Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:02:43 05/29/01
From diep mailing list here a message. Some of you might be interested.
-------------
Hello dear Friends,
Diep sailed regrettably a bit as expected last weeks.
Very high scores with white. In I-CSVN diep scored 5 out of 5
with white, in the blitz last weekend DIEP scored 2.5 out of 3
with white. Regrettably only 2.5 out of 5 with black.
To start with the last weekends rapid (level 45 minutes all game 10 seconds
incremental):
round 1 : ShrikeX vs. diep 0-1
Diep played najdorf. Poisened pawn to be exact. Thanks to Marc L
Bernstein and Erwin l'Ami i had the courage now to let diep play
this opening! Shrike allowed diep to capture on b2. Then Shrike
nullmoved a bit after which i was of course a pawn up. Diep mishandled
exchanging to the endgame a bit and had some problems to win a rook
endgame with 2 pawns up. After reaching the rook endgame my score
dropped and dropped. Diep gave away a pawn quite quickly and i think
the rook endgame was drawable with white, but lucky for DIEP it got
some help from Shrike. Nice to debug why diep went into the rook
endgame and/or why it didn't win it!
round 2 : diep - Amateur 1-0
With some transpositions of move we got into ben-oni. Diep has a
near to 100% score there against any engine if the level is not too
fast. This was the most chanceless game of the whole tournament
despite that it took 51 moves to win!
What happens is always the same. Diep goes for the majority. Score
drops a bit and at that point the opponentmakes mistakes after mistake
after which diep gets the e4 pawn to e5. A passer gets on the board
and the passer nearly promotes. When black is stopping the passer then
DIEP collects the rest of the board and has a material advantage which
easily wins the game!
round 3 : Ferret - diep 1-0
Diep played Najdorf and got itself a splendid position despite that
the number of variations in my tournament book is not so big.
However bad luck struck for diep this time. Something went wrong
with king safety and diep walked its king into the center. Now despite
that Ferret kept on playing nullmoves and my score went high. So
i assume somewhere there a penalty must have had a plus instead of
a minus. Perhaps i'll figure it out tonight. Anyway. Playing with a rook
less lost quick for DIEP though. Complete crush after playing with that
rook less. Great debug info though!
round 4 : Diep - Postmodernist 1-0
Last so many tournaments i get games where even from lost positions
i manage to win for just one positional pattern which is in diep and
not the opponent. This game was such a game. The game started bad for me
with a dutch opening setup (diep white).
First of all i made an operator mistake. Andrew Williams allowed me
to take back. Still need to thank him for that, because with xboard
which he was running taking back is nearly impossible without adjourning
the game a few times in between.
This game initially appeared to get a big disappointment for me. Diep
was quick out of book, long before it had castled or anything like it.
There must be more as a few things wrong with the king safety of diep,
as again it didn't castle but played h4 in a dutch setup. Black had
its queen on e7 so castling short would allow Qxh4 losing a pawn for DIEP.
Secondly long castling was impossible because DIEP had managed to get
a stupid doubled pawn on c3,c4 versus PostModernist backward d6 pawn.
I bet that was the reason why diep allowed itself to get strategically
lost. Just for some pressure on d6. Just one weakness doesn't lose
the game, but strategical disadvantage does!
So diep was bigtime lost there, one positive thing was however that
DIEP had the bishop pair which if the position would get opened would
get real strong.
For some unknown reasons to me PM opened the position in such a way
that diep could sacrafice an exchange to get its bishops active and
take black king into a pin. Amazingly this WON the game for me after
probably from both sides some shuffle moves.
round 5 : gambitmaster - diep 1/2-1/2
Apologies i forgot which program gambitmaster is, but i can't remember!
All which is in my email box is this game. It's a game to forget. The
game had big similarities with zillions of games from the years
1996 - 1997 which i played. Diep completely outplayed its opponent
in a quiet nimzo indian setup from white. White got itself a passer,
as well as diep. The white passer was weak, diep's passers weren't.
