Author: James T. Walker
Date: 12:23:29 05/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2001 at 14:28:14, Peter Berger wrote: >After reading all the interesting reports by various programmers I thought it >might be >interesting for some people to read a Joe User report :) > >If memory serves me well in late April Gerrit Reubold , the author of the >program >"Der Bringer" ( free download at http://www.reubold.onlinehome.de) and friend >of mine >contacted me and asked if I wanted to operate Bringer in CCT-3 . > >CCT-3 was the second "official" tournament for Bringer - it had already >participated in CCT-1 >some time ago . > >CCT-1 preparation had been kind of a chaos - I borrowed a fast computer >( PIII500 then ) and had everything set up about 5 minutes before the start of >the first >game . Opening preparation - none until the very last games . So Bringer happily >agreed to play a Benoni with black against archrival PostModernist and got >spanked . Another >unfortunate game was a draw out of a good position against Grok . >In the end everything went a little smoother until in the last round Bringer had >to play >LambChop - it won a pawn and got a good position - but instead of winning it >drew :( . >It finished with 4/8 - good for a new starter , but not too outstanding either . > >For CCT-3 everything was starting much more fortunate . Bringer 1.8 had just >been released - so a well-tested >and stable version was availlable - and : Bringer has improved quite a lot since >CCT-1 times . > >I planned to buy a new computer anyway so very fast hardware was availlable . > >Planned changes for Bringer 1.9 are book tuning and book learning . Book >learning is not yet availlable ( no problem >for a tournament ) but book tuning has been made way easier by Gerrit . >Everything could be done in a comfortable way in >the Beta's GUI . > >So the engine that participated was in fact Bringer 1.8 - the engine is >identical to the release version so far . > >This time there was plenty of time to set everything up , tune the book a little >and test it . So I was confident that >this was the meanest Bringer beast the world has seen so far - ready to take any >challenge :) > >The aim was : to get one big scalp this time - a win against one of the big ones >- (5,5/8 was declared the dream result). > >( I personally hoped to get a chance to see a game of Bringer against Ferret, >too ) . > > >1st Round : Bringer-Chezzz 1-0 > >A book victory in fact as Chezzz has no opening book yet and Bringer was set up >for the Queen's Gambit - Chezzz happily >took the pawn on c4 and tried to keep it ... . Although Chezzz showed some tough >resistance it was futile . > >A good start ! > >Chezzz' programmer expressed his fears to see this game repeated a few time >against others but also took it as encouragement >to work on his book code . > > >2nd Round : Hiarcs8x - Bringer 0-1 > >Second round and major tournament goal already reached :)). At this time it was >unknown how strong the new Hiarcs is but as it >lost only this game in the tournament and finished 3rd it can't be that weak . > >Bringer was set up to answer 1.c4 with 1. ..e6 to head for >Nimzo-Indian/Queens-Indian position types instead of the tough >English ones and this tactic worked well - Bringer was equal after the opening >was finished . > >After the opening the operator of Hiarcs informed me that Hiarcs was set up for >all or nothing . >Dunno to what he referred , but if it was the contempt factor it was definitely >not the right position to play with IMHO. > >[Event "ICS Match (Partie in 45 Minuten + 10 Sekunde(n) pro Zug)"] >[Site "unbekannt"] >[Date "2001.05.26"] >[Round "1"] >[White "Hiarcs8x(C)"] >[Black "Bringer1.9ß02"] >[Result "0-1"] >[WhiteElo "2200"] >[BlackElo "2481"] > >1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 b6 4. Nc3 Bb7 5. e3 d5 6. cxd5 >exd5 7. Bb5+ c6 8. Bd3 