Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 08:42:24 10/05/01
Dear Chess Friend,
The ODYSSEY 2001 tournament is a giant 15 round Swiss computer-computer chess
tournament between 26 of the strongest chess programs in the world played on
tournament time control to ensure maximum playing strength and game quality.
HOT: All games are analyzed by IM's and GM's members of the Baltijos Lyga Chess
Club known from the Internet matches against REBEL.
HOT: Round reports where IM's and GM's give their opinion about the chess
programs of this tournament. After the tournament the experts will give their
overall impressions. Finally we can hear what the real experts have to say!
The main page of the tournament: http://www.rebel.nl/odyssey.htm
All annotated games: http://www.rebel.nl/mychess/annogame.htm
Kind regards,
Ed Schroder
- REBEL team
Round Report 7:
"Half way to the finish...."
Game reports and discussion about the Odyssey participants after the 7 rounds. A
talk in a BALTIJOS LYGA club residence in Kaunas. Participants: GM A.Kharlov, GM
B.Annakov, IM O.Krivonosov, IM Vaidas Sakalauskas and club president M.
Kulvietis
Marijus Kulvietis: Odyssey has passed it's middle limit. I guess we may see some
results not as accident sign, but tendention. Favorites and outsiders perhaps
are already easy to guess. Lets look at round 7 battles pointing out what is
what from the participants.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: I'll try to comment the games telling my brave opinion
who is weak, who is strong. We are human players ,not programmers, thus our
opinion was allways subjective.
Marijus Kulvietis: Let's see the round 7 results.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: GENIUS 6.5- SOCRATES. 1-0
Perhaps we all have expected GENIUS to show much better perfomance in this
event. Now we see this program loosing and winning. Of course it is a fighter.
GM A.Kharlov: I would say it is an active fighter by no means. Thus why it is
loosing and winning after that sometimes very bravely. But the table position
and those games indicate that-sorry of course:)-but this brave fighter is
already not solid enough in comparisson with those huge-world wide active
programs as JUNIOR, FRITZ which are very sound ,but their authors really are
putting very rich databases to them. Just more invests in their industry I
guess. Experimenting with more different styles. GENIUS was very famous several
years ago between chess amateurs. And it was one of the first chess computer
programs i have met in former USSR. But today some bigger steps are needed in
developing this program.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Perhaps we all can agree with Your opinion. Now just
several words about the GENIUS win in round 7 against SOCRATES. The opening have
come to a better position for GENIUS-for whites-i think. Having in mind GENIUS
style-i think the rather complicated opening have given good chances for an
active game-and we know GENIUS loves activity. Also -what seems a little bit
strange-GENIUS has overplayed SOCRATES in a middlegame. From a point of view of
a human master and his positional understanding. I cant explain how:)-but GENIUS
was understanding the positional fight better. A sucessfull road to the endgame
was a result of a comfortable opening, properly understood middlegame and the
win with a extra pawn in the endgame was then only a technical question . GENIUS
advantage was enough to realize the win endgame position and one pawn as a
material trophy. Computers know how to realize the clearly win positions. Good
game by GENIUS.
Marijus Kulvietis: WCHESS- HIARCS 1/2-1/2.
GM A.Kharlov: Poor draw by great program. I mean Hiarcs. We all know HIARCS is
loved by GREAT masters for analysis and professional preparing. We cant say it
officially-but talks go that such super GMs as Anand like HIARCS more then some
other programs. And perhaps any Grandmaster will explain why.
This program is considered as a "human thinkink" program. It shows more human
decisions in it's analysis. It plays more like a human nor as a computer.
Another question why HIARCS played so poor in ODYSSEY. Maybe one of the reasons
is that this program is more silent with it's human style and not prepared for
MACHINE WARS...?
GM B.Annakov: Sure. We know strong dogs who can save their owners well and are
very strong-but they are not prepared for a dog fights. I guess such formula can
work here. Special preparations must be before the battle with another computer
program.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Agree. We see such programs as CENTURY and HIARCS have
another task-to imitate human's game. But they look not agressive enough in such
tournaments as ODYSSEY. Their games are very silent and not impressive here-but
we cant say they are week-just prepared not for such event. From the other hand
I like to analize some ideas with HIARCS or CENTURY. As they can indicate
interesting human ideas in some positions.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: My task is to remind the results as Marijus has asked me
so. But in this case i cant say many honest words. The game looked poor-very
boring to watch for people. Rather fast going to a rook endgame with a clear
draw in some 30-35 moves. The most boring is the fact that after such clear
positions -programs continue fighting in a dead draw. We remember sometimes it
led to a fiasco of one side and mistakes. This time- the game was boring, but
exluding any bigger mistakes. And ended as a draw.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Such games remind me decided draws in a human
tournaments-when both sides agree to imitate some game-just playing many boring
moves going to a boring draw endgame.We all know such happens.
