Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:39:58 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 12:06:24, Uri Blass wrote:
>On February 15, 2005 at 11:25:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On February 14, 2005 at 18:47:22, Arturo Ochoa wrote:
>>
>>>On February 14, 2005 at 16:51:47, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 14, 2005 at 15:57:16, Arturo Ochoa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 14, 2005 at 11:40:12, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On February 14, 2005 at 10:56:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On February 14, 2005 at 10:33:12, Jon Dart wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A few notes from Arasan's games in CCT7:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Game 1 against Homer, Arasan had Black in a QID that Schroer called
>>>>>>>>"a super high-class line, very theoretical". Arasan was in book until
>>>>>>>>move 18. It appears Homer misplayed the next few moves. Arasan's score
>>>>>>>>rapidly climbed and it won.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Arasan won easily against Alarm after it blundered here with .. Bxa3:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[D] 3q1b1k/1p4pp/rn2rp2/BR2p3/p3N3/P2PP1P1/5P1P/1QR3K1 b - - 0 1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Black is not in good shape already, but the pawn can't be taken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Arasan lost against Fafis. The opening was some unusual variant of the
>>>>>>>>Four Knights .. Arasan was out of book at move 7. Arasan's score
>>>>>>>>was positive until move 45. I haven't analyzed this yet so I am
>>>>>>>>not sure where it went wrong but it lost rapidly after that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This game against nullmover gave me some anxious moments. 7 .. Ne8
>>>>>>>>is unusual (..c6 is more common) and Arasan was out of book after
>>>>>>>>that. Black got what looked like a pretty scary k-side attack
>>>>>>>>in the KID. But Arasan defended - in fact its score was never
>>>>>>>>negative. Finally Arasan broke through on the q-side -- standard
>>>>>>>>play in the KID - and won. The nullmover author mentioned his program
>>>>>>>>had no passed pawn code and in general has a simple eval.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[Event "?"]
>>>>>>>>[Site "chessclub.com"]
>>>>>>>>[Date "2005.02.13"]
>>>>>>>>[Round "?"]
>>>>>>>>[White "Arasan 9.0"]
>>>>>>>>[Black "nullmover"]
>>>>>>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>>>>>>[ECO "E87"]
>>>>>>>>[WhiteElo "2594"]
>>>>>>>>[BlackElo "2202"]
>>>>>>>>[TimeControl "3000+3"]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 e5 7. d5 Ne8
>>>>>>>>8. Qd2 f5 9. exf5 gxf5 10. Bd3 Na6 11. Nge2 Nb4 12. O-O f4 13. Bf2
>>>>>>>>Nxd3 14. Qxd3 Rf5 15. Ne4 Rh5 16. b4 Rh6 17. Rfe1 Rg6 18. Kh1 Nf6
>>>>>>>>19. N2c3 Nxe4 20. Nxe4 Bf5 21. Rg1 Kh8 22. a4 Qe7 23. c5 dxc5
>>>>>>>>24. bxc5 Rg8 25. d6 Qf7 26. Rad1 Rh6 27. Rge1 cxd6 28. cxd6 b6
>>>>>>>>29. Qd5 Be6 30. Qd2 Bf8 31. Qc3 Qg7 32. g4 Rh3 33. g5 Bg4 34. Rd3 Bf5
>>>>>>>>35. a5 Rh5 36. Rd5 Bxe4 37. Rxe5 Qf7 38. R5xe4+ Bg7 39. Qc6 Rxg5
>>>>>>>>40. Re8 Rg6 41. axb6 axb6 42. Bxb6 Qa2 43. Rxg8+ Kxg8 44. Re8+
>>>>>>>> 1-0 {nullmover resigns}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Against Pharaon, Arasan played a reasonable variant of the Slav and
>>>>>>>>was ok for a long time. Finally at this point Pharaon played Bh6:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[D] q6k/3r1p2/p4Pp1/1pRn3p/3PQ3/P6P/1P1B4/6K1 w - - 0 1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and then posted the Bishop on g7. Neither Arasan nor Crafty would play
>>>>>>>>Bh6 at the tournament time level on the hardware I have, but Crafty
>>>>>>>>does eventually fail high on it, with a score of +1.7, so this may
>>>>>>>>have been the decisive move.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I wasn't watching for a while, but the next time I looked Pharaon was up
>>>>>>>>a Knight--not quite sure how that happened, but seems like it found a
>>>>>>>>nice tactic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pharaon was strong even before its recent version update and now it
>>>>>>>>is really formidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In the Chompster game, 37 .. a4 by Chompster was a bad mistake,
>>>>>>>>gifting Arasan with an outside passer:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[D] 2q1r1k1/5pp1/5bp1/p7/4PQ2/1Br5/P4RPP/5R1K b - - 0 1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But the game got into a bishop of opposite colors ending and was
>>>>>>>>drawn. I actually made the draw manually, which brought a protest
>>>>>>>>from sfarrell: he is right that under the rules this should not
>>>>>>>>have been done without the TD's consent. It seems several programs
>>>>>>>>broke this rule in this round.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I was disappointed to lose the last game against cEng (witchess). It
>>>>>>>>had a very unusual opening:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[Event "?"]