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. b3 Nbd7 11. Bb2 >Bd6 12. Ne2 Re8 13. Ng3 g6 14. Ng5 Qe7 15. Rc1 Nh5 16. Qg4 >Nxg3 17. hxg3 a5 18. Qh4 f6 19. Nf3 a4 20. Rc3 axb3 21. axb3 >Ra2 22. Rc2 Rea8 23. Rfc1 Ba6 24. Bxa6 R8xa6 25. Rb1 c5 >26. Rd2 Qe4 27. Qxe4 dxe4 28. Ne1 f5 29. dxc5 bxc5 30. Rbd1 >Bf8 31. Bc3 Rxd2 32. Rxd2 Nf6 33. Bb2 Kf7 34. Nc2 Rb6 >35. Na1 h5 36. Kf1 Ra6 37. Nc2 Ke6 38. Na1 Ra2 39. Bc3 >Ra8 40. Nc2 Nd5 41. Bb2 Rb8 42. Na1 Nb4 43. Bc3 Ra8 44. Rd1 >Nd5 45. Bb2 Ra2 46. Bh8 Be7 47. Rc1 Nb4 48. Re1 Nd3 49. Re2 >Ra8 50. Bg7 Kf7 51. Bc3 Ra3 { 2.29/17 0:00:47.0 } 52. Kg1 >Bf6 { 2.86/17 0:00:34.1 } 53. Bxf6 Kxf6 { 2.87/18 0:00:34.1 (PB: 0:00:26.7 ) >} >54. Nc2 Rxb3 { 3.07/17 0:01:45.6 (PB: 0:01:45.5 ) } 55. f3 >Rb1+ { 3.14/16 0:01:17.9 } 56. Kh2 Ne5 { 3.18/17 0:01:04.4 (PB: 0:00:01.5 ) } >57. Na3 exf3 { 3.19/17 0:00:49.9 (PB: 0:00:01.5 ) } 58. gxf3 >Rb3 { 3.31/16 0:00:36.1 (PB: 0:00:35.9 ) } 59. Nc2 Nxf3+ { 3.33/16 0:00:31.5 >(PB: 0:00:31.4 ) } >60. Kg2 Ng5 { 3.48/16 0:01:36.1 (PB: 0:00:24.0 ) } 61. Na1 >Rb4 { 3.58/16 0:00:26.9 (PB: 0:00:01.6 ) } 62. Nc2 Rg4 { 3.88/16 0:01:04.7 } >63. Kh2 h4 { 3.90/16 0:00:58.8 (PB: 0:00:01.5 ) } 64. Rg2 h3 { 3.95/16 >0:00:44.6 (PB: 0:00:01.5 ) } >65. Rf2 Ra4 { 4.04/15 0:00:27.9 (PB: 0:00:08.1 ) } 66. Ne1 >Ra3 { 4.12/15 0:00:32.0 (PB: 0:00:31.7 ) } 67. Nf3 Ne4 { 3.98/14 0:00:28.9 >(PB: 0:00:28.8 ) } > >{Hiarcs8x resigns}0-1 > >Well done, Gerrit !! > > >3rd Round : Bringer - Deep Fritz 1/2 > >An easy draw in fact ; game was about equal all the time . > > >4th Round : Deep Shredder - Bringer 1/2 > >After an equal opening Shredder slowly seemed to make major progress but >couldn't get enough advantage to win . > >So after 4 rounds at the end of the first day Bringer had 3.0/4 after playing >Hiarcs, Fritz and Shredder - quite a day :) . > >A funny experience was how stressing these games were for me :) ; I had to do >_nothing_ but watch and chat but it felt like a >day of hard work - in fact it was very similar to having to play for myself .. - >but it definitely was exciting . > > >5th Round : Bringer - Diep 1/2 > >This probably was the game to decide whether there will be a good or a >sensational tournament performance for Bringer. > >Both engines commited several serious blunders . Bringer got the better out of >the opening . In fact Diep was out of book >at about move 6 . Although Vincent informed me that he used a big book and all >games were checked by search and at first >he was quite optimistic as he said Diep had to fill its hashtables and that >needed time. > >To me the time management of Diep looked strange as it used about half of its >time for the first dozen moves or so . > >Bringer went for the dubious plan to play 13. Nb5 and 14.c5 - sacrifying the >bishop pair for a passer on c6 . > >Black probably was already better here , but Bringer had several chances to >reach a clear draw which it refused as it enjoyed >its position because of the passer . > >Diep slowly advanced until it blundered with the miserable 35. ... Rh1 so it was >even again . > >Then Diep even sacked a pawn because now _it_ was dreaming of a strong passer - >I think at this stage Bringer had >some serious winning chances . > >But it was Bringer's time to blunder again - it went for bad pawngrabbing and >came into zugzwang . > >Diep went on to win : Bringer was at -2.80 at move 61 and even displayed some >lines where it went to -5 :( . > >But much to my surprise Diep played 72. ...Kh8 ? allowing an easy perpetual . > >In the end I was quite happy with the result . Diep is strong - but this game >didn't show good play by both programs . > >It was much fun to talk and analyze with Diep's programmer . Vincent is a very >strong chessplayer and saw several things >I didn't notice - and he is very emotional watching the games :)) . > > >6th Round : Crafty - Bringer 1 - 0 > >Only game with a serious hardware disadvantage against the Quad but the game >seemed to start well as it went straight >into an expected line in the Sicilian which is very drawish I think - and >another draw would have been a nice result ;) > >Suddenly Crafty sacked a pawn for great compensation which Bringer grabbed . I >was very happy to see Bringer >playing 15. ...Nd5 ! returning the material but after a few pieces were >exchanged and the dust settled it was Crafty with >the bishop pair in an open position where it slowly advanced . > >I had some hopes after Crafty refused to play f6 and allowed Black to play 22. >...f6 but after all it was one of those >positions Crafty simply plays well and my impression was : it just played >stronger than Bringer here . > >With hindsight a sharper opening line might have been a better idea . > > >7th Round : Bringer-LambChop 1-0 > >So it was Chop again ;) ! I didn't have great expectations for this game after >the loss against Crafty and knowing how >strong LambChop plays - also I thought of CCT-1 .. > >But much to my surprise LambChop's opening book blundered with 11. ...Nd7 ?? and >the quite obvious 12. Nb5 ! saw >Bringer with +1.5 up . > >This game was big fun to watch because PeterMcKenzie and Gerrit Reubold had >interesting discussions about chess >programming and it was fun to sit there and listen . > >On the chessboard it looked like an easy win for a long time . > >Although I didn't like 17. dxc5 Bringer seemed to improve its position nicely - >but then it played 35. b6 ?! closing the >queen side . > >Now it was clear that at some point it had to advance its kingsside pawns to >make progress . IM Schroer commenting praised >White and predicted an easy win , the chessprogrammers were more sceptical >though . > >Problem was that Bringer thought it was +2.0 up positionally so why weaken this >perfect position by "weakening" the kingside >with pawn moves ? > >Fortunately Gerrit told us he had learned his lesson from the Grok game in CCT-1 >and Bringer now recognizes the 50 moves >rule in search . > >It got quite exciting now ; now and then Bringer made a pawn move or what looked >like a promising King move but the game >went on and on without any noticeable progress . I don't know if Bringer would >have won this ( no deeper analysis done so >far ) but by this time LambChop had started to make some tiny weakening pawn >moves without being forced to . Those didn't >seem to hurt too much - until : 122. ...h4 ?? throwing away the game in one >move. > >This game definitely looked like a computer's game . > > >Final Round : SOS - Bringer 1-0 > >As the LambChop game lasted that long there wasn't any time left to think about >what to play against SOS so Bringer >had to deal with the lines chosen against Crafty again . I don't know >what to think about this game . Opening position was nearly equal, slightly >worse for Bringer and then it went downhill slowly . >I haven't analyzed this game so far - it felt like being smashed . > > >So with the much better field of competitors in CCT-3 compaired to CCT-1 Bringer >finally scored 4,5/8 . >As it played nearly all the big ones it got a huge SOP/Buchholz and would have >finished 9th . >Ahead of Crafty and Shredder ;-) . >Slightly ahead of GnuChess :)) . >A shared 9th is still a good result . > > >Bringer beat Hiarcs in a nice game . > >My private hope of getting a shot against Ferret wasn't fullfilled . > >I think this tournament was a nice success for Gerrit Reubold and showed Bringer >isn't _that_ far away anymore . > >Maybe next time even better :) ?? > >pete Thanks for this interesting post Peter, I have recently become a fan of Der Bringer mostly because of the info given by the GUI. I really like to see what the engine is doing during search. The engine is getting stronger as the result suggest. I am interested in getting a better book for it. I'm using the medium book now. Regards, Jim
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.