I read through this thread but must of glossed over the answer I was looking for.
I was playing a computer which had me dominated material wise. I’m talking a complete blow out, however I continued on. Then I randomly threw a pawn forward and the computer captured a piece with his king making it a mate in one situation :eek:
So I won… but what would make the computer activate the self destruct button like that? 
The computer was rated at 1190
Ok it seems I exaggerated the computer’s material advantage but it was nothing to sneeze at 
The computer clearly chose defeat by making this next move is the point I’m trying to illustrate. Here is the position, its white to move (the computer). He captured the pawn with his king resulting in instant death.
It is!
I was thinking of setting up a thread (so people could watch) and having no time limit. You analyse as much as you like, then post whenever you like.
Let me know if you agree and I’ll set the thread up.
Well Chess Titan plays considerably slower on level 10. So I was going to give a game at level 9 - but then I remembered I’d promised a win at level 10. So I played two games.
Usually a ‘merciless defeat’ is where a player has the advantage throughout and never gives his opponent any hope.
Since Kramnik was beating the computer for most of the game, then blundered allowing a draw, then blundered again allowing a mate, I would call the computer ‘lucky’.
The computer was not in control of events until the final move of the game!
There’s been the odd game lasting over 200 moves (usually they’re boring!), but certainly a 60 move game comes along in almost every tournament.
Well 1190 is ‘weak club player’ strength, but you’d still expect any computer to see mate in one!
Did you have any special settings?
(Otherwise the computer is winning easily after Kg1-h1.)
No special settings. I often notice this same computer will attack me so I lose material but allows me to back mate rank even when it clearly can be avoided.
After reading the article Erasmus Darwin linked to (it’s worth a read!), my guess would be that, given two moves, the computer always chooses the one that leaves you a possible attack. During the rest of the game, there were no situations that stood out in such stark relief but, given the disparity between white’s two moves, it looks like sudden suicide, but Marvin has been resigned to losing the whole time.
Have you ever had that feeling, like: what did I sign up for?
:smack:
OK, can we agree on a way to randomize for W/B?
I looked through your games last night and there are several points where I’m still not sure I understand. In the second game (I’m hoping there is a typo in move 8. dxc5 bxc5 rather than d) I can see that you have a commanding position, but I still can’t see how you can call it a win from there. I’m not doubting that it is and as White I would likely resign, but the computer never resigns.
I also played a game against the computer last night and finished it this AM. I had a dominating position when I went to bed, with Black retreating so that he only had one piece out of the back row and only one pawn as far as the fifth.
I did win, but it took me forever to figure out what to do and my first attempt was seriously flawed and not only let him off the hook, but allowed him to centralize his Q and left my Q as the only guard for for my bishops.
By that logic, the computer in ajb867’s example lost mercilessly. 
That adds some perspective!
No worries - I’m a trained chess teacher. 
Why don’t you toss a coin for colours - I trust you.
Well done on spotting the typo! :o It was indeed 8. … bxc5.
As you say, the computer doesn’t resign, but I thought the win was trivial in both cases. (I did give the next few game moves in brackets starting e.g. and in each case I come out way ahead on material.)
Thanks for the opportunity.
OK, I flipped a coin. Call it.
One of the problems I’ve been running into is that I can get an advantage in material or position or tempo, but I have a hard time “converting” that into a win. In the game I played last night/ this morning, I won, but only clumsily, despite having the advantage in position and development.
One of the reasons I started this thread was that I was wondering if programs are dumbed down by simply playing weak openings. At this point, I’ve ruled that out.
But I am reminded of three painful losses. In one, I resigned as W. We switched sides and played the position out to where I resigned as B too.
In another, my opponent blundered in the opening and I took his Q. Five moves later I resigned when he took my Q anyway. He chastised me for giving up the advantage, but I thought I was playing to my advantage.
Using a different chess program, I set up the end position from a “white to move and win” puzzle. I played W and could not beat the computer.
…:smack:
OK, I’ve started the game thread here.
I call ‘Tails’ for colours.