I too am loving these engine clashes more than human games. The quality of moves are higher and to me this represents the cutting edge of what chess is today
@codyho9430
8 жыл бұрын
Putting stockfish against Jonny is like putting Magnus Carlsen agaisnt either a novice or Hikaru Nakamura.
@zaratemn
8 жыл бұрын
Savage!
@ismailabdelirada3729
7 жыл бұрын
Ouch! What a knock against poor Nakamura.
@chessdroids8510
7 жыл бұрын
didn't Naka eventually win a game against Carlsen?
@EGarrett01
8 жыл бұрын
I LOVE when kingscrusher looks at engine vs. engine games. They're so f***ing aggressive. Which shows you that the idea of chess dying via draw as people figure out more of it is just paranoia.
@matttennis
7 жыл бұрын
That's an interesting point. I think they're still are some players out there who will take risks and play for wins and try interesting positions (namely, Topalov), but this does go to show you that not every game has to end in a draw or be played like a draw.
@DanyIsDeadChannel313
7 жыл бұрын
chess is not dying
@JohnSmith-yd2cu
7 жыл бұрын
Computer doesnt take any risks. It just plays the best moves which turn out to be aggressive. Therefore chess is best played aggressively which GMs do most of the time but regular people dont really understand anything.
@woffordwolf2071
7 жыл бұрын
Chess Player right, its already dead.
@unh0lys0da16
7 жыл бұрын
That's why you play the English opening, lot's less theory on it.
@Altair565
10 жыл бұрын
Thanks for covering a TCEC game. This tournament deserves more attention than it gets.
@eichmal1
10 жыл бұрын
Hey hey hey loving the content i think johnny 6 refers to short circuit 80s movie about a freindly weapons grade robot "johnny five is alive " not quite in the same class as the shining but still a cult classic
@alanfalleur6550
9 жыл бұрын
Perhaps Jonny 6 is a reference to "Johnny Five" from the film Short Circuit? In the film, a military robot gains self-awareness and renames himself Johnny Five after a song he likes.
@mikofergie
10 жыл бұрын
'Look Ma! No rooks!' Hahahahaha!!!
@Verdugothewatcher
10 жыл бұрын
Stockfish is a tactical god. Just incredible.
@edwardsolomon1951
7 жыл бұрын
It's fair to say that black was down a rook the whole game since it was trapped. It's a gambit I perform in my own games, where I'll sac a piece (bishop or rook) for two or three pawns so I can push my own pawns down that rank while keeping the corresponding enemy piece trapped and effectively removed from the game. If my opponent does manage to activate the trapped piece and I have yet to get at least one passed pawn I'll resign.
@christophercunningham963
9 жыл бұрын
Look, mom, no rooks! (31:12)
@andrewpeters8357
8 жыл бұрын
Had a good giggle at that too
@SerbAtheist
8 жыл бұрын
At 19:24, why not Nd7+ right away for a free rook? (King can't touch the other knight because of ...Ke7, Nb8, Kd6, Qd7 checkmate)
@HaBBiSiFy
8 жыл бұрын
It's an exchange, not a free rook. After Nb8 black plays Rxb8. White's only move to not lose the second knight is Nc4. Then black can force the exchange of the queens via Qa2. After Qxa2 Nxa2 white has only two pawns for black's knight and a passive position, medium advantage for black. Note that black's king has now become a very strong piece.
@Foxhound3857
9 жыл бұрын
It's funny to see brute force calculation vs brute force calculation. The ridiculous tactical sideshow both sides are able to come up with is entertaining, it's like Monty Python vs Benny Hill on the chessboard.
@JoeTheXC
9 жыл бұрын
Awesome game kingscrusher! These computer games you find are astonishing in showing how computers can sacrifice material like humans to gain the initiative, rather than hold on to material. That poor black rook on the corner though shouldn't have even been part of the computer evaluation considering how inactive it was the whole game.
