Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 00:38:09 03/06/02
found in a dusty area on my harddisc:
I will only give THIS years performance from Aegon-tournament:
1. Yona Kosashvili 6 3027
2. Yasser Seiravan 5.5 2684
Johan van Mil 5.5 2726
4. KALLISTO 4.5 2632
REBEL 4.5 2619
Ye Rongguang 4.5 2470
John van der Wiel 4.5 2573
Lembit Oll 4.5 2568
CHESSMASTER5000 4.5 2452
Gerd Jan de Boer 4.5 2536
11.ZUGZWANG 4 2594
DRAGON 4 2564
CILKCHESS 4 2525
NIMZO 4 2486
G.Timoshchenco 4 2386
ZARKOV 4 2476
Friso Nijboer 4 2462
Erik Hoeksema 4 2467
THE KING 4 2474
Jonathan Speelman 4 2475
Rini Kuijf 4 2502
CHESSICA 4 2337
GANDALF 4 2391
HIARCS 4 2286
Larry Christiansen 4 2425
David Bronstein 4 2346
27.Heiner Matthias 3.5 2407
Roberto Cifuentes 3.5 2284
DARK THOUGHT 3.5 2306
Sofia Polgar 3.5 2368
....
[Event "AEGON Mankind vs Machines"]
[Site "The Hague NED"]
[Date "1996.04.10"]
[Round "1"]
[White "CHESS SYSTEM TAL"]
[Black "Peng Zhaoqin"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bd7 5. Nf3 Bc6 6. Bd3 Nd7 7. O-O Ngf6 8.
Ng3 Be7 9. c4 b6 10. Bg5 {she expected Bf4} O-O 11. Re1 {CSTals evaluation
function liked this position much and scored +2,09 pawns} Bb7 12. Bc2 {CSTal
+ 1.73} h6 13. Bf4 c5 {now the bishop stands where she wanted it to stand,
but therefore she has that weakness on h6. A pretty pawn to sacrifice
on for CSTal.} 14. d5 {! very late, and only in permanent brain, CSTal found
d5. Before it would have played dxc with +1,58 pawns. Because Peng thought
that much about c5, CSTal found d5. Thanks!} exd5 {?!} 15. Nf5 {this is a
nice place for a knight. Of course CSTal expected Nxc5} Re8 16. cxd5 Bxd5
{She never considered about Nxd5. Of course our program would have played
Bxh6 almost instantly with +1,96 pawns. Bxh6! Bf6 Rxe8+ Qxe8 Nd6 Qb8 Qd3
Qxd6 Qh7+ Kf8 Ng5 says the main-line! If gxh instead of Bf6 CSTal says
+2,43 and would play Qd3 and feels good. Peng Zhaoqin has seen that,
was afraid of it and choose the safer Bxd5.}
17. Bc7 {very late, in the last second, CSTal saw this move.} Bxf3
18. Qxf3 Qxc7 19. Rxe7 Rad8 20. Rae1 {still one pawn back, CSTal has
pressure enough for the pawn and scores still +1,45.} Rxe7 21. Rxe7 Re8
22. Rxe8+ Nxe8 {I told before, that a program will find a bug, when
there is one. Later on we found a bug in the draw-repetition code. I will ex-
plain later, in the game of the second round. But of course this bug occurs
also here.} 23. Ne7+ Kf8 24. Ng6+ Kg8 25. Ne7+ Kf8 26.Ng6+ Kg8 27. Ne7+
1/2-1/2
Later on we discussed several different moves from her, as alternatives.
She said: "I have one pawn more, but your pieces are so activ, what
can I do else ?" and tried out some things. But always CSTal found a
way to make it hopeless. So - in the end she was also lucky about the
computer "offer" of draw. She said: also in a game against a human, she
would have made this game into a draw very likely.
I told her that it is very complicate to find out with our program, in
later analysis, "what would have been the best / most accurate move in
this position". Still she looked surprised: "But it is a computer! It
should find the accurate move!" Again I tried to persuade her, that
this program is different. It plays chess like you have to play poker,
I mean, it plays not like Tarrasch, it plays like Tal.
If you want to know what is accurate in a position, ask the fast programs.
But is the best move in a position the best move in a game ?
The best move within a range of 10 plies from a certain position is not
the same best move within a range of knowledge seen for the whole game.
But if you want to know the exact move in this position, as if the rest
of the game never happens, you must use another program, not ours.
Our program is bluffing like a human does.
[Event "AEGON Mankind vs Machines"]
[Site "The Hague NED"]
[Date "1996.04.11"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Richard Oranje"]
[Black "CHESS SYSTEM TAL"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2 Nf6 {this human-player was a Van-Geet fan.} 4. e5
{maybe Ng3 would have been better?!} Ng4 {CSTal feels +1,67 and has
Ng4 f4 d3 cxd Qxd3 Qb3 Qxb3 axb in the main-line} 5. f4 d3 6. cxd3 Nc6
7. Nf3 e6 8. a3 {? h3 would have been better} Be7 9. Qc2 {? again h3 or d4 or
b4 and giving back the pawn would have been better.} Qd5 {!! Most programs
want to play O-O, but this is too passive. On O-O white could play
d4 Nh6 b4 Nf5 Bb2 Bd7 Rc1 Rc8 and white comes free. Qd5 with the idea to
control c5-f2 important-diogonal is much more interesting and earns +1,67.
