Playing to the End

[Fernando]

A propos of a thread where Monsieur Plastique looks for reasons to end a game against a computer when the human side is winning, I would say this: beyond the capabilities of a sheer patzer, any and every player is capable to sustain a game until at least the middle game and even get some edge there, BUT in that level of chess -say, from 1500 Elo or so and above- chess is what happens in the end. It is there where the game define itself. It is there where you must win the won game. The temptation after a hard game to say "I really won this, let call it a day" is great but is deceptive. The final reason to play computers, besides getting fun, is to sharpen skills there where those skills are most needed, in endings. I belive everybody here is competent in middle game and tactics, though we can fall in mistakes from time to time. So endings are the thong. And then you must give mate or get a position where mate is 100% sure. Even so, beware, because me and surely some of you more than once has drawed a totally won game because you stalemated the rival king.
So...

Play to the end regards
Fern

[SirDave]

I have some fairly strong feelings about this subject. Playing against an electronic machine or a software program is different than playing a human. Of course, that's obvious on one level, but when it comes down to it, the difference is profound. The electronic entity sees everything, doesn't forget, doesn't get tired and is prepared to play forever if necessary. On the other hand, if one is playing another human then, forgetting for the moment the difference in skill and experience, one is battling someone that has many of the same human limitations.

When I play a dedicated board, my main aim/challenge is to first survive reasonably intact throught the opening and then 'outsmart' the board in the middle game (and of course, the endgame if necessary). At the point where the endgame is beginning, if I am ahead to the extent that, given the piece count and position, any reasonable human player would have resigned, then I may play for another hour or so to assure myself that I really do have the major advantage, but I am not going to play on for hours to prove something that is different from the primary purpose that I play chess these days.

Reason being that now, IMO, it is now not a level playing field: The machine doesn't get tired. The machine doesn't lose concentration. Assuming again that I have the major advantage,the battle is no longer so much about chess tactics/positions, but more about human vs. machine stamina. My entire interest in chess is about the former, not the latter.

Note that if, on the other hand, as the endgame is starting, I do not have a substantial advantage, I will feel obligated to play to the bitter end.

[Fernando]

I have some fairly strong feelings about this subject. Playing against an electronic machine or a software program is different than playing a human. Of course, that's obvious on one level, but when it comes down to it, the difference is profound. The electronic entity sees everything, doesn't forget, doesn't get tired and is prepared to play forever if necessary. On the other hand, if one is playing another human then, forgetting for the moment the difference in skill and experience, one is battling someone that has many of the same human limitations.

When I play a dedicated board, my main aim/challenge is to first survive reasonably intact throught the opening and then 'outsmart' the board in the middle game (and of course, the endgame if necessary). At the point where the endgame is beginning, if I am ahead to the extent that, given the piece count and position, any reasonable human player would have resigned, then I may play for another hour or so to assure myself that I really do have the major advantage, but I am not going to play on for hours to prove something that is different from the primary purpose that I play chess these days.

Reason being that now, IMO, it is now not a level playing field: The machine doesn't get tired. The machine doesn't lose concentration. Assuming again that I have the major advantage,the battle is no longer so much about chess tactics/positions, but more about human vs. machine stamina. My entire interest in chess is about the former, not the latter.

Note that if, on the other hand, as the endgame is starting, I do not have a substantial advantage, I will feel obligated to play to the bitter end.

Yours, sir David, is a sustainable opinion and position. Maybe it just happens I have a somewhat masochistic personality.
In any case, as you, I look for fun.

Fern

[Larry]

BUT in that level of chess -say, from 1500 Elo or so and above- chess is what happens in the end. It is there where the game define itself. It is there where you must win the won game.

But I'm sure we have all noticed that the ending is where the computers
don't seem to be programmed properly. When us humans see that
our game is not going very good, we know that our best chance is a
draw, and we change our playing style. We try to exchange pawns and
leave as many pieces on the board as possible. With even the stronger
dedicated machines, for some reason they still try to win when they are
losing. It's almost comical they way they accept piece exchanges which
lead to an even more obvious win for the human. To me this can only
reflect on the chess knowledge of the programmer, who could have added
easily another 100elo with some simple parameter changes as the
endgame approaches. It's for this reason that I keep the game going
when my win is certain... the entertainment value.
L

[Fernando]

BUT in that level of chess -say, from 1500 Elo or so and above- chess is what happens in the end. It is there where the game define itself. It is there where you must win the won game.

But I'm sure we have all noticed that the ending is where the computers
don't seem to be programmed properly. When us humans see that
our game is not going very good, we know that our best chance is a
draw, and we change our playing style. We try to exchange pawns and
leave as many pieces on the board as possible. With even the stronger
dedicated machines, for some reason they still try to win when they are
losing. It's almost comical they way they accept piece exchanges which
lead to an even more obvious win for the human. To me this can only
reflect on the chess knowledge of the programmer, who could have added
easily another 100elo with some simple parameter changes as the
endgame approaches. It's for this reason that I keep the game going
when my win is certain... the entertainment value.
L

Well, in my case my ending proficiency is so low that in that part pf the game is usually where comps win me.

King opposition what is that regards
Fern