@DarkAioL1666
8 жыл бұрын
I studied this exact same opening with stockfish to trap my oponents in Blitz and i play it with great success, every move is easy and natural.
@oakenguitar3
10 жыл бұрын
as soon as black played Be6, I was rooting for white the whole game.
@JuddNiemann
8 жыл бұрын
Wow - that was a fun game. That Qa1 move was pretty cool.
@lawbybhargav4986
8 жыл бұрын
how does h1 make a difference? the queen can still take the rook check and follow the same moves as explained before h1
@HaBBiSiFy
8 жыл бұрын
You clearly meant h2-h3. In this position the white's knight, remaining on b5, makes the black's knight check on d3 pointless, as they will just take it.
@Urza26
10 жыл бұрын
I'm pretty much clueless this whole game :D ... But I do know that black king's rook is little more than a spectator.
@electronicsbuc
9 жыл бұрын
The whole point of the game is White having mate threats on Black King left in the center, while Black has a Rook totally out of the game. 1-0
@jernqvist
10 жыл бұрын
What's even more amazing than this game is the fact that Stockfish doesn't need to search that deep to feel that not only does it have compensation for the material it even stands better.
@eyeofhorus1301
6 жыл бұрын
Man I wish we had more games like this. Favorite chess game of all time
@bugsplat2755
9 жыл бұрын
A game only a machine could play.
@jblglw
9 жыл бұрын
22 min crusher misses a knight fork losing exchange.
@RetroChromebookGamer
9 жыл бұрын
how many years has it been, you are still the best on youtube
@llcoolmartine
10 жыл бұрын
Amazing display of the power of the initiative. For 20+moves...!
@1406brla
10 жыл бұрын
This was exactly what I wanted to see right now!
@V8SupersQirreL
9 жыл бұрын
Exactly what was promised! Amazing! Everybody who would have told 10 years ago that a machine could play like that...Kind of art...
@matttennis
8 жыл бұрын
Just a quick question at 17:00...Wouldn't it also work to play Nc4? My thinking here is that it would block off Black's queen, as you discussed, allowing for the rook to threaten the queen. And, if the queen simply took White's rook, then the king could recapture and White would have a solid position with two powerful passed pawns, aligned knights, its Queen and knight bearing down on Black's A pawn, and an out-of-position Black king. Any thoughts?
@chrisfahlman
10 жыл бұрын
Jonny's old logo has a picture from Jonny Quest. So I think that is what it was named after. During the game Jonny evaluation score never had Black winning (at most a score of -0.09 in favour of black). Even when it was playing up a rook, it thought Stockfish was winning. So Jonny didn't any illusions about its terrible position. This game was played in the Second Stage of the TCEC, where the engines are not using opening books. So here we saw some neat play by White a few moves into the Queens gambit accepted. Perhaps, if the engines were using books, we'd never see this type of game. Game link: tcec.chessdom.com/archive.php?se=7&st=2&ga=29
@Demonizer5134
8 жыл бұрын
This game was ridiculous
@jamespfp
7 жыл бұрын
"Routine distractions of the Black Queen, using the Rooks." -- The merciless, unfeeling, materialistic engines seem to consider the differential for pieces "value 5 or better" as being, if not equal, worth going after. It is also weird to note that the two engines seemed content with how the material in pawns echoed the transaction.
@grantgre
7 жыл бұрын
It is curious that you analyize the opening in terms of frequency of moves that are popular when these are engines and presumably are calculating and not using the book.
@EpicUltraKingSmizzy
7 жыл бұрын
The metric is still useful in determining the credibility of a move. If 215 scientists individually concluded that arsenic is fatal when ingested, you'd be pretty smug when you've also found the same result. So when you do a chess move that hundreds of master games also have done, it feels pretty good.
@AlonsoRules
8 жыл бұрын
another queen and knight endgame involving computers
@adamrubinson6875
10 жыл бұрын
"Qa1 getting the Queen on the long diagonal". That's just.. An inhuman way of thinking and made me lol. There are 3 things on that diagonal
@blahdelablah
8 жыл бұрын
@Austin Battalia I agree completely.