Marijus Kulvietis: Thank You for a humour. BTW-nearly 90 moves were made in this
drawish game:) And now i announce result n3:
EUGEN 7.92- COMET B36. 1/2-1/2
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: I'll be short. The opening wasnt interesting for me.
Middlegame and endgame gives more material for analysis. I guess this draw wasnt
boring . But we must confess both programs are not rated in the highest
positions among the computer chess products. I think some chances were missed in
this game for another result. GM A. Kharlov: Agree. First of all Marijus is
asking for some analysis. In my opinion both programs are rather week. But...
Eugen have showed many poor games and mistakes in this tournament. Comet looks
more solid. In this duel COMET-playing black was more interesting and had good
chances even for some win ideas. I vote for COMET to be taken as a stronger
program.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Really Comet had to win this endgame. You know i'm the
endgame's lover and i would love to get such chances to play in a COMET position
when it was coming to an endgame. Of course difficult to win against computer
program-but sure COMET had a strong position and no risks. EUGEN was happy hear
with a draw result.
Marijus Kulvietis: I try to finalize Your opinions. Both programs look week in
this tournament-But You clearly say EUGEN shows itself very poor in this
tournament-yes-i remember our previous reports with it's mistaken games and
badly lost games-and You consider COMET to be a program with some more
interesting chances. If You agree-i announce the result n4 in this round:
SCHREDDER 5-NIMZO 8. 1-0
GM B.Annakov: This is another case. Battle of two great favorites.!
Marijus Kulvietis: Yes. I'm just reading results in an order i have got them
from our collegue-Mr. Kenneth Frey.
GM B.Annakov: Both programs are very famous and leading not only here-in
ODYSSEY-but in many other computer chess tournaments! Also their game is very
solid, solid databases, theory lines.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Of course both programs have shown strong game in Odyssey
already. But i doubt if this game was one of the best ones for both sides. Not
the best variations and decisions taken from both sides. Strange game in
opening, slippy middlegame with not correct game from both sides and finally
with fatal mistakes from Schredder side. Typicall computer game were Nimzo-one
side simply have counted better and more far and have played a long counted line
which was leading to a pawn win and conquering the whole flang as a result and
winning the endgame of course.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Odyssey had showed that both programs were rather similar.
Solid tacticians, well counting, but this time simply NIMZO was counting better.
GM A.Kharlov: Week and strong sides of those programs are very similar. Both
prefer tactical, sharp game. Sometimes risky style. Both programs play at a good
level. And their games are interesting to watch. I will try to describe
them-lets say CENTURY, HIARCS-are solid programs imitating human game-having
good databases-but playing more silent games. Schredder and NIMZO-both are so
called "counting programs", who like to count sharper variations and to play
attacking style. Which program will count better some risky line-that program
will win-as both play solid but like to risk as some GENIUS. They attack like
GENIUS-just doing it in a more solid level as we see from the games-sorry for
GENIUS of course-but i think it is clear.
Marijus Kulvietis: I think You was very easy to understand-Thank you for Your
honest opinion. I announce result n5 in this round:
LITTLE GOLLIATH-CHESS SYSTEM TAL 1/2-1/2
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: One more draw. As we all know not very known programs for
us and difficult to analyse them and to understand. But clearly both programs
are not very week and possible to fight good. My short opinion about the game.
The game was solid and interesting. Both programs had interesting chances and
played well. Also both have made some mistakes. Not big. Just i myself cant say
some clear win plans in this game-but there were good moments for both sides to
try something better then a draw.
GM A.Kharlov: Really very difficult to describe those programs shortly. They are
not known to me well. But the game really indicate they cant be taken as those
week programs. I mean all tournament results-they show those programs can
perform nice surprises.
B.Annakov: Sometimes they had shown themselves good, sometimes more shy. Maybe
this is like in some any other industry. Programmers have done interesting
work-but the producing firms are not so powerful as FRITZ or JUNIOR and those
programs has still spots. Some investment of programers work, of tournament
practise needed...Just opinions and guessing.