Maybe O-O is the best move for the position. But Qd5 is the best move, if
you have a plan.} 10. h3 Qxf3 {! for machines this move is nothing special.
In the later bulletin it was written about the game: "Chess System Tal attracted
a lot of attention when it sacrified its Queen on move 10. A rarity even in
human chess"... One has to be fair: almost every computer will find Qxf3.
CSTal says 2,92 expected the better hxg Qxg4 g3 Bd7 Bg2 O-O-O d4 h6. Now the
bug came again: When the opponent is NOT defending with the best move, when
opponent is better in material -because we sacrified, it thinks the opponent
will force a repetition draw and instead of senseful lines in the tree it sees
only rubbish repetition lines. Although alpha-beta can handle this misbehaviour,
it waists computing time and together with some other strangenesses of the Tal
-Function, it results here again in one problem: Although we stand better
- like in round 1 - it plays the draw-line!} 11. gxf3 Bh4+ {Evaluation increases
to +10,97 pawns! Many people circled arround the board. A very strange
position. Tal would have liked it.} 12. Kd1 Nf2+ 13. Ke1 Nxd3+ 14. Kd1
Nf2+ 15. Ke1 Nxh1+ 16. Kd1 Nf2+ 17. Ke1 Nxh3+ 18. Kd1 {After eating all the
material, the bug came again! Try it out with Genius or Mchess. Also our
fixed version without the bug would have played better, black can easily
continue by playing Bd7 and developing. He should win then.} Nf2+ 19. Ke1 Nd3+
20.
Kd1 Ncb4 21. axb4 Nf2+ 22. Ke1 Nd3+ 23. Kd1 Nf2+ 1/2-1/2
I don't understand why no program understands the games after Bxh3 and also no
program understands the Bxg2 stuff.
[Event "AEGON Chess Tournament"]
[Site "The Hague NED"]
[Date "1997.04.16"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Yona Kosashvili"]
[Black "CHESS SYSTEM TAL"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]
[WhiteElo "2560"]
[WhiteCountry "ISR"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Nc6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Be2 d5 6. exd5 exd5 7. d4 Be6 8.
cxd5 Nxd5 9. O-O Nxc3 10. bxc3 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Nxd4 12. cxd4 Bd6 13. Bb5+ Kf8
14. Re1 Qh4 15. h3 Bxh3 16. gxh3 Qxh3 17. Re5 Bxe5 18. dxe5 Qf5 19. Qd4 Kg8
20. Be3 Qg6+ 21. Kf1 a6 22. Rd1 h6 23. Bd7 b5 24. Qd5 Rf8 25. Bc5 Rd8 26. e6
fxe6 27. Bxe6+ Kh7 28. Bf5 Rxd5 29. Bxg6+ Kxg6 30. Rxd5 Rc8 31. Rd6+ Kf5 32.
Bb4 Ra8 33. Bc3 g6 34. Kg2 Ra7 35. Rc6 h5 36. Rf6+ Kg5 37. Kh3 Re7 38. f4+
Kh6 39. Be5 a5 40. Ra6 Rf7 41. Ra8 1-0
No program sees 17.Re5. They all consider on f4.
[Event "AEGON Chess Tournament"]
[Site "The Hague NED"]
[Date "1997.04.22"]
[Round "5"]
[White "David Bronstein"]
[Black "CHESS SYSTEM TAL"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteTitle "GM"]
[WhiteElo "2435"]
[WhiteCountry "RUS"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d5 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 O-O 7. e4 Na6 8.
Be2 c5 9. d5 e6 10. O-O exd5 11. exd5 Bf5 12. a3 Re8 13. Bf4 Ne4 14. Nb5
Bxb2 15. Rab1 Qf6 16. Be3 Red8 17. g4 Bxg4 18. Qxe4 Bf5 19. Qc4 Bxb1 20.
Rxb1 Rd7 21. d6 Re8 22. Qd5 Be5 23. Nxe5 Qxe5 24. Rd1 Qxd5 25. Rxd5 Re6 26.
Kf1 f6 27. h4 Kf8 28. Bg4 f5 29. Bf3 Kg8 30. Bf4 Re8 31. Nc7 Rc8 32. Nxa6
bxa6 33. Rd1 Kg7 34. Be5+ Kf8 35. Bd5 Rcd8 36. Be6 Ke8 37. h5 Re7 38. d7+
Rdxd7 39. Bxd7+ Rxd7 40. Re1 gxh5 41. Bd6+ Kf7 42. Bxc5 Kf6 43. Kg2 h6 44.
Kg3 Rd5 45. Bxa7 Ra5 46. Bd4+ Kf7 47. Bb2 Rc5 48. Be5 Rc2 49. f3 Rc4 50. f4
1-0
The game was BOOK for CSTal since Bronstein played
13.Bf4 ,
Cstal had Bg5 (22 white wins,11 Black wins) and the weak Rd1 (4 white wins, 11
black wins) in book.