This game was dominated by shallow searches of DIEP. Probably too many
passed pawn extensions triggered stupid lines which weren't relevant.
Searching 8 ply is really too little. Several times diep saw an incredible
draw shot for its opponent.
1. d4 (0:01) Nf6 (0:08)
2. c4 (0:01) e6 (0:07)
3. Nc3 (0:01) Bb4 (0:06)
4. Nf3 (0:01) b6 (1:01)
5. Bg5 (0:00) Bb7 (1:05)
6. e3 (0:00) h6 (2:51)
7. Bh4 (0:00) c5 (3:48)
8. Bd3 (0:00) cxd4 (4:09)
9. exd4 (0:01) O-O (4:11)
10. O-O (1:13) Be7 (0:08)
11. Qe2 (1:52) Nc6 (0:51)
12. Rfd1 (3:04) Re8 (3:17)
13. Nb5 (0:56) d6 (2:38)
14. c5 (1:59) bxc5 (0:54)
15. dxc5 (0:51) d5 (0:04)
16. Rdc1 (1:09) Nb4 (1:08)
17. Nbd4 (0:01) Nxd3 (1:30)
18. Qxd3 (0:01) a5 (1:30)
19. Ne5 (0:01) Qc7 (0:50)
20. c6 (0:01) Ba6 (0:58)
21. Qe3 (1:31) Ng4 (0:10)
Despite a small search depth directly after playing Ng4 i directly
had a fail low from +1.xx to draw score if white would play
Nxh6 here.
Amazingly white missed this chance, probably because it thought white
was better here, as gambitmaster had a +0.34 score. Not a very
impressive evaluation therefore. Black is simplistically won here,
so if you get a draw chance, grab it!
Anyway, as you can see i had lost quite some time in the game
kibitzing and also had had some phone calls in the meantime.
Hand operating really is stupid in these events. I was kind of forced
to do it, but it really isn't what i'm going to do next time!
All my games i several times missed either the opponent moving or diep
moving. Despite that i have great sounds, they are not yet working in my
GUI :)
Also in the evening i couldn't turn on sound because i'm just 4 feet away
from the bedroom of my neighbours. Only a stone wall is between me
and my neighbours bedroom!
Anyway, i got 8 ply search depths here. Diep completely blew its won
position because of that. We got into an endgame where diep wasn't very
good, but enough to draw i assumed. I was kind of right. Gambitmaster
completely blew it, but was lucky to discover that 3 versus 2 in a rook
endgame is hard to lose with the 2 pawns. So from a bad endgame diep had
won a full pawn somehow but wasn't able to win the rook endgame as expected.
I've had games like that in 1996 and 1997 already. Hard to blame DIEP
doing something wrong. It just got lousy search depths. I can at most
work a bit harder to limit all the stupid extensions a bit at blitz
levels.
I find any shot, but getting 8 ply simply isn't enough! I already figured
that out in 1997 in the world championship very bitterly, and only
can write that again here as being the major problem in this game.
The same problem also dominated the next game:
round 6 : diep vs. pharaon 1/2-1/2
Diep played white in gruenfeld. Note i so far only had won this in testgames,
though gruenfeld simply doesn't get played by commercial programs as it
usually loses for them. I'm pretty amazed that Franck Zibi allows Pharaon
to play this opening. Probably BECAUSE i haven't auto232 played a game or
10000 yet, he had a bit of luck here. Diep played a quiet gruenfeld line
where black remained in book long after i was out of book. Here diep made
2 strategical mistakes after which black was completely won.
then i think from both sides a small search depth dominated the game.
Black simply did NOT want to open the position with c7-c5 which would
have easily won for it, also exchanging queens would have won for black.
Neither of the both things happened. Whole game i was expecting black to
break the position, get into the position and win easily. Usually in
computerchess if it doesn't happen at move 30 then it happens at move 50.
When time got less for both sides, then Zchess allowed diep to setup
a great center, after which the wing play for zchess no longer won.