Marijus Kulvietis: Somebody has done great job creating those programs. Thanks
for interesting chess. Just maybe more powerful industry is needed to develop
those products and ideas.... I announce result n6.:
ZARKOV-VIRTUAL CHESS 1-0.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: I hope people have read anotation written by Mr. Kenneth
Frey. Alas i must agree with anecdote style and good humour written by Kenneth.
Game was terrible. Nothing to annotate here. Just a level of my little pupils,
whom i'm just starting to train. Totally antichess.
GM A.Kharlov: I dont think Grandmasters word is needed here. Children's chess
here. Terrible mistakes. Famous opening. Italian game and 6.h3?? Kenneth is
right with his irony. What to say -just to take the chess book for beginners and
see how to play chess. Battle for centrum, tempo, development. Funny to talk.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: As i have told once about another game in my article-"this
game reminds me a game from 18century"-when no theory and main chess principles
were written to one place as a book. Cant believe computers can play italian
game 6.h3 0-0 7.a4 Bd7 ...my wife can play so-as i havent taught her to play
chess.
GM B.Annakov: Lets see the problem ,Dear colleagues, those programs are playing
from the begining of the tournament, 2/They are week,but they have more then a
zero/0/ points gathered. 3/Today any week program has databases and we know they
can play week, but sure better. Simple question-WHY they had played so weak?
IM Oleg Krivonosov: We may be more strict critics:). Who knows WHY-maybe the
organizators have switched off some databases off or electricity was bad in
Germany that time. In that place were game was played.JJoke. Sure -both programs
can play better-but this time it was terrible game. Anyway those programs are
playing at a very average level. Easy to beat by good IM. Zarkov makes better
impression. From previous games. But... those are really not favorite programs.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Funny-but i must say some words about the game.
Sure-terrible opening. Many,many bad moves. Just no theory knowledge showed-what
is very funny and strange in a computers battle. Of course such childish
irregular game leads to a wilde game with a bad position from one side and many
posibilities for a tactical and positional pressing. But as we have told-both
sides have played very bad-so the game was permanent-both sides were making
mistakes, not using simple situations for a clear win. We cant say somebody had
won this game. Simply blacks were the last to make final mistake and they have
lost the game. Really difficult to say-why...such poor game...maybe some
machine's reaction in a specific situation-for example a man plays poor if he
has some special enemy-or if he plays much weeker opponent- he also often starts
playing much worse then he is able to do. The final word for the programmers i
think.
Marijus Kulvietis: Thank you . I saw the game and of course after all jokes we
must think why the programs have played so. I also believe they are week
programs-but not so week to play such a game. Really funny and maybe not nice
question and situation for their programmers. I announce game n.7:
YACE-SCHREDDER 4 1/2-1/2
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: In short i saw here good normal game played by average
programs.
White had an extra pawn and didnt manage to realize .The endgame ended as a dead
draw with different color's bishops.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Again i must confess my love to endgames. Yace had to play
more trying to use it's pawn. From the other hand i cant say i would find a win
in YACE's place. General impression. YACE is more solid program as i saw it's
game here and in ODYSSEY in general. Mysticall, not sound program, capable to
perform not bad against any enemy.
GM A.Kharlov: Concerning the game i see two interesting moments to analyze-the
opening and the possibilities to realize the pawn in the endgame for whites. I
hope GM A.Karpov or GM U.Andersson would find the win with such pawn.
But the task not easy. I think the game was not superior, but at a normal
average level.
GM B.Annakov: Yace was good enough. And sound program Schredder...well-perhaps
Schredder4 must be weaker then Schredder 5:):)
Marijus Kulvietis: I announce game result n.8:
CRAFTY-MCHESS 0-1
IM Oleg Krivonosov: I remember it was a great sensation when MCHESS has reached
it's first victory. It was taken as an old week program not capable to fight for
high places. Now we have long time passed. Mchess has showed many good results
and wins. Now we see it's victory against CRAFTY-popular program. I think we
must see the game as a game of two powerful programs. As no sensations cant be
pointed out after MCHESS has proved it's strengh.
GM A.Kharlov: Of course. I'm not an expert of computer chess and i dont know
it's history, but i see MCHESS as a normal program, playing just normal chess.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: As we also see CRAFTY plays not equal in this tournament.
While MCHESS is just average correct program, but playing rather stabile.
