Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:00:11 08/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2000 at 09:28:24, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>On August 28, 2000 at 07:10:27, Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>>On August 28, 2000 at 06:28:08, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On August 28, 2000 at 06:02:23, Marcus Kaestner wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>Which program is best in playing human players? Shredder 5.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>no, no, no. much better is rebel.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh? How was this determined? I agree Rebel is great at playing against human
>>>>>opponents, but 'much better'? I recall that Shredder's results in the Israeli
>>>>>leagues were not too bad.
>>>>
>>>>have you ever seen rebel was beaten in a human-comp comparison by another
>>>>program in the last years?
>>>>neither in israel, nor at the aegon tournament.
>>>
>>>The aegon tournament was a long time ago so I cannot count it today.
>>>
>>>Rebel did the best result in Israel against humans but you can blame the
>>>operator of shredder for this fact.
>>>
>>>If you compare Junior's results in dortmund with other results you can see that
>>>Junior did the best results so the picture is not clear.
>>>
>>>Rebel may be the best against humans but I am not sure about it.
>>>
>>>The meaning of being the best against humans is also not clear because it is
>>>possible that one program is best in winning weak players when another program
>>>is best in playing against strong players.
>>>
>>>>have you played yourself many programs?
>>>>i can say, that i sometimes can survive against tiger, seldom shredder and
>>>>fritz, but i have not a single draw against rebel. only losses!
>>>
>>>It proves that Rebel is the best against you but it does not prove that Rebel is
>>>the best against humans.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>I think you are missing an important point. Have you ever seen Rebel
>>strangled in the last 25-30 GM games as we have seen in the dutch
>>championship and at Dortmund?
>>
>>Ed
>
>It sure got strangled. Look at 21... e5?? and what happens after.
>
>[Event "Monthly GM Challenge"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "2000.??.??"]
>[Round "7"]
>[White "Scherbakov, R."]
>[Black "Comp Rebel Century"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "D17"]
>[WhiteElo "2540"]
>[BlackElo "2500"]
>[Annotator "Scherbakov,R"]
>[PlyCount "111"]
>[EventDate "2000.??.??"]
>
>1. d4 {My preparation for the game was not quite usual - I refreshed in memory
>all possible gambits which are known to be dubious, including 1. d4 d5 2. c4
>e5?! and 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cd5 cd4?! Of course, Chigorin Defence
>which Rebel played in the previous game was not forgotten...} 1... d5 2. c4 c6
>3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 {This time Rebel prefers solid approach.} 5. a4 Bf5 6.
>Ne5 (6. Nh4 {After which I played a couple of times, White sometimes should
>move forward all kingside pawns to fight for advantage - too risky against
>Machine.}) 6... e6 (6... Nbd7 {
>I was hoping for Morozevich's to show one interesting idea. Next time...}) 7.
>f3 Bb4 8. Bg5 {I had prepared the Bishop's sortie a couple of months ago
>exactly for the game against Mikhail Kobalia in Russian Cup Final. The main
>idea was to confuse my opponent with rare variation but nevertheless Black
>should know what to do to obtain a good play. Of course, it's impossible to
>take the Machine by surprise but I had already no good alternative...} (8. e4 {
>In the main line} 8... Bxe4 9. fxe4 Nxe4 10. Bd2 Qxd4 11. Nxe4 Qxe4+ 12. Qe2
>Bxd2+ 13. Kxd2 Qd5+ 14. Kc2 {White probably has small advantage but it's too
>complicated to play against Machine. There are a lot of tactics, white King is
>not safe so I had no intention to go here.}) 8... h6 9. Bh4 c5 (9... b5 $5 {
>I expected} 10. e4 Bh7 11. Be2 Qb6 12. O-O $44 {with good compensation for the
>pawn as was in R. Scherbakov - M.Kobalia, Ekaterinburg 1999. I was not much
>afraid to sacrifice a pawn in this situation. Position is very complicated but
>in my opinion strategy prevails tactics here. Of course there are a lot of
>tactics but first of all both sides should play by plans rather than by
>concrete operations. I saw a couple of Rebel's games and have a strong feeling
>he much more likes strategically clear situations.}) 10. dxc5 Qa5 (10... Qxd1+
>{The alternatives} 11. Kxd1 {with e2-e4 soon}) (10... Qd5 $5 {
>and lead to the endings with small advantage for White.}) 11. Qd4 Nc6 (11...
>Bxc5 {Another possibility is} 12. Qxc4 O-O 13. e4 Bh7 14. Nd3 Be7 {
>, the game Yusupov - Timman, Reykjavik 1988 continued with} 15. Qb5 Qc7 16. Bg3
>Qc8 $11 {and Black has obtained good play thanks to the idea Nc6-d4. White has
>not finished the development yet and his Queen is too advanced.}) 12. Nxc6 bxc6
>13. e4 (13. Bf2 $6 {
>looked too dangerous as Black will have important resource e6-e5 in the future.