For some reason DIEP exchanged queens which still is a mystery for me,
and when thinking in the time of the opponent i got big fail lows. The
reason for this was obvious. Where passive programs like shredder have
the habit to allow the opponent to make mistakes, the activity play of
diep FORCES the opponent to make strong moves.
This led me into a lost endgame, which diep drew by superb tactics and
endgame evaluation.
round 7 : Patzer - diep 1-0
Now patzer i can describe as a program written by a very nice person,
but the program is about the most antipositional which exists on earth.
Patzer is one of those programs that LIKES to close positions and likes
to put everything on the wrong color and play on the opposite wing as
where its king is.
If patzer castles short then it attacks at the queen side, if it castles
long it attacks at the king side. You can blindfolded write that down,
whether it's good or not, it simply is doing it.
Also a passer in patzer at 7th rank is worth +3.0 pawns, with very few
exceptions.
Now that's about all knowledge that's in patzer.
Apart from this very bad evaluation it is tactical very strong and searching
in a very correct way. Roland definitely has made a program which searches
very correctly.
Amazingly the children moves from programs like Patzer also get diep into
confusion always. Usually diep blunders with patzer in a positional unsound
way.
That happened here also. In a completely closed position of course the chance
to win for patzer is bigger as in an open position. All (half) open positions
i ever had against patzer, there diep won very easily from patzer.
I don't need to mention that i probably was completely outsearched every
move, but that doesn't matter. The whole thing here was that diep got itself
a better endgame, BUT CLOSED. Diep managed to get a good bishop versus patzer
a very bad one.
How i then lose such an endgame is a complete mystery to me. Diep allowed
patzer to get too much play on the queen side for sure, but there were some
factors in the position which i also thought would easily win for me!
diep was up +1.7 at times, patzer was up +1.3 to +2.0 at the same time.
So that's more or less 3 pawns difference in scoring.
Now i completely agreed with diep every time, but there was one small factor
of luck which patzer had, which is always happening in computerchess. And
that is that all knights were exchanged.
Only a good vs bad bishop was on the board and 2 rooks each. Also both
had a passer and obviously diep overevaluated its own passer and patzer
also its own.
Then some stupid pawn level which i was expecting all the time, after
a move or 15 finally was seen by patzer and i lost the game!
A big blow in my face, though i need to admit that knowledge in closed
positions simply works different as in open positions, so getting always
a closed position with a very antipositional program is a very smart
thing to do. It again won against diep here!
I'm pretty sure at a bit slower level DIEP would have WON this
game chanceless as it would not have given patzer its passer!
Because diep could have EASILY prevented patzer from getting its passer!
The passer of patzer was completely hung in my evaluation probably, but
by tactical means could be defendend. Big luck for patzer there, because
i've had plenty of games against patzer where diep COULD easily win the
+3.0 passer and win chanceless.
Patzer is the kind of program that is always dangerous because it gives
such a HUGE scores for one factor, just like tiger does in some cases.
From both sides very unimpressive play however. Dominated by weak moves
of patzer, answerred by weak moves of diep.
Thereby patzer had the luck to get quickly into an endgame against DIEP.
In a middlegame it would have been CHANCELESS again, with induction to
knowledge and because of having a bunch of pawns on the wrong color...
Nevertheless i have great debug info again from this game to improve
diep's endgame.
round 8 : crafty - diep 0-1
For some easy reason i had again black here. The higher your ranking,
the bigger the chance you have more white as black. In this case crafty
was higher placed as diep, so i had black.
Now this is very bad because getting 5 games black and only 3 games white
with an engine that wins every non-dead lost white game is not a good thing!
This is why all tournaments have an odd number of rounds, to prevent such
big differences in white & black. TWO games more with black.
Note that the pairing every round took 40 minutes or so. The dudes
paired by hand. Big losers on ICC. Note that at the homepage it said:
"pairings made by program".
Anyway easier is to get a better ranking next time because that means
5 white games instead of 3 white games. I feel we're not getting less
or more rounds next time with this cct tournament...