@leeponzu
10 жыл бұрын
There was another great game from TCEC just now. Stockfish v. Gull.
@fod1202
8 жыл бұрын
Does anyone know how long they had to find moves?
@albibushi3006
10 жыл бұрын
black did nothing to connect rooks..instead he went for material....by keeping rook on h8 he was practically an entire rook down...you cannot count an inactive piece...it's a null piece..it's as good as a piece taken off board...
@Lightysword
10 жыл бұрын
Fascinating.It may make the Queens Gambit Accepted a bit more popular again. For a human player, I think it wouldn't be too easy to play such a complex position with white.
@Gr8Believer
10 жыл бұрын
Castling is an emotional habit. We feel safer that way. Emotion is an enemy of logic.
@oneputtsteven
9 жыл бұрын
Castle first, phlilosophize later ~ Larry Evans five time US champ and Fischer's second.
@Larkination1
9 жыл бұрын
its not exactly an emotional habit...there are instances where you will be forced to move the king and not being able to castle costs you at least 4 moves to save the king and allow the rook to be active...where as in a castled position you will rarely ever be pinned, and that 1 move opens the door for all kinds of rook activity.
@Gr8Believer
9 жыл бұрын
Larkination1 I agree castling is necessary but my point was that we feel safer after castling.
@Gr8Believer
9 жыл бұрын
***** Lets do this: Register on Chess.com and lets play each other but on one condition we both don't castle. [ sleepless nights]
@Gr8Believer
9 жыл бұрын
ok great. What's your name there
@august0rein
9 жыл бұрын
I find watching these computer games ironic. In people trying to have a more computer like ability to memorize good play and theory the standard popular moves become more and more prevalent, and with the designers of the programs trying to test the capabilities of their engines the computers seem some how allowed to be more creative than human players. This is seen rather clearly with a move like knight to d2 before pawn to a4, its nothing to radical only many human players feel barred from doing it due to its lack of popularity. In my mind taking opening theory too seriously really deprives people of their main advantage over computers, which is the creativity aspect of chess.
@maxpheby7287
8 жыл бұрын
+Austin Battalia The strength of computers is not that they can remember every move ever and choose the best one (Although they do that as well) but that they can compute the best move no matter how complex the position.Most GM level matches are basically use an opening that leaves me an advantage after the midgame exchanges,computers however dont need to simplify the positions where as human players will look to simplify as quickly as possible.
@august0rein
8 жыл бұрын
If it was the case that a computer calculates the best move available to an infinite variable then it would be impossible to still be creating improved computers or there would never be a match in between two computers where the match did not end in a draw. Even in the world of computers there are hardly any "best moves" save in very particular circumstances. Every move a computer makes is not infinitely accurate it simply achieves better advantages than our current human players. Which really is the whole game, attempting to out wit an opponent and create the best advantage for yourself. Memorizing opening theory to an exact point and attempting to simplify for the sake of making the game more predictable is to me taking the soul out of the game which is supposed to test two contestants ability to out wit each other.
@jasonwilliams5158
8 жыл бұрын
+Austin Battalia Apparently it would take a computer with an elo 16,000 to be able to play a perfect game of chess and the scary thing is that the experts who worked this all out have no doubts that this will be possible one day.
@august0rein
8 жыл бұрын
jason williams Thats an interesting thought, i wonder if the perfect game has only one possible opening or if there are many perfect games. Maybe the chess of the future will be like bowling seeing how long someone can keep up 300's rather than see who wins one particular game.
@exotictoad
8 жыл бұрын
one of my new favorite games
@peterbrehmj
9 жыл бұрын
at 19:20 why doesnt white fork the rook and king with the knight to D7. He says it invites Queen to D7... but i think night to D7 might be better than moving pawn to E4 .