Perhaps standing at it's deserved table place. This average-traditional program
shows no supertricks- but it plays silent chess using very well all enemie's
mistakes! I hope You remember previous wins of this program. This time itit was
the same as it had happened before. MCHESS played as an ITALIAN FOOTBALL
again-using contra attacks. Plying on opponent's mistakes. And here we have the
secret of MCHESS success. And it's style -just average correct chess, rather
patient style, but reacting fast and not forgiving enemie's mistakes. From the
other hand MCHESS reaches good results in the tournament, but cant show
interesting findings in the developing of the computer chess.
Marijus Kulvietis: I announce the result n.9:
GROMIT-REBEL-TIGER.1/2-1/2
IM Oleg Krivonosov: GROMIT is taken by us as one of those silent amateur
programs- which are playing rather successfully. While REBEL-TIGER is an
aggressive child, born in a powerful and famous REBEL company, which is
producing professional and famous chess programs. Our club has fighted vs
REBEL-CENTURY. Of course REBEL-TIGER is created for a more aggressive, tactical
game /it's name indicates itJ/. But as a newborn it has to fight for a good
place among many strong concurents in a computer chess world. ODYSSEY shows that
REBEL-TIGER is still in search of it's game, style. First ODYSSEY stages were a
dissapointment for TIGER. But latest rounds show this program is recovering.
GM A.Kharlov: It is pretty clear: REBEL -TIGER is made in a style of GENIUS,
SCHREDDER, NIMZO...At the moment personally I think it plays stronger then
GENIUS-but still not possible to run after SCHREDDER or NIMZO. BUT.... SCHREDDER
and NIMZO are old programs and their conception, style were created and
developed for a years! While TIGER is a totally new product in REBEL company
totally different from another REBEL products-we know/CENTURY, old REBEL
versions/. Sure our Holland collegues are making something new and interesting
for a computer chess in a face of REBEL-TIGER. TIGER is a young program and we
must wait a year minimum until it will show it's REAL RATING. Such is a rule in
chess world.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: And Tiger's game went as a closed Sicilian variation with
Nc3-instead of more open and popular Nf3 from white side....
Marijus Kulvietis: Ha. Very interesting for me as I use to play this theory in
my live games if my white opponent plays c5 after e4. I answer Nc3....
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Then You must follow GROMIT's games. I don't remember
computers choosing closed Sicilian. They like more aggressive and open lines/
Nf3 gives it/.This says perhaps that GROMIT is successfully prepared to play
this theory. In this game GROMIT really played opening without any troubles
against dangerous REBEL-TIGER. More to say -GROMIT have got nearly win position
after the theory. At least very comfortable to play for white . I thought white
had to win. They had impressive iniciative after seeing the picture in the board
after theory was played. But nor me ,nor my computer cant find fast win for
whites. And maybe we must agree with Kenneth Frey. Have You read His annotation:
"The line between a win and a draw was never crossed"...-in this game according
to Kenneth. I believe Kenneth was right. GROMIT musnt be accused of missing some
better decisions. REBEL -TIGER had played well in a defence. Very important for
such tacticians not to go to a mistaken bloody contragames.
Marijus Kulvietis: I announce game result n.10.:
ZCHESS-GANDALF. 1-0.
GM B.Annakov: The last pairing in this round wherewe have aproblem with an
objective analysis as we have again to talk about the programs which we haven't
got at our homes. ODYSSEY cant still indicate very exact picture of those
programs.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: ZCHESS achievements seemed similar to MCHESS, not because of
a funny similar names. J Just similar strengh. Maybe ZCHESSis searching for a
more novelties as a younger and more ambitious program. The same can be told
about GANDALF.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: And the battle on the board was rather ambitious. Both
programs run off the theory rather early. Personally for me such positions are
very unclear. From the computer's point of view white were better after some
15-20 moves. First glance and impression may indicate such preferences as better
space and simply more nice picture on the board and programs like such criterias
as "space". I think it was a draw after a some period of a middlegame and both
sides had to go to a such result.. But as it often happens in ODYSSEY-GANDALF
continued not useful game till the final mistakes. Until lost pawn and lost
flang for enemies pawn promotion. ZCHESS had used mistakes and won. My opinion
after the 7 rounds- both those programs are at a similar level. At least we see
from other games GANDALF can play not worse then ZCHESS and this result is not
final indicator. Rather similar programs.
Marijus Kulvietis: Result n 11:
PATZER-CHESSMASTER8000 0-1.
GM B.Annakov: We all love Chessmaster as a tutor program. Fine to play, to teach
pupils.But difficult to realize this program as a tournament fighter.
GM A.Kharlov: Very nice and unique program for teaching and studying chess. I
respect CHESSMASTER. PATZER was claimed by us in a round reportsas a
surprisingly strong program among those "less known and sound programs". Table
position and results indicated it can battle any sound enemy.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: But the game had disappointed me. No beautiful chess.