This pairing was extra bad, because if there was a program which deserved
a bit more points this tournament then it was crafty!
But to get to the game. Same line as against ferret up to 12th move
of black. I was pretty amazed
actually. Any automatic generated book would have played in poisened pawn
the Qd2 move allowing me to get a REAL poisened pawn by taking on b2.
However crafty played Nb3. I DEFINITELY like to know why, because a
posting of Bob:
Posted by Robert Hyatt (Profile) on May 28, 2001 at 00:46:07:
"
[snip]
>
>It shouldn't be the case that someone signs a contract with
>ChessBase and then
>sighs with relief because they know they're going to gain
>an extra couple of
>points at the next tournament, because they can use
>opening book technology
>shared by all of the Chessbase products.
>
>bruce
I won't disagree. But it is already happening. If I ever play
in what I consider an important event, it will be one of my
goals to take some sort of evasive action, book-wise.
Or take my main goal: to make hand-tuned books
obsolete. I believe that is possible over time.
I'm going to try to do it."
Oh well obviously crafty isn't playing with a non-hand tuned thing here,
because any automatic generated book will see that after
e4 c5 nf3 d6 d4 cd nd4 nf6 nc3 a6 bg5 e6 f4 qb6
a) 8.Nb3 has a bad score for white
b) 8.Qd2 is played way more times and has a better score for
white.
But main factor is that Qd2 is at least 10 times more played as Nb3,
which will render any thought of playing Nb3 useless!
Anyway my surprise became even BIGGER, when the exact same line as
against ferret came onto the board. Only at move 13 a different move
was selected, probably even better as the book move played by ferret.
If that's non-hand tuned then i'll eat my hat!
Anyway, DIEP frightened its programmer here by quickly castling, but after
a few nullmoves of crafty, things were very clear in favour for diep then.
I need to note that in past diep was very bad with opposite castling, but
that this has improved dramatically last year when i fixed a bunch of
old king safety patterns after a disastreous game Diep-Patzer in DCCC2000.
So the endresult was 5 out of 8 score.
2.5 out of 3 with white
2.5 out of 5 with black
In short i couldn't complain too much about book except for against Pharaon.
Of course there were some reasons too to complain about the opening against
PostModernist, but those complaints are basically showing the strategical
lack of DIEP (and engines in general).
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
It's very obvious nowadays that engines have become stronger and stronger
because of better testing and simply more time that has been put into the
engines as one could do in the past. I do not find it surprising that some
so called 'amateurs' score very well against commercial engines nowadays.
To examine the advantages which commercial engines had in the past
versus nowadays:
1) SEARCH DEPTH ADVANTAGE
Commercial engines were faster a few years ago because they were
optimal programmed in assembly, so they searched deeper or were
tactical stronger usual as amateurs. A good example is the dominating
genius engine which got even at a slow Pentium 200 already 200000
nodes a second. Until a ply or 10 tactics completely dominate in the
middlegame.
Nowadays everyone gets that depth, except some badly programmed programs,
and the programs that use expensive knowledge that scans. It's not that
the smaller nodes a second (65k nodes a second for diep at a p3-800 dual)
is giving such a bad search depth, it's also the huge diversity
of scores which takes care that ordering moves is much tougher, as well
as the fact that i cannot do a cheap quiescencesearch, combined with
the fact that current diep version is doing all kind of silly extensions,
in order to solve testsets quicker.
I bet no other program except for Quest and Schach were faster as Genius.
Nowadays however at tournament level *everyone* gets decent depths. Even
8 ply DIEP in the year 2001 is not comparable with 8 ply DIEP 1997.
With 8 ply searches with the current diep i completely destroy anything
from 1997/1998. Very seldom Jan Louwman plays programs like nimzo98 just
for fun with DIEP and it's a complete walk over then.
2) SUPERB TESTING
Now this is still the big difference between most commercial engines
and amateurs. Though some claim they play zillion of games on chess servers,
my question is always: "And what did you do with it then?"