@marcusfossa6695
6 жыл бұрын
What makes this game so weird is that the pawn that black's d pawn promoted in the king's gambit when normally that pawn is meant to fall shortly after it captures white's c pawn.
@biernico
10 жыл бұрын
was black playing rook up, didn't felt that extra piece at all, seemed to me that black was playing material down.
@tuguegarao2pcas736
8 жыл бұрын
That is the very advantage of being born with unusual chess IQ. You will become a champion or a grandmaster at a early age. Chess, at championship level, are for those who are born prodigy. They can be proud of their being prodigy but not as a chess champion. Why? because that is where they really are going to be because of their inborn chess IQ. But if an ordinary mortal with just a good IQ in chess can become a champion that is something to be proud.
@likebox2
8 жыл бұрын
That is the disadvantage of never putting in the work of getting good at something. You come to believe that there is such a thing as a "chess IQ" you are born with.
@dekippiesip
8 жыл бұрын
Well if you can draw the world champion at the age of 13 you surely have something like a 'chess IQ' you are born with. You can never have practiced that much age 13 compared to a senior player. I think many of these chess prodigy's are savants with photographic memory. Savants are known for sickening ability's, some can multiply large numbers with almost no effort at all, remember pi to thousands of digits, etc. Against someone with these ability's you are chanceless, even with good strategic insight in the game and a lot of practice.
@likebox2
8 жыл бұрын
dekippiesip You don't understand the method of learning, it is like reprogramming your brain. It is very medidative and difficult, and has nothing to do with the farce that is called "chess lessons" in the modern world. It's the difference between being born in China and hearing fluent Chinese and "learning" the language in classes where you repeat the sounds corresponding to character after character. The chance of someone learning Chinese with this type of education is negliglble, if it does happen on occasion, it is by pure chance, and has nothing to do with either genes or the lessons. Anyone who does learn something despite the lack of education (there is no real chess education in today's world) is called a "prodigy". But like learning Chinese, learning Chess is relatively straightforward, if you ignore the nonsense people teach. The key is simply calculating lines. The "photographic memory" is nonsense, the logic of the positions doesn't require much memory, the plans are sensible once you understand lines and coordination. The only part of Chess education which teaches this are the puzzles, which are pretty much the only valuable thing. They are also the thing chess coaches hate to teach, because it is much easier to pontificate about "weaking the kingside" than talk about specific lines. When grandmasters talk (or chess engines, for that matter), they talk in specific lines. The person who makes the method of learning most transparent, I think, is Nakamura. He plays a million games at all levels, very fast, and can play at the highest level. Although he is not as strong as Carlsen (yet? He is constantly improving), I prefer his demystification approach to the nonsense that people throw around about "magic" and "innate talent". That's the kind of bullshit nonsense people support for political reasons, instead of appreciating the incredible work it takes to play like that. Botvinnik was similar, he didn't claim any special talent, but was world champion forever. Admission: I am a lousy chess player, I only play against my computer using "Fairymax" (a relatively weak engine, but one that can play Capablanca Chess variants, which I prefer much to regular chess, because it has a more tactical flavor). I beat it only at most 10% of the time, despite it's weakness (although I think I do better at Capablanca chess, because engines are weaker at the game due to the higher branching factor). I have recently gotten an inkling of how chess education works from watching my daughter get it. It is a farce. The way grandmaster kids learn today is by ignoring their coaches and playing many games online, and using engines to discover lines and weaknesses in their own games, which they then analyze themselves using engines. Those that aren't born in China think that speaking Chinese is a genetic trait. Actually, no they don't, but only because they have experience acquiring fluency in another language. If they didn't they would assume it is genetic. It's like learning to read, or to do mathematics at a decent level, there is no genetic component to chess mastery, which explains why it doesn't run in families. The consideration of chess positions as unitary whole is the thing that "can't be taught" (except it can, of course, it can be taught, it just ISN'T, because that would require the teacher to be able to explain the position). The way to learn it is to see an engine find potential lines in each position, so you know what is a mating attack, what is winning material, and what is a defensible position. It requires a ton of calculation, and that calculation is done mostly unconsciously in the highly trained master, much like decoding Chinese from native speaker sounds, or reading a high level mathematics paper. Honestly, from my experience as a lousy chess player, ordinary chess looks easier than either, even at the highest level, except for masterpieces by people like Nezhmedtinov or Tal, where you see that they sometimes understand something that engines don't, or engine vs. engine games, where you see crazy balanced positions. I think Capablanca chess is a better game, because it is somewhat more infinite.
