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

William George Ferguson 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.

Was it in two moves?  I think this is one of those things where the usual
TV 
bit of "not show every last second of something" kicks in.