Now that most commercial engines join the chess servers this is of course
changing, but definitely a few years ago playing online was fun, but
from DIEP perspective it was not so much worth.
This might be different for others though. But for DIEP it's very important
that i get loads of games WITH the log files of diep and WITH the scores
of the opponent.
This is also why i learn so much in tournaments, as i can ask for the
score of the opponent.
With a huge evaluation function as DIEP a very easy way to always win
from opponents is to basically have the same score and if there are a
few patterns that boost DIEP's score, then i win with induction of course!
So if i lose a game because DIEP had the wrong score for whatever reason
except a small search depth, then i nowadays work on that. At ICC nor FICS
i get games emailed with scores of DIEP + opponent. At auto232 i DO GET
games from Jan Louwman with scores of both sides!
Of course playing at home under my own interface against a winboard
opponent is no big difference there, because i can collect from both
sides the scores then too.
But most people simply DO NOT REALIZE how many games commercial engines
tested before they play a bit decent chess. We talk about thousands of
games for each beta version at slow levels like 40 in 2.
Diep has a huge evaluation function and loads of code to
guide the search. Especially in the first i change weekly things, so
testing is very crucial thing for me. I need to mention that despite
hard work of Jan Louwman, i still didn't test diep with the current
openings book at the auto232 player!!
This might really amaze you, but last weeks i have tried all kind of
different opening books.
From Marc L Bernstein books, to books of Cock de Gorter,
as well as automatic generated books.
So when taking commercial standards, DIEP was laughable tested,
as i didn't play any game with the book i played the tournaments
I-CSVN or CCT3 with.
With commercial testing i mean: testing an engine using the same
settings as where you play a tournament with!
In this respect especially Shredder and DeepFritz and Tiger
still have a major advantage towards the rest of the world.
3) Superb Opening book
A few years ago the openings book issue was also there, though less
important as it is nowadays. Nowadays this is probably the only advantage
which some commercial programs have compared to most of the world.
Shredder at random book completely gets annihilated by DIEP for example,
just like it lost at CCT3.
However for tournaments these guys have a special very well tested and
well prepared book at home which definitely favours them, because what
the book makers already realize for years: you need a position where
an engine plays strategically well!
Even a bad engine can win with a strategic advantage nowadays if it
realizes it!
The most simplistic case for DIEP are ben oni lines where DIEP has white
and clearly realizes its pawn majority. It will always push it forward
to create a passer on d5. So also programs that are very happy with
passers and search very deep might do very well in that opening with
white :)
A very bad case is if i play KID with DIEP with black. That's
completely suicidal against a good book, because diep will get
attacked on the queen side and react on it by defending on the queenside!
This is a completely wrong strategy in KID!
Nowadays all engines, and not only because of search depths, have become
much stronger in endgame, middlegame and everywhere. Even Gambit
Tiger 2.0 has nowadays some sense of bad/good bishops seemingly.
Also most engines do not play g2-g4 when being castled short just like
that!
Such laughable moves really are fixed in the EVALUATION of the engines
nowadays.
Now we all should know that chess is a weakest chain game. If SOMETHING
of you is very bad, then you lose becuase of that.
Definitely opening is from most programs the weakest chain nowadays
where it wasn't in the past.
The real reason for this is because the programmers themselves hardly
have any chess rating themselves, or in my case hardly invested time
in making their own book.
The tournament book which DIEP has for example is around 6000 moves.
Behind that i use several books, either from De Gorter, automatic
generated, or from Bernstein.
Yet entering those 6000 bookmoves cost me at most a week of work,
where making my engine has cost me 7 years now.
Most persons will wonder why, well there WAS a good reason to do so.
Every week new theory gets discovered, usually refuting the lines
from a week before, so updating your book is weekly work!
However, if engine gets improved you keep that improvement forever!
Further doing everything myself:
- interface
- engine
- book
- homepage
- daily answerring loads of email
That's a bit much work of course!
