Author: José Antônio Fabiano Mendes
Date: 05:04:55 08/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2000 at 15:24:53, José Antônio Fabiano Mendes wrote:
>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. All programs are quite lousy against anti-computer
>>strategies, as a few test positions from this kind of games proved many times.
>>
>>I don't think Uri missed the point. We have no proof of any sort of superiority
>>of a given program against human players.
>>
>>Aegon: overall, Rebel scored best; in the last 2 years of Aegon, Kallisto and
>>Nimzo achieved the highest TPRs. Which proves nothing. Few games, erratic TPRs.
>>
>>Israel: Rebel got the highest TPR, but without the last game lost by Shredder
>>due to operator's incompetence, Shredder has by far the highest TPR. Which
>>proves nothing again: few games.
>>
>>The very highest TPR ever achieved by a micro corresponds to Junior in Dortmund:
>>2704 ELO, first GM norm ever. Few games, other programs didn't participate...
>
> First GM norm ever:Mephisto Portorose 68030,way back in 1990,during the
> Berlin Chess Summer Festival[beating,among others,German GM Stefan Kindermann].
> That game,which lasted 68 moves,can be retrieved from www.chesslab.com
> http://home.interact.se/~w100107/historik.htm#1990 MP price ==> a cool U$ 6000!
>
>>
"Also making a GM norm was the chess computer Mephisto-Portorose
which managed to beat West German GM Stefan Kindermann."
Source:"Inside Chess";October 1,1990;page 17;Volume 3;Issue 19
>>Etc., etc., etc.
>>
>>As for subjective appreciations, everybody has one. Anand prefers Hiarcs,
>>Kasparov prefers Junior, others swear by Fritz, or Rebel, Genius, you name it.
>>
>>Enrique
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.