Author: Ron Murawski
Date: 23:14:33 07/13/02
Horizon 3.2 drew a game against Cerebro 1.10 in Leo Dijksman's 3rd Division
Ridderkerk tournament. Just for the record, here is the game:
[Event "WBEC3_3rdDivision"]
[Site "DUAL-P3-933"]
[Date "2002.07.12"]
[Round "1.3"]
[Number "399"]
[White "Cerebro 1.10b"]
[Black "Horizon 3.2"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[TimeControl "40/2400"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e3 b5 5. a4 b4 6. Ne4 Nf6 7. Nxf6+ exf6 8.
Bxc4 Be7 9. Qc2 Be6 10. Ne2 Bxc4 11. Qxc4 O-O 12. O-O Qd5 13. Qc2 c5 14. e4
Qb7 15. d5 f5 16. f3 Nd7 17. Bf4 fxe4 18. fxe4 Bf6 19. g4 h6 20. Kh1 b3 21.
Qc1 Rfe8 22. Ng3 c4 23. Bd2 Be5 24. Bf4 Bf6 25. Qxc4 Bxb2 26. Rad1 Rac8 27.
Qe2 Rc2 28. Rd2 Rxd2 29. Qxd2 Bf6 30. Be3 Be5 31. Bf4 Bxf4 32. Qxf4 Nf6 33.
Qf3 b2 34. Rb1 Rc8 35. Ne2 Rc4 36. g5 Nxe4 37. gxh6 Rxa4 38. hxg7 Nd2 39.
Qh5 Rh4 40. Rxb2 Qxb2 41. Qxh4 Qb1+ 42. Ng1 Qe4+ 43. Qxe4 Nxe4 44. Ne2 Kxg7
45. Kg2 Kf6 46. h4 Ke5 47. h5 Nf6 48. h6 Kxd5 49. Kf1 Ke4 50. Ke1 Nh7 51.
Kd2 Kf5 52. Kc3 Kg6 53. Kb4 Kh5 54. Nd4 Kg4 55. Ka5 Kf4 56. Ka6 Ke4 57. Ne2
Ke3 58. Ng3 Kf4 59. Ne2+ Kf3 60. Nd4+ Kf2 61. Nf5 Kf3 62. Nd6 Kf4 63. Nxf7
Kf5 64. Kxa7 Ke6 65. Ka6 Kxf7 66. Ka5 Ke8 67. Ka4 Kd8 68. Ka3 Kc8 69. Ka2
Kb8 70. Ka1 Ka8 71. Kb1 Kb8 72. Ka1 Ka8 73. Kb1 Kb8 74. Ka1
{Three fold repetition} 1/2-1/2
I believe that Horizon had a win in hand until this position:
[D] 6k1/pq3pP1/8/3P4/r3n3/5Q2/1p2N2P/1R5K b - - 0 38
where Horizon played 38...Nd2 with an eval score of more that +6.00.
Here's two WinBoard analysis snapshots after 5 minutes running on an AMD 1.8 GHz
w/64 MB hash for Horizon and for Crafty.
Horizon 3.2 (where +6.70 means Black is ahead)
depth=11 15/35 +6.70 Nd2 Qh5 Rh4 Rxb2 Qxb2 Qxh4 Qb1+ Ng1 Qxg1+ Kxg1 Nf3+ Kf2
Nodes: 77677043 NPS: 258071
Time: 00:05:00.99
Crafty 18.15 (where -5.41 means Black is ahead)
depth=14 1/35 -5.41 1. ... Nd2 2. Qf5 Rh4 3. Rd1 b1=Q 4. Rxb1 Qxb1+ 5. Qxb1 Nxb1
6. d6 Rh6 7. d7 Rd6 8. Ng3 Nd2 9. h4 Kxg7
Nodes: 319129163 NPS: 1060758
Time: 00:05:00.85
It is interesting to note that Crafty 18.15 endorses Horizon's move 38...Nd2 and
also scores it as Black ahead big-time.