13... Ne4 was played with -0,47 evaluation, expecting Ne4 Nd2 Bxc3 as main-line.
But in 14th move, Bronstein sacced a pawn !!!
CSTal does not like to take it, and evaluates Bxb2 with -0,65 but cannot
convince itself to play 14...g5 instead (that move is the second choice in the
9th search).
In fact MY style, which I used the 4 rounds before, would have chosen 14...g5
with -0,86 g5 Nxg5 Qf6 Nf3 Bd7 Bc1 Qg6 Nh4 Qf6, but it was chris idea to change
the style just before the game....
IMO g5 would have given a better game....
So with Chris style the pawn is taken but NOT with a positive score.
Check this with other programs, they will normally evaluate with a positive
score because they have a pawn more and they do not understand the position.
Although CSTal understood the position, it was unable to stop the white pawn,
bronstein handled that wise.
16...Red8 ? was played because CSTal thought white is better and tries to repeat
the position. Therefore it repeated too. Other programs will not play this,
because other programs think that BLACK is better and would therefore not repeat
the position.
So - sometimes understanding results in stupidity.
The game was over in move 18 with Bronstein exchanging blacks only piece to
control d6, the knight on e4.
No program understands that 14...Bxb2 is one step into the desaster.
They evaluate the position after Bxb2 POSITIVE for black !
This is all depressive.
So, the second round started. I searched my machine. Where is it. I found myself
on the balcony with the GRANDMASTERS, just in front of SOFIA POLGAR. This nice
girl should be the next opponent. OH NO!
Good for me, but bad for CST2.
[Event "AEGON Chess Tournament"]
[Site "The Hague NED"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White " CSystem Tal"]
[Black " Sofia Polgar"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. e3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bd3 c5 4. c3 e6 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. O-O Qc7 7. Re1 b6 8. e4
dxe4 9. Bxe4 Nxe4 10. Rxe4 Be7 11. Bf4 Qd8 12. Na3 Bb7 13. dxc5 Bxc5 14. Qc2
Bxa3 15. Rd1 Qf6 16. bxa3 O-O 17. Ng5 Qf5 18. Rd7 Na5 19. Re2 Qxc2 20. Rxc2 Bc6
21. Rc7 h6 22. Nf3 Rfc8 23. Nd4 Ba4 24. Rc1 Nc4 25. Rb7 e5 26. Nf5 Na5 27. Ne7+
Kf8 28. Rxa7 exf4 29. Nxc8 Rxc8 30. Ra6 Bc6 31. Rxb6 f3 32. g3 Nc4 33. Ra6 Rc7
34. h4 Ke7 35. Rd1 h5 36. a4 Nb2 37. Re1+ Kd7 38. Ra5 Nxa4 39. c4 g6 40. Kh2
Rb7 41. Rd1+ Kc7 42. Rd2 Nc3 43. Rd3 Ne2 44. Re5 Nc1 45. Rd2 Ne2 46. c5 Nc3 47.
Re7+ Kc8 48. Rxb7 Kxb7 49. Rd3 Nxa2 50. g4 hxg4 51. Kg3 Nc1 52. Rd6 Nb3 53. Rf6
Bd5 54. c6+ Kc7 55. Kxg4 Nc5 56. h5 gxh5+ 57. Kf4 Nd3+ 58. Ke3 Ne5 59. Rf5 Ng4+
60. Kd2 Kxc6 61. Ke1 Kc5 62. Rxh5 Kd4 63. Rh4 f5 64. Rh5 Ke4 65. Rh4 Bc4 66.
Rh5 Kf4 67. Rh7 Be2 68. Rd7 Ne5 69. Rd4+ Kg5 70. Kd2 Nd3 71. Rxd3 Bxd3 72. Kxd3
0-1
If you replay the game with ours, or genius3, you must normally see that we came
GOOD out of the opening, directly into a tal position. Sofia was shocked
herself. She asked me why the program played such an opening that is maybe not
one of the strongest.
The game goes up and down. We had a nice talk, for sure about poems. She asked
nice things, if it is boring for me to operate. I returned the question and
explained her, that my poker-face is just because I don't want to let her know
about my true feelings . We discussed different things, if a computer can write
poems, she asked. Why we call it TAL. We spoke about Fischer. I told her about
the idea to learn the program playing chess, like with a child. She asked how
old the child is... and so on and so on.
Some time our program said -3 pawns , but suddenly she made a few blunders and
we were drawish. The whole scene changed when her boy-friend arrived. She run
away and kissed him.
From this time on, she played stronger. We came in an endgame that was NOT
trivial. But your program, of course , exchanged instead of let it complicate,
although knight+bishop and some pawns vs. rook and pawn is , in my opinion , not
easy. Of course it is stupid to exchange. Of course you are not allowed to let
the king control it's own pawns. OKOKOK. It was Sofia. We should not be ashamed
for losing . Hort commented the game and was amazed about this game. He said
both sides play very interesting.
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.