@oneputtsteven
10 жыл бұрын
At 25:34 is 1) Nc6 possible? if QXN then 2) d8/Q+, RXQ and 3)QXR+,Kf7 4) Rd1
@cellardoor70
9 жыл бұрын
Nc6 was the first move I looked at. Problem is, there's just Rxd8 at the end of your line. After Kf7 the Q is en prise and there are no checks. After say Qe5 Ne2+ Kh1 Re8 Black consolidates.
@dannygjk
9 жыл бұрын
11.Nb1 is surprising because it undevelops a piece, my engine prefers 11.Nc4
@pasanpawan1834
9 жыл бұрын
Jonny 6 reminds me of someone else
@ArmedSnowman
9 жыл бұрын
Pasan Pawan Johnny "No Castle" Castle ?
@DrVavyl
10 жыл бұрын
I wonder what Capablanca would have said/thought if he had watched this game! Btw one lesson from this game: catch these pawns before it's too late!
@EliasAxelPettersson
8 жыл бұрын
Thanks Kingcrusher for your continued success as a player and commentator. Of course, I always have to acclimate to the British "th", but it's worth it! (My British friends always complain when Americans say "water" with a "d" sound!). I don't have a chess engine, so I was hoping to get your feedback on the idea of Black playing a5 after Ba3, intending Nb4 if White pushes e4. If White exchanges B for N, then Black has a protected passed pawn on c3 and preserves the dark-squared bishop. Any thoughts?
@EliasAxelPettersson
8 жыл бұрын
+Elias-Axel Pettersson Also, after Nc4, cutting off the queen, I would look at something like 1...Rxc4 2. bxc4 Qxc4 3. Qd7 Qc7 4. Qxc7 Nxc7 5. Rc1 Nbd5 6. e4 winning. So it seems like a6 is misplaced, because black would win if he could play Nba6 followed by g6 or even Ke7. Therefore, why isn't a6 a mistake? c1=Q should give the same setup. I don't see the forced win, even after Qb7 or Qd7, both of which are met by Ne7, protecting the c8 rook and the f7-square (assuming black take a move to protect his queen after the obligatory Nc4). After 1. Qb7 Ne7 2. Qxb4, Black is still up an exchange for the pawn I believe. Anyhow, pretty tricky and difficult to calculate.
@blAcKk1nGb1r
9 жыл бұрын
At 14:15 can't black play Ne7 blocking the black queen from attacking f7 and defending the rook on c8?
@shirshakbt
9 жыл бұрын
blAcKk1nGb1r Same question here
@williamjefferson8280
9 жыл бұрын
blAcKk1nGb1r Ne7 is followed by Nd6.
@EpicUltraKingSmizzy
7 жыл бұрын
Qd6 pins it and attacks the other knight.
@braddepp8897
8 жыл бұрын
I want to see more Jonny games!
@fnshouse632
10 жыл бұрын
Fascinating piece
@vulpushx6675
7 жыл бұрын
Why you always say "a rook down" ... white was never a rook down but always 2-3 pawns up ... ofc because the black rook on h8 was never in the game
@Guitareben
10 жыл бұрын
This one was/is amazing.