Perhaps PATZER wanted to trick the opponent with a not familiar opening
decision. The result was bad for PATZER and main mistake in that decision I can
see very clear. Game was short and clear. After failing to play irregular
opening -PATZER was reaching worse and worse position. After opening king's
position in -g-line-PATZER had castled 0-0-0 and had made one more mistake-going
to the dangerous flang under opponents pressing. Good lesson for program!
Programs are strong for their databases. And weak in a positional understanding.
I think they must play solid opening instead of playing avangard. This job must
be left for human creative masters. PATZER has a solid database-we all know it
and it would escape loosing if it would choose normal correct opening. I'm sure.
All secret in this result here. PATZER's decision to play unknown theory.
Marijus Kulvietis: Game n.12:
DEEP FRITZ-CENTURY-MAASTRICHT .0-1 Please don't be confused. After a famous
Maastricht computers tournament REBEL-CENTURY has taken it's name.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: And this new name was very lucky! Great success by CENTURY.
Very important victory against old rival in black colors.
GM A.Kharlov: No need to talk about the opponents. FRITZ and REBEL CENTURY-world
famous programs have met in a ambitious match. The only thing I want to point.
BALTIJOS LYGA clubknows CENTURY older version and newer from ODYSSEY tournament.
Oleg and Vaidas had played vs older CENTURY in an offical match. And we must
remind ourselves-CENTURY is more patient, silent program imitating human's game.
FRITZ plays more aggressive. Nevertheless in a battle of a such caliber both
sides can change their style depending on a board position. Enemies are very
solid really and ready for sudden changes on the board.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Great battle and great intrigue. Of course a game with a
perfect level. I was waiting honestly for a long game of about 80 moves with a
draw in finish. But the game was short. As it was decided by one mistake made by
FRITZ and perfectly used by REBEL_CENTURY. Opening had taken bigger part of the
game. And going to the 30 move the position was drawish and equal. Material and
positional. Then white started fine pressing and pushed their dangerous pawn.
But when it looked That black were not dangerous-FRITZ had made a fatal mistake.
Traded the only rook And left with 2 knights vs REBEL's rook at the endgame.
Position looked so good for FRITz that it seemed nothing bad. But important rook
was much stronger in this rather classical endgame position vs 2 not strong
knights. REBEL CENTURY had proved rook's advantage very decisive and fast. This
fatal rook had decided the endgame very fast And changed endgame position to a
CENTURY's profit very fast. One slight mistake by FRITZ and perfectly caught
moment by CENTURY! Using the chance very fast and without any mistakes! Really
great level of chess and both Programs showed good chess. Just CENTURY was
stronger this time!
GM B.Annakov: Of course it is interesting how CENTURY has improved and changed
last time. Had it changed it's style to more aggressive? I think so. But more
official games are needed to see this.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: I also feel REBEL is turning to a more aggressive style. And
even such program as CENTURY will be changed to more aggressive style. Maybe it
is needed for an important rival matches in a computer chess tournaments. I
think CENTUY will more sharp soon.
Marijus Kulvietis: Game result n13:
JUNIOR7-GAMBIT-TIGER. 0-1
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Another great battle! One more victory by another young
program-GAMBIT-TIGER. By the way we often mix those two new programs-
REBEL-TIGER and GAMBIT-TIGER.
GM A.Kharlov: Those programs are really similar for me. Both planned as a
tactical fighters. This is clear and sure they have much in common. No surprise
to mix them. I guess the proper difference in their ideas ,conception can be
told by their creators.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Yes. Both programs are new, very aggressive ,playing
aggressive and interesting to watch chess. Some day we had agreed to take
GAMBIT-TIGER as a more perspective fighters in such machine wars as ODYSSEY. But
the situation can change.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Right. Lets leave the final explanation to programmersJ
Shortly about the game. GAMBIT-TIGER is expected by us as a most perspective
program killer from thosenew programs created in a REBEL company/as I
understand/. Thus very interesting to see how it can deal with such world famous
programs as JUNIOR. This time the battle was long-really about 80 moves.J
GAMBIT-TIGER was black.BUT the theory was more comfortable for blacks and
Gambit-Tiger has got a nice game with all great chances. White had sacked a
pawn. It is very dangerous in a computer chess!!!! After a perfect
defence-computers respect material very high. As a live master I never play
gambits and lines where material must be sacked at the opening against a
program. As such compensation as tempo in development, iniciative are important
in a 2 humans match,but may be not reached in a match against a program. I think
the greatest and main mistake was made by JUNIOR as I described! Not to hurry
giving material for far seen compensation in a computer chess. White have got
nothing for their lost pawn. More to say: black have started changing material
advantage into positional very fast. And very fast they have started very strong
pressing. We musnt forgot-GAMBIT-TIGER is created as an aggressive program and
giving material to it is very dangerous. It was proved in practise. Just in a
previous discussed game-CENTURY has realized FRITZ mistake very fast. While
GAMBIT-TIGER realized it's advantage step by step. And the final result was
decided after a slippy endgame where white were still able to change something.