>}) 13... Bxc5 (13... Bg6 {Black has usually played after which White has the
>possibility to defend the pawn with} 14. Bf2 {Black will capture pawn c5 soon
>with Nd7 so the question is how effectively White can exploit passive position
>of black Bishop g6. I suppose White can hope for a small advantage.}) 14. Qxc4
>Bg6 15. Qa6 {Otherwise White has problems to finish the development.} 15...
>Qxa6 (15... Qc7 {After I was going to play} 16. Bg3 e5 17. Qc4 $5 {
>pushing the Bishop from active position:} 17... Bd6 (17... Bb6 {
>is worse because of} 18. a5 $5 Bxa5 19. Qc5 Bxc3+ 20. Qxc3 Nd7 21. Ra6 Rc8 22.
>Qa3 Ra8 23. Bc4 $36 {with strong initiative.}) 18. Bf2 Rb8 19. Qa2 {
>with next Bc4 with advantage.}) (15... Qb6 {is also in White's favour after}
>16. Qxb6 axb6 17. Bf2 $14) (15... Qb4 $6 {I was slightly worried about but
>objectively this should give a big advantage for White. I could probably play}
>16. Qxc6+ Ke7 17. Qb5 $5 (17. Qc7+ {
>should also be good for White but position is not so clear after} 17... Kf8 18.
>Rd1 Kg8) 17... Rab8 (17... Qd4 $2 18. Qb7+) 18. Qxb4 Rxb4 19. Ra2 {
>and White has good chances to extinguish Black's initiative little by little.})
>16. Bxa6 Rb8 17. Bxf6 {This decision was not easy but perhaps it's forced.
>Till this moment Rebel played almost instantly while I have spent
>approximately 1.20 but now he surprisingly started to think which made me
>panicked for a while. Is he thinking about 17. ..Rb2?! Fortunately it's just
>bad for Black.} (17. O-O-O $6 {After Queens swapping I felt much better but
>now realized that I cannot defend pawn b2 comfortably with because of} 17...
>Nd5 $1 18. Be1 (18. exd5 $6 {in case of White could only get problems after}
>18... Be3+ 19. Rd2 Bxd2+ 20. Kxd2 Rxb2+ 21. Ke3 exd5 {with next Kd7 and Re8.})
>18... Ne3 (18... Be3+ $5 {the manoeuvre} 19. Kb1 Bf4 $5 {looks promising}) 19.
>Rd2 {and now immediate} 19... f5 $5 {deserves attention with excellent play.
>The Knight can be supported with f5-f4 if required. Black can also double his
>Rooks along b-file.}) (17. Nd1 {I thought about but it looked too
>sophisticated. The main strategic idea to exploit position of Bishop g6 could
>hardly be realized here as it's impossible to prevent from f7-f5. Besides, the
>lack of development would cause troubles for White. Surprisingly it happened
>to be the game Adianto - Kramnik, London (rapid) 1994 which continued with}
>17... Nd7 18. Rc1 Bb4+ 19. Kf2 Nc5 20. Be2 Nxa4 21. Rxc6 Bc5+ 22. Ne3 O-O {
>with clear advantage for Black.}) 17... gxf6 18. O-O-O Ke7 19. Kc2 (19. Bd3 $6
>{I have spent a couple of minutes for} 19... Rb4 20. Bc2 $6 {but it's just
>pointless as the Bishop cannot defend both f5 and b3 square anyway.
>Furthermore this waste of time could let Black to take the initiative with}
>20... Bd4 $36) 19... Rhd8 $6 {
>The first and very nice surprise. I could only dream to swap a pair of Rooks.}
>(19... Rb4 20. b3 Rhb8 {with next f6-f5 was quite acceptable for Black.} (20...
>f5)) 20. Rxd8 Rxd8 21. Bd3 {
>The main idea of the whole line - to keep the Bishop on g6 out of play.} 21...