Now compare my book work to that of a normal 2200 chessplayer, who
weekly checks out the latest theory, buys every few months a new openings
book, and is doing anything to keep up with theory!
After losing a SINGLE game such a player goes checkout what went
wrong in OPENING. At least half of the analysis after the game are
dedicated to the opening usually!
KNSB (dutch chess federation) rating list 1 april 2001:
2400 7814059 Kaan J.E.F. M 1245* 14-
Now compare that with a 1245 rated 'born loser' Jan Kaan who
played in I-CSVN with Yace with his own home made book. Of
course that book doesn't make a chance, not to mention that
it lost strategically in every line for Yace!
Because that is the bitter reality. Now you don't need too much rating
yourself to make a good book, as making a book is completely different
from playing chess in a tournament.
However, some strategical insight is at least needed to make a book.
I know some 1200 rated KNSB players who play correspondence chess and
manage to get good openings positions there, but of course Jan Kaan
is completely chanceless against guys who DEFINITELY know strategics
a bit like Pesce who made a book for Yace and Pharaon.
105872 Pesce, Carlos ARG 2045 0 19.04.61
I'm really amazed that programmer of Yace allowed Jan1245 to delete
at home the very good Pesce book and replace it by a Jan Kaan
"automatic generated beginners book".
Because strategically Jan Kaan is of course infinitely and with
induction to forever worse than Pesce, who is at a chess level that
he might outbook any IM and some GMs also.
'Kaan automatic generated beginner books' of course
also have no chance of course against for example:
Cock de Gorter (KNSB rating):
2400 6164532 Gorter C.H. de M 1950 3-
Now this 1950 tournament rating is extra good
considering that Cock is somewhat older and he's more busy
with correspondence chess anyway.
Jeroen Noomen (KNSB rating):
2400 6495632 Noomen J. M 2165 4*
Jeroen is always won after opening in his games (Jeroen plays
masterclass league in netherlands, so every round he faces
either an IM/GM, or someone with a rating he'll never reach; Jeroen
is one of the lowest rated masterclass players which play this
year masterclass league).
Jeroen gives however regurarly pieces away himself.
From Alexander Kure i can give rating info from first hand,
but he isn't on any FIDE list. We have
played quite some blitz over the times and in all games he was won
out of the opening, but somewhere blundered away a piece every game.
So i won them all but one.
Alexander Kure doesn't play actively tournament chess anymore but
i would estimate him at at least 2100 if he would start playing now.
Alex is analytically definitely also in IM/GM league, especially
considering that his profession is programming, this makes him very
dangerous against automatic generated opening books as he knows
exactly how they get generated!
Vincent Diepeveen (KNSB rating):
2400 6614817 Diepeveen V. M 2285 27*
Vincent Diepeveen (FIDE rating):
1003054 Diepeveen, Vincent NED 2281 14 16.10.73
I am usually lost after opening, and i hardly give away a piece,
and i usually nail my opponent by exchanging into a safe to win
technical endgame. If i have more as 15 minutes before the first
time control (40 moves usual) and my opponent 5 minutes or less
for a bunch of moves, then my record is a 100% score (that
includes GMs & IMs). Note that all my team members call me 'diep'
usually, just like my whole family is called in slang already
for 250+ years here in this town.
But quite a contradicting style between me and the book makers.
Not amazingly with a style that's technical and positional better
as any program, and tactical quite a bit less, but good compared
to most of my opponents, my rating is going up and up, though with
small steps of a few points each list, because i play very little
rated games internationally.
However the real weak chain in my own play is the same weak chain
as that of most engines: book.
Yet in contradiction to most engines i nearly
ALWAYS PLAY THE SAME OPENING.
So the bookjob for me is quite simple compared to the book job which
most would have for their engine if they would maintain it.
Jeroen for years played certain slav lines with Rebel and of course
Tiger plays at tournaments mainly these well checked lines, whereas most
engines play every round a different line.