>>>>>>>>[Site "chessclub.com"]
>>>>>>>>[Date "2005.02.13"]
>>>>>>>>[Round "?"]
>>>>>>>>[White "witchess"]
>>>>>>>>[Black "Arasan 9.0"]
>>>>>>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>>>>>>[ECO "C28"]
>>>>>>>>[WhiteElo "2397"]
>>>>>>>>[BlackElo "2594"]
>>>>>>>>[TimeControl "3000+3"]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nxe4 d5 6. Bd3 dxe4
>>>>>>>>7. Bxe4 Ne7 8. c3 f5 9. Bc2 e4 10. Ne5 Qd5 11. f4 exf3 12. Nxf3 Qe6+
>>>>>>>>13. Kf2 Qb6+ 14. d4 Be6 15. Ba4+ c6 16. Re1 Bd5 17. Bb3 O-O-O 18. Bg5
>>>>>>>>Qc7 19. Bxd5 cxd5 20. Qe2 Qb6 21. c4 Rd7 22. cxd5 Kb8 23. Qe5+ Ka8
>>>>>>>>24. d6 Rxd6 25. Bxe7 Bxe7 26. Qxe7 Rc8 27. Kg1 Rg8 28. Rac1 Rdd8
>>>>>>>> 1-0 {ArasanX resigns}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I analyzed this overnight with Crafty but didn't find where Arasan
>>>>>>>>went wrong. I didn't like 7.. Ne7 and 7.. Bd6 seems to be better -
>>>>>>>>this has occurred in a few games with this line. After Ne7, Arasan
>>>>>>>>had its Bishop locked in and failed to develop it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I watched this game live and found it a very strong game from witchess.
>>>>>>>Especially because it plays without book. Let's be honest there. That's 700
>>>>>>>rating points (a real strong book).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How did you get that estimate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you have one tournament when a program with no book performed 700 elo worse
>>>>>>than the same program with book?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>
>>>>>Well.... I love that you continue missing the importance of the opening book. It
>>>>>will mean more easy points for your opponents!
>>>>>
>>>>>I have been reading your same "cantaleta" (*) for years and I have seen how
>>>>>Movei has been beated by books well tuned.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hopefully, you understand that in 20 years. Who knows......
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Arturo.
>>>>
>>>>Movei is weak relative to the top programs also when both programs use the same
>>>>external book so I do not see how the results of Movei prove something about the
>>>>importance of book.
>>>
>>>Of course, the results doesnt prove anything because your book was a random
>>>thing combined with the Movei blunders caused what you know.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You may be able to tune your book against movei's public book but if I come
>>>>to the tournament with new book you will not be able to plan openings that
>>>>moveidoes not understand.
>>>
>>>I did not tune the book against Movei.... I tune a book for a specific engine.
>>>Anthony accepted my help and I did my best in 2 short months. Of course, how
>>>could you understand that?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Note that in the last tournament I used Dan Corbit's book in rounds 1-6 and got
>>>>4.5 out of 6, but after movei got out of book against averno
>>>>with 1.d4 Nf6 c4 e5 and got negative evaluation some moves later I decided that
>>>>I do not like Corbit's book and replaced the book by the public book(still small
>>>>book but at least movei is not out of book after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5).
>>>>
>>>
>>>You continue missing what I have repeated you over the last 3 years. They are
>>>random books. They are not tuned hy hand. Anything can happen. Again, how could
>>>I explain you that? Three years in this forum and you repeat the same
>>>_cantaleta_ :)
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe it was a mistake because Movei lost the last 3 games but I do not think
>>>>that part of the opponents tuned against Movei's public book(after all they
>>>>cannot know that I will use it and I do not think that it is so important for
>>>>them to win to waste many hours not only against movei's book but also against
>>>>book of other programs because movei has no special importance)
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>Movei lost by itself. No for any tuned book against Movei. Zappa outsearched
>>>Movei in tha game and played a better game. Movei made all kind of mistakes in
>>>that game. It was not any book just the Movei game.
>>
>>Exactly, i saw Uri however blame the hardware of the opponent, who by the way
>>has lower clocked processors than Movei uses.
>>
>>Vincent
>
>hardware was one of the advantage of zappa in the meaning that
>zappa on movei's hardware is weaker.
>
>zappa is simply better than movei but I think that in the future I will never
>use the public book in these events.
>
>It is probably only bad luck but after replacing Dan Corbit's book by movei's
>public book before the game against zappa movei lost every game.
>
>Uri
So you complain about book meanwhile saying book is not important?
This page took 0 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.