But when I analyzed using Chess Tiger and Fritz, I saw a different assessment.
(In both of the following analyses, the more negative the score the better it is
for Black.)
Here's analysis by Chess Tiger 14.0:
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Kxg7 3.Qg2+ Kf8 4.Rb8+ Ke7 5.Rb1 Rc4
³ (-0.50) Depth: 7 00:00:00 237kN
1...Rb4 2.Nf4 Qb5 3.Qg2 Qc4 4.Nh5 Qxd5
³ (-0.64) Depth: 7 00:00:00 313kN
1...Rb4 2.Nf4 Qe7 3.Nd3 Nd2 4.d6 Qxd6 5.Qa8+ Rb8
³ (-0.62) Depth: 8 00:00:01 650kN
1...Rb4 2.Qh5 Kxg7 3.Nd4 Nf2+ 4.Kg2 Nd3 5.Qg5+ Kf8 6.Qd8+ Kg7 7.Qg5+
= (0.15) Depth: 9 00:00:01 1130kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Kxg7 3.Qg4+ Ng5+ 4.Qg2 Qd1+ 5.Qg1 Qxg1+ 6.Kxg1 Rg4+ 7.Ng3 a5
8.Rb7 a4
µ (-0.72) Depth: 9 00:00:02 1559kN
1...Nd2 2.Qh5 Rh4 3.Rxb2 Qxb2 4.Qxh4 Qb1+ 5.Ng1 Qxg1+ 6.Kxg1 Nf3+ 7.Kh1 Nxh4
µ (-0.86) Depth: 9 00:00:02 1670kN
1...Nd2 2.Qh5 Rh4 3.Rxb2 Qxb2 4.Qxh4 Qb1+ 5.Ng1 Qxg1+ 6.Kxg1 Nf3+ 7.Kh1 Nxh4
µ (-0.86) Depth: 10 00:00:03 1828kN
1...Ng5 2.Qf5 Ra1 3.Nc3 Rxb1+ 4.Nxb1 Ne6 5.h4 Nxg7 6.Qe5 a5
µ (-1.10) Depth: 10 00:00:03 2386kN
1...Ng5 2.Qf5 Ra1 3.Nc3 Qb4 4.Qe5 Rxb1+ 5.Nxb1 Qe4+ 6.Qxe4 Nxe4
-+ (-1.44) Depth: 11 00:00:05 3169kN
1...Qxd5
-+ (-2.00) Depth: 11 00:00:10 6698kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kg3 Nxd5 6.Rd2 Nf4
-+ (-2.56) Depth: 11 00:00:12 7886kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kf3 Nxd5 6.Rg2 Rh4 7.Kf2 a5
-+ (-3.12) Depth: 12 00:00:30 19934kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2
-+ (-3.12) Depth: 13 00:00:32 21494kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kf1 Nxd5 6.Rb5 Rd4 7.Rb7 Kxg7
8.Rxa7 Rd2
-+ (-3.76) Depth: 14 00:01:12 48458kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kf3 Nxd5 6.Rg2 Rf4+ 7.Ke2 Rh4
8.Kf3 a5 9.Rg5 Nf4
-+ (-3.42) Depth: 15 00:02:07 85404kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kf1 Nxd5 6.Rb5 Nf6 7.Rb7 Rf4+
8.Ke1 Kxg7 9.Rxa7 Rh4
-+ (-3.92) Depth: 16 00:07:17 299312kN, tb=27
1...Ng5 2.Qf5 Ra1 3.Nc3 Qb4 4.Qc8+ Kxg7 5.Qf5 f6 6.Qc2 Qxc3 7.Qxc3 Rxb1+ 8.Kg2
Rg1+ 9.Kxg1 b1Q+ 10.Kg2
-+ (-4.14) Depth: 16 00:20:12 841933kN, tb=32
1...Ng5 2.Qf5 Ra1 3.Nc3 Qb4 4.Qc8+ Kxg7 5.Qf5 f6 6.Qd3 Qb3 7.Qg3 Rxb1+ 8.Nxb1
Qxd5+ 9.Qg2 Qd3 10.Nd2
-+ (-4.26) Depth: 17 00:32:43 1364414kN, tb=45
Here's analysis by Fritz 6 Light:
1...Kxg7!