>e5 $4 {Unbelievable!!! Obviously Rebel did not consider seriously White's next
>move after which Black is practically a piece down.} (21... f5 $5 {It was bette
>r to make almost any other move (or even don't move on the whole!). Still was
>not so bad as after direct} 22. exf5 Bxf5 23. Bxf5 exf5 {
>Black has active pieces and good play on the kingside.}) 22. g4 $1 {The Bishop
>on g6 is now a "big pawn". The attempt to escape with f6-f5 is pointless.}
>22... h5 23. h3 h4 $2 {This makes White's life easier. It was much better to
>keep the Rook on h8 or to move the King to g5 - White had to keep one of piece
>(R on h1 or N on e2) in defence so it was more difficult to break the
>queenside.} 24. Rd1 {I was thinking about other possible plans, for example
>a4-a5 then Ra1-a4-c4 looked promising but the intuition prompted me it would
>be not so big task to swap the Rooks on d-file.} 24... Rd4 {Yes! Instead of
>this pointless move Black should keep the Rook somewhere on b8 making more
>difficult White's task on the queenside. I was not much worried about possible
>a7-a5 as after b3, Bc4 Ne2-c1-d3, Rb1, Kc3 White will break with b3-b4 anyway.}
>25. b3 Rd6 (25... Rd8 {It was a good time to go back with}) 26. Ne2 (26. Ba6 $1
>{Immediate was more precisely but after Black's last move I was sure the Rook
>will not leave the d-file.}) 26... Be3 27. Ba6 Rxd1 28. Kxd1 $18 {
>Position is obviously winning for White. Black can only stay and waiting.}
>28... Kd7 29. Kc2 Kc7 30. b4 Bg5 31. Bc4 Kd6 32. Kd3 Kd7 33. Nc3 Bh6 34. Nb1 {
>My first intention was to break with b4-b5 after Bb3 and Kc4 which was
>probably also enough but I decided to try another idea first. Besides, I had a
>lack of time and did not want to change the pawn structure before the time
>control.} 34... Bf8 35. Kc3 Kd6 36. Nd2 Bh6 37. Kd3 Kc7 38. Bb3 Bf8 39. Kc4 Bg7
>40. Kd3 Kd7 41. Nc4 Bf8 42. Kc3 Bh6 43. a5 $1 {The most clear way to win.}
>43... Kc7 44. Ba4 Bf4 (44... a6 {After White win easily:} 45. Nb2 {then Nd3, Bb
>3-c4 (K should stay on b7), Nc5 (forcing Bc5 bc), K goes to e3, then f3-f4,
>e4-e5 and so on.}) 45. a6 $1 Bg3 46. Kd2 (46. Na5 $2 {Not because of} 46... c5
>{although it should be winning as well.}) 46... Bf2 47. Na5 c5 (47... Kb6 {
>This is forced as in case of} 48. Bxc6 $1 Kxa6 49. Nc4 {
>black King could suddenly find himself in the mating net - b4-b5 is inevitable.
>}) 48. b5 Bg1 49. Kd3 {Absolutely unnecessary move which allows Black to open
>the diagonal with c5-c4. White can win without a King but I did not realized
>it yet.} 49... Kb6 50. Nc4+ Kc7 51. Bb3 (51. b6+ $1 axb6 52. Bb5 $1 {could fini
>sh the game with nice picture as taken from draughts: all white forces are on
>the light squares and there is no defence against Queen promotion:} 52... Bd4
>53. Nd6 Kb8 54. Bc4 $1 {
>with next Nb5. To my excuse I can say it was deep night already.}) 51... Kb8
>52. b6 {At this moment I realized my omission but decided to stop thinking
>about the way to return and just win the game - there was not much time left.}
>52... axb6 53. Nd6 Ka7 54. Bc4 b5 55. Bxb5 c4+ 56. Kxc4 {It was the only way
>to stop a-pawn but now White can collect all kingside pawns starting, for
>example, from Ne8 then Nf6-d7, Kd5, Ne5 etc. so Black resigned.} 1-0
>
>Another example of anticomputer chess:
>
>[Event "SuperGM"]
>[Site "Dortmund GER"]
>[Date "2000.07.12"]
>[Round "5"]
>[White "Kramnik, V."]
>[Black "DEEP JUNIOR 6"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "D00"]
>[WhiteElo "2770"]
>[PlyCount "65"]
>[EventDate "2000.07.07"]
>[Source "Mark Crowther"]
>[SourceDate "2000.07.17"]
>
>1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3 e6 4. f4 Be7 5. Nf3 c5 6. c3 O-O 7. Nbd2 Ng4 8. Qe2
>c4 9. Bc2 f5 10. Rg1 Nc6 11. h3 Nf6 12. g4 Ne4 13. Qg2 g6 14. Qh2 Kh8 15. h4
>Nxd2 16. Bxd2 fxg4 17. Ng5 Qe8 18. h5 gxh5 19. Rxg4 Rf6 20. Rh4 Rh6 21. O-O-O
>a5 22. Rh1 b5 23. Bd1 Ra7 24. Bxh5 Qf8 25. e4 Bd8 26. f5 b4 27. Bg6 Rxh4 28.
>Qxh4 bxc3 29. bxc3 Bf6 30. Qxh7+ Rxh7 31. Rxh7+ Kg8 32. Bf7+ Qxf7 33. Rxf7 1-0
>
>I am just trying this Dortmund game Kramnik-Junior. After already 42 minutes on
>a PIII-600E, Rebel still picks the terrible 8... c4, on its way to a strangled
>and lost position.
8...c4 is not a terrible move.
The mistakes of Junior were later(13...g6 and 14...Kh8)
I remember that it was kramnik's opinion.
Junior had a better position before 13...g6 if you believe kramnik but kramnik
said that it was more important to choose positions that computers do not
understand but Junior did a big change since durtmond so there is a big chance
that the same strategy is not going to work again.
Uri
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.