Anyway after such great programs as FRITZ and JUNIOR have lost-the ODYSSEY Keeps
holding greater intrigue and we must remember Agatha Christie -the final result
Is VERY difficult to guess. The winner of the ODYSSEY will be decided at the
very end I think.
Marijus Kulvietis: Thank You very much for a longer talk! We are after 7 rounds
in Odyssey event. Thus after half a way to finish we decided to have longer
discussion about all the participants. Thanks to all participants in our
discussion. Thanks to our collegues in Holland and Germany for interesting
event. We are waiting for new interesting games.
LITHUANIA 2001.09.29
ROUND-7
1. SHREDDER5, (1) - (20) NIMZO8, 1:0
2. JUNIOR7, (9) - (2) GAMBIT-TIGER2.0, 0:1
3. DEEP FRITZ, (8) - (10) REBEL-MAASTRICHT, 0:1
4. PATZER311B, (17) - (6) CHESSMASTER8000 1.0.4., 0:1
5. ZCHESS 2.2, (12) - (11) GANDALF432H, 1:0
6. GROMIT 3.8.1, (26) - (3) REBEL-TIGER14, ½:½
7. CRAFTY 18.10, (19) - (23) MCHESS8, 0:1
8. YACE LEIDEN, (24) - (5) SHREDDER4 CHESSBITS, ½:½
9. WCHESS2000, (15) - (4) HIARCS7.01, ½:½
10. ZARKOV4.5R, (13) - (7) VIRTUAL-CHESS2, 1:0
11. LITTLE-GOLIATH2000V3, (16) - (14) CHESS SYSTEM TAL2.03, ½:½
12. GENIUS6.5 CZUB-STYLE, (21) - (22) SOCRATES X, 1:0
13. EUGEN7.92, (25) - (18) COMET B36, ½:½
RANKING after ROUND-7
Tournament: Odyssey-2001
Place Name Sco MBch Buch Ws
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 SHREDDER5, (1) 6.0 19½ 26½ 5
2-3 REBEL-MAASTRICHT, (10) 5.0 19½ 28½ 4
GAMBIT-TIGER2.0, (2) 5.0 18 25½ 4
4-7 NIMZO8, (20) 4.5 20½ 29 4
JUNIOR7, (9) 4.5 20½ 28 3
CHESSMASTER8000 1.0.4., (6) 4.5 17½ 23 4
ZCHESS 2.2, (12) 4.5 17½ 23 3
8-9 DEEP FRITZ, (8) 4.0 21½ 30½ 2
MCHESS8, (23) 4.0 19½ 27 3
10-16 PATZER311B, (17) 3.5 23½ 33 2
GROMIT 3.8.1, (26) 3.5 17½ 25 2
YACE LEIDEN, (24) 3.5 16½ 23½ 2
REBEL-TIGER14, (3) 3.5 16½ 21½ 2
HIARCS7.01, (4) 3.5 16 21½ 2
GANDALF432H, (11) 3.5 15½ 21½ 3
ZARKOV4.5R, (13) 3.5 15½ 21½ 2
17-21 CRAFTY 18.10, (19) 3.0 21 29 2
WCHESS2000, (15) 3.0 18 25½ 1
GENIUS6.5 CZUB-STYLE, (21) 3.0 17½ 24 1
SHREDDER4 CHESSBITS, (5) 3.0 15 20½ 0
CHESS SYSTEM TAL2.03, (14) 3.0 14½ 22½ 1
22-23 LITTLE-GOLIATH2000V3, (16) 2.5 17 24 1
VIRTUAL-CHESS2, (7) 2.5 14 19½ 2
24 COMET B36, (18) 2.0 14½ 21½ 1
25 SOCRATES X, (22) 1.5 14½ 20 1
26 EUGEN7.92, (25) 1.0 16 22 0
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.