@sfhdiosha
8 жыл бұрын
19:19 Why white didn't play fork Nd7+ It seems pretty dangerous when black rook goes down
@Cinema4DChannel
9 жыл бұрын
Proud to say I saw the Kh2 plan @ 27:00
@elvis3571
9 жыл бұрын
Cinema4DChannel good for you. Kh2 was predicted at the time of h3 move; white engine, most probably, has forecalculated (what does it mean :) ) the possibility and the danger of the Knight at f4 (at 22:38). my two cents of course.
@NoelAndres17
8 жыл бұрын
At 17:14, why is h3 a good move?! The tactic explained before: Queen takes rook F1 is still in play. So white's move doesn't solve this problem at all. EDIT: My bad, never mind. The white knight is protecting the c3 square.
@martinpereiravilla652
9 жыл бұрын
muy interesante estas partidas entre superordenadores pero entre las variantes y el inglés por demás meloso de este tipo te vuelven loco.!!!
@whipnotized5615
9 жыл бұрын
Your right...outta this world !
@josephcoleman57
7 жыл бұрын
19:20 whats wrong with Kn -d7 forking rook and king?
@Ilovemommy389
7 жыл бұрын
Why didn't the white knight block black by moving to C4?
@gabadiel
10 жыл бұрын
whats wrong with Nc6 at 26:45
@DelacroixBoy
7 жыл бұрын
Jonny 6 is clearly a reference to Jonny 5 in Short Circuit
@maxpheby7287
8 жыл бұрын
Wow i ran this game through my admittedly much weaker version of stock-fish and it couldn't understand who was even better until every late on, crazy game.
@brosephjames
8 жыл бұрын
If you have a much shittier computer your home stockfish will be weaker than the fast computer stockfish they use...unless you let it run a lot longer.
@dannygjk
9 жыл бұрын
What about 6.b3 instead of 6.a4?
@alexanderreusens7633
7 жыл бұрын
At 19:52, why didn't white move knight E5 to D7, forking Rook and King? Black would have to sacrifice a lot of pieces to stay in the game
@horstnull8445
7 жыл бұрын
This would allow black to activate its rook on h8 by moving Ke7, for the price of an exchange. (Note how white's advantage largely results from the rook's complete inactivity for the whole game!) After 26.e4 Ne7, the knight fork works because the king would have nowhere to go but g8 (19:57).
@alexanderreusens7633
7 жыл бұрын
Right, thnx
@Attlanttizz
10 жыл бұрын
Black may have been a rook up, but one of the rooks was virtually out of play. And then the extra pawns mean a lot of advantage I would say.
@Ulven89
10 жыл бұрын
Yes, it was kept out of the game entirely, but only because stockfish managed to keep the initiative throughout the whole game. One move that would win a pawn (or even a knight if badly timed) rather than keeping the initiative would've let Jonny get that rook out and win the game very easily. It's extremely difficult for a human player to stop use of an entire rook for that many moves by keeping the initiative while regaining some sacrificed material - which is also required. Most of the time in high level chess you lose the initiative when you regain material.
@zamplify
10 жыл бұрын
The engines have no book but decide to sacrifice material on move 2?
@neonlight1203
8 жыл бұрын
Why didn't black brought it's queen back to C5 or D4 when white too it's rook? Instead, it moved the king to E7.
@7781kathy
9 жыл бұрын
16:03 Why not ...Qxf1+? He's gonna be a rook up after ...Qxf1+ Kxf1 Rc1+ Ke2 Nc3+ Kd2 Rc2+ Ke1 Nxa4, obviously. EDIT: nvm
Because Nf7 willbe lost, and Stockfish valued it more than blacks Rb8, maybe!
@vuhatiy1985
9 жыл бұрын
Nd7-Kf7, loosing knight for white, if Nd7takes rook on B1,then rook on g1 takes on knight on B1: so white looses two attacking peaces, and black just gets its passive rook back in game. I hope i put my thoughts correctly
@scialomy
9 жыл бұрын
Viktor Zaiets Nd7-Kf7 then Nf6-Kf6
@scialomy
9 жыл бұрын
Viktor Zaiets Never mind. I get it now.
