Re: 1st Season Terminator TSCC - Queen's Gambit - 5 star poll - SPOILERS AHOY !

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:52:45 -0700, William George Ferguson
<wmgfrgsn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:37:09 -0500, Barry Margolin <barmar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <v0l3r3l0vip2utvdpdn9klmh04gi7qmfgp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:10:06 -0600, James Squire
<JamesSquire@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >George Avalos wrote:
>>> >> "Queen's Gambit"
>>> >> 2-11-08 T:TSCC
>>> >> 
>>> >> 5 stars (Slav)
>>> >> 
>>> >> 0-1 stars (Marshall)
>>> >> 
>>> >> -George 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >I give it 4 out of 5.
>>> >
>>> >I like this show so far, but a tiny nit to pick: "Zugswang" doesn't
mean 
>>> >anything like what John Connor said it meant.  If writers are going
to 
>>> >use sophisticated terminology, they should do their homework and use
it 
>>> >correctly, especially since the term is not unique to chess.
>>> >
>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang
>>> 
>>> That was the Only thing that bothered you about the chess stuff? 
Maybe I'm
>>> old fay****oned, but since when do even competent human competitors
have to
>>> carry the game all the way to checkmate (and a computer program that
can't
>>> see inevitable mate at least two moves away isn't competitive with top
>>> human players).  And a computer program falling for a queen sacrifice
that
>>> leads to mate in two?  Not overlooking immediate stuff is what
computer
>>> programs do best.
>>
>>The commentators also didn't see the mate coming, did they?  I'm not an 
>>avid chess player, but aren't there lots of games where the winner 
>>declares checkmate, rather than the loser seeing it coming and
conceding.
>
>At serious tournament (Master or Grandmaster) level play, no, none (or
>close enough to make no never mind).  Pretty much every won game at the
>Grandmaster level (which the chess programs are touted as being) ends
with
>a resignation, not a checkmate (chessplayers that good can see when they
>can't avoid losing).
>
>It is possible for even the best human chessplayer to make a mental error
>and fall into a simple trap (as Spassky did against Fischer in Rekjavek),
>but the response when they (almost immediately afterward) realize what
>they've done is to resign (as Spassky did in that game).
>
>>I'm not competent enough at the game to comment on whether the queen 
>>sacrifice was realistic, though.
>
>There are Queen sacrifices (there are potential sacrifices for every
piece,
>except the King), but competent players tend to really examine the teeth
on
>that gift horse.  Proffering a Queen sacrifice that is accepted, and then
>checkmating in two moves, is completely unbeliavable at that level.

So...maybe that isn't what happened.  Remember this is the buildup to
the computer being stolen and the inventor murdered.  Perhaps the
murderer's plan requires the computer to lose the match, so he just
disconnected it and put in a losing move.