³ (-0.44) Depth: 1/8 00:00:00
1...Kxg7! 2.Rg1+ Kh8
³ (-0.63) Depth: 1/8 00:00:00
1...Kxg7 2.Rg1+ Kf8
³ (-0.44) Depth: 2/5 00:00:00
1...Rb4!
³ (-0.56) Depth: 2/6 00:00:00
1...Rb4! 2.Ng3 Nxg3+ 3.Qxg3 Qxd5+ 4.Kg1
µ (-0.97) Depth: 2/8 00:00:00
1...Nd2!
µ (-1.03) Depth: 2/9 00:00:00
1...Nd2! 2.Qf5 Nxb1 3.Qxb1 Qxd5+ 4.Kg1 Kxg7 5.Qxb2+ f6
-+ (-2.50) Depth: 2/11 00:00:00
1...Nd2--
³ (-0.53) Depth: 3/7 00:00:00
1...Nd2-- 2.Qh5 Rh4
± (0.72) Depth: 3/12 00:00:00 1kN
1...Rb4!
² (0.56) Depth: 3/15 00:00:00 1kN
1...Rb4! 2.Qh5
µ (-0.94) Depth: 3/15 00:00:00 2kN
1...Rb4--
³ (-0.59) Depth: 4/12 00:00:00 2kN
1...Rb4--
³ (-0.59) Depth: 4/12 00:00:00 3kN
1...Qxd5!
³ (-0.63) Depth: 4/13 00:00:00 8kN
1...Qxd5! 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Qxf3+ 4.Kxf3 Nxe2 5.Rxe2 Kxg7
µ (-0.94) Depth: 4/15 00:00:00 12kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Qxf3+ 4.Kxf3 Nxe2 5.Rxe2 Kxg7
µ (-0.94) Depth: 5/16 00:00:00 26kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Qxf3+ 4.Kxf3 Ne4 5.Ng3 Nxg3 6.hxg3
µ (-1.16) Depth: 6/18 00:00:00 55kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Nf2+ 3.Kg2 Qxf3+ 4.Kxf3 Nd3 5.Rb8+ Kxg7 6.Ng3
µ (-1.09) Depth: 7/20 00:00:00 182kN
1...Qxd5!
-+ (-1.41) Depth: 8/22 00:00:00 462kN
1...Qxd5! 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kf3
-+ (-2.84) Depth: 8/23 00:00:00 1048kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kf3 Nxd5 6.Rd2
-+ (-3.06) Depth: 9/25 00:00:01 1725kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kf3 Nxd5 6.Rg2
-+ (-3.13) Depth: 10/27 00:00:01 2892kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kf3 Nxd5 6.Rg2
-+ (-3.34) Depth: 11/28 00:00:03 7062kN
1...Qxd5!
-+ (-3.66) Depth: 12/32 00:00:10 19591kN
1...Qxd5! 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kf3 Nxd5 6.Rd2
-+ (-4.25) Depth: 12/32 00:00:34 70353kN
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kf3 Nxd5 6.Rd2
-+ (-4.47) Depth: 13/36 00:01:08 138628kN, tb=3
1...Qxd5 2.Rxb2 Ng3+ 3.Kg2 Nxe2 4.Qxd5 Nf4+ 5.Kf3 Nxd5 6.Rd2
-+ (-4.53) Depth: 14/37 00:06:02 779323kN, tb=90
So it seems that 38...Qxd5 or 38...Ng5 can win the game for Black. If you force
Horizon's game move 38...Nd2 into either Tiger or Fritz the eval scoring gets
close to 0.00.
If anyone has a clue why Horizon and Crafty's eval scoring are off by more than
5 pawns for this position I would be interested. All theories are welcome.
Ron
This page took 0.01 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.