yours (1. e2-e4 any 2. Ke1-e2 any 3. e4-e5 any 4. Ke2-e3). In a qualifier for the British Championship I faced 1. h2-h4. I won in 20 moves.
Assuming Black doesn’t reply 1. … e7-e5, here are the likely responses from standard Black openings:
e2-e4 c7-c5 (Sicilian)
Ke1-e2 Nb8-c6
e4-e5 Nc6xe5
Ke2-e3 d7-d5
Black is already a pawn up…
e2-e4 e7-e6 (French)
Ke1-e2 d7-d5
e4-e5 c7-c5
Ke2-e3 Nb8-c6
White must now play 4. f2-f4 or lose the e-pawn soon. Even a defensive player like me would play 4. f2-f4 g7-g5, when both White’s e-pawn and King are in trouble…
e2-e4 c7-c6 (Caro-Kann)
Ke1-e2 d7-d5
e4-e5 Bc8-f5
Ke2-e3 e7-e6
It’s true that there is no immediate danger here for White. Nevertheless, White has to play f2-f4, Ke3-f2 and a later Kf2-g1 to get his King into safety. This means White has spent 4 King moves to achieve what can be done in one (castling).
I used two of the weakest free Internet chess engines I could find to test your theory.
Hve you got examples of top chess players not coping with highly unorthodox styles of play?
(Chess is certainly going to be the hardest game to prove this statement. The leading players have computer databases on millions of games and systematically look for new ideas.)
I’m not as qualified to talk about international bridge as chess, but Zia Mahmood probably has the reputation of being ‘exciting and unpredictable’. Nevertheless he would always play the hand in a logical way.
I am obviously out of my league here… Only been playing for 30+ yrs, but only as a hobby, withy my friends. The scenario I described is one I have used to beat various chess programs, but I lack a breadth of experience to comment fully… I do want to thank everyone for their imput, and advise them to try it out on basic chess programs…
You repeat that this is a good idea, but this is the SDMB. We stamp out ignorance with cites, not unlikely claims.
Have you got even a single chess game to show us?
(I don’t need comments, just the moves of the game and the name of the program.)
I disagree with the OP. In my experience with computer chess programs, if you make a weak and bizarre move, the computer program won’t be thrown off the slightest bit – instead, it will methodically slaughter you.
Tried this for kicks against Gnome Chess. It moved e7-e5 (which I believe is considered the standard move against e2-e4), immediately ruining the strategy.
You’re going to want a program with many playing levels which gives advice.
I have heard good things about Fritz.
The manufacturers claim:
‘The program will help you along during the game, with numerous sophisticated coaching functions, adjusting its playing strength to exactly match that of any opponent. It graphically displays threats and plans, and provides full opening statistics. For beginners Fritz will explains moves and positions, or warn you of dangers and of errors you are committing. It has instructive training modules and amusing handicap levels.’
There is an add-on for kids called Chesster.
I would suggest you contact this reliable shop (they do mail-order):
I believe you may be talking about “Learn to Play Chess with Fritz and Chesster”, Volume 1 and Volume 2, which are stand-alone games for the PC.
Both of which totally rock, BTW, for both children and adult novices. I have a grand time with them, although I can barely beat King Kaleidoscope on a good day. If you’re a total chess newbie, you really should work your way through Volume 1, which covers the basics, before moving on to Volume 2, which covers more about strategy. But if you already know the basics, you can probably skip Volume 1.
I can’t imagine even King Kaleidoscope (the lowest setting of the game’s chess engine) falling for any kind of “I’m gonna play like a chicken moving pieces at random with my beak and so confuse you into losing” strategy. Because my gameplay tends to resemble a chicken moving game pieces at random, and the King still repeatedly hands me my ass, standing there smiling genially in his Hawaiian shirt…
Thanks for posting this. I find this story truly amazing, because I’ve played a few games of chess in my time and I still cannot believe that not only Kramnik, but the announcers could not see that coming. To me it was like a gigantic neon sign screaming “For Christ’s Sake, The Queen Can Mate You! Can’t you SEE?”
Even after reading the explanation it struck me as being an astonishing lapse, a sort of tunnel vision whereby Kramnik was so interested in his own strategy and “computing” it, to use his word, that he never thought to do a basic check of his opponent’s capital pieces. Such a bizarre end to that game.
This is OT, but since we’re all talking about chess programs and such, I heard this is one of the best out there. Not sure if it’s available for purchase yet, I think still in the project stage.