@michaelmele3954
7 жыл бұрын
After Rb8, why not Nd7+?
@JishnuChatterjee
4 жыл бұрын
really really amazing!
@brabhamfreaman166
7 жыл бұрын
Can we consider computer blindfold game?
@jeffb3741
7 жыл бұрын
Computers don't have eyes
@zyo2502
7 жыл бұрын
20:00 why doesn´t the knight fork the king and rock by going to d7?
@batistalift
7 жыл бұрын
Because it's black's turn, not white's. LOL
@sebastianerquiaga8494
9 жыл бұрын
I'm not seeing the benefits to the Queen moving in minute kzitem.info/news/bejne/06KM26SXj5SrhaA . Would it not have been better if instead of Qa5 it played Qa7? I really think this would of been the best move, if not, may someone please explain?
@sebaba001
7 жыл бұрын
I have troules followings when an actual play was made or you're just making an example or showing other possible moves..
@briangerra5236
8 жыл бұрын
30:33 Knight D6?
@vktesla
7 жыл бұрын
That was a great game.
@nikstevlic3169
8 жыл бұрын
Great game
@Gr8Believer
10 жыл бұрын
28:35 Ke7 ?
@charlesleninja
9 жыл бұрын
at 23:45 why not Nd7 for white winning the rook?
@lukit.4662
8 жыл бұрын
+charlesleninja After Nd7 chess, Kxf7, queen takes queen, and if knight takes rook, rook takes knight.
@ElectronBombardment
7 жыл бұрын
23:50 why no royal fork?
@batistalift
7 жыл бұрын
After white knight takes black queen, black can play Ra8 - white queen has no room to escape and is lost
@volodyanarchist
7 жыл бұрын
You know what, i hate this "if it looks bad, we resign" with computer engines. Let them finish! It's like if you were reading a mistery novel and it ends with "Now it should be obvious who did it, hope that you see it as well"
@bernardberari4250
8 жыл бұрын
19:43 Why not Nd7 and gets a rook?
@user-hh2is9kg9j
8 жыл бұрын
+Bernard Berari then it would lose 2 nights after ke7
@ritwikbilgi4168
9 жыл бұрын
What's that noise in the background.
@AimHigherWindowCleaning
8 жыл бұрын
its a ref to jonny 5 ....is alive i think
@milchkanne21
7 жыл бұрын
amazing!
@AndrewBackhouse1
9 жыл бұрын
Cool video
@adamrubinson6875
10 жыл бұрын
Computer chess is crazy
@zaheera6899
7 жыл бұрын
Dude this is engines game and you seem to forget that time to time. Only humans think that moving queen somewhere would give long diagonal advantage in future. Engine would have calculated thst and hence not move. It is up to you. To figure out why engine played a nifty move.
@dannygjk
9 жыл бұрын
My engine prefers 8...Qc7 to 8...c3 It thinks 8...c3 gives white a clear advantage.
@Tonyplat98
9 жыл бұрын
+Dan Kelly your engine isn't rated 3000 either ;)
@Joshuaxiong2
7 жыл бұрын
Stockfish 8 is best now.
@juanmanuelcortina9060
7 жыл бұрын
Somos mucho los jugadores de ajedrez que hablamos español , por favor pongalo es este idioma...gracias
@nachtraumom
8 жыл бұрын
In my oppinion this is not a beautiful game at all. This is just brute force calculation, and the engine that is faster, and thus calculates more, wins. No interesting positional ideas, no strategic plans, just calculate x millions of positions per second.
@herzwatithink9289
10 жыл бұрын
I thought Jonny was supposed to be the psychopath? Rf2 was veritably certifiable.
@bdgalekhinejoe7905
10 жыл бұрын
Unreal tactics,proves that the pieces you got in play are far more important ,than the opponents spectators. Love Rf2!! Humans are now patzers compared to computers,computers have moved chess to a different level now.
Пікірлер: 179