Also Alexander Kure (maker of fritz & nimzo & all chessbase books
that join in tournaments) has the same record here.
In a world championship you can already be prepared that the same
prepared openings line gets always played by Kure. No exceptions and
i cannot blame him there. Outbooking it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE, unless
one did some real good work at home.
So far only Noomen qualified for that. In past also Necchi did.
I clearly saw how Noomen's book improved, as well as the big
quantity of lines that Kure uses to kill automatic generated books,
and also adding to that very modern lines for the quality at world
champs.
Necchi still has to proof that his level also has increased, but
i don't doubt he'll manage to proof his point.
Just generating a book from GM games in an automatic way is only going
to be a sure zero against Kure and nowadays also Noomen. THEY ARE PREPARED
FOR ENGINES HAVING AN AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED BOOK!
Necchi already showed an outbooking mentality at SSDF years ago...
That's a matter of a few thousands of games at a number of auto232 players.
Now a few very inexperienced computerchess fans perhaps
already wonder: "do the book makers have such bad ratings, how can
1950 to 2200 rated persons make books for 2600 beating programs?"
Well here is the bare truth: programs are strategical rated 1500 points
at most. Meaning they either do something or they do not do something
which is needed to do.
So strategically all these guys are hell better as any engine.
Secondly if Jeroen Noomen would play me in a match then i probably
win it. My rating is higher, so i have a higher chance to win, but
analytically he is in the same league. Add to that that he understands
quite something from opening! So he might lose because i nail him
somewhere in the endgame, where i definitely know more, or i might
trick him in the middlegame with some tactics, but nowhere in the opening
he'll be in danger that he doesn't understand something which i do.
Same is true for most IM/GMs. I have no problems to follow games of 2600+
rated persons. Same applies to all these guys. Of course, 2600+ will
always win from me in a match. Especially opening where they prepare
daily. But take for example Vaganian. He plays a lost openingsline with
black!
Yet by means of superb tactics he has a 100% score against me!!
Analytically he is in no way better in opening or middlegame as i am!
Because of his age and professional play for half a century
he'll know hell more of endgame as i ever will.
But that doesn't mean i cannot follow his games. I can in fact follow
his games very well. Idem for the above book makers!
So strategically every player mentionned here, with exception of Jan Kaan,
will blindfolded beat a program strategically. Of course they all lose
tactically, but opening is not about tactics only. It's basically
setting up the game in a STRATEGIC sound way.
Here amateurs only slowly catch up with commercial programs. But we
must not forget that some commercial programs of the past who failed
to keep up with book, positional insight, that those have completely
fallen away.
Good examples are of course Genius, Kallisto, Wchess,
Virtual Chess and the list can go on.
Though all these programs still could do well in blitz, they positionally
and strategically are no longer in the same league as the modern
chess programs.
So there is a kind of natural decline there. For sure the programs
with good books survived and others joined a company who offered
good books, but my expectation is that this big book advantage is
also going to get less when some 'amateurs' prepare well.
Some in fact already do.
GUESSING THE FUTURE
Where the book of Noomen and Kure have kicked many butts the last 2 years,
usually getting near to 100% scores against bad prepared amateurs,
others have kept up with it.
Splendid jobs have been performed by for example Dan Wulff who makes
book for Gandalf and Josef Zwinger who makes book of Insomniac (though
its book lines are basically favouring white), and
still the lines played by Cock de Gorter (The King, Tao, and also DIEP
sometimes i test with his book) still can't be called suicidal as they
all are strategically sound. Pesce definitely made impression last CCT3
tournament!
Sometimes old lines also work well if they're strategic sound you know!
The more new openings theory gets invented, the more lines there are
of course which can be called strategic sound. So in the future,
just like in the past, after this chain has been made a bit stronger,
in engine-engine matches the strongest engine will again win.
What we already see is that some 'amateurs' are taking out commercial
engines by surprise. In the future the world champion will be the
engine that can beat amateurs the best!
Best Regards,
Vincent
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.