Author: José Carlos
Date: 17:07:20 07/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2002 at 02:14:33, Ron Murawski wrote:
>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
Averno 0.46 likes Qxd5 (Athlon 550):
1 0.10 0.00 12 b7d5
1 0.36 0.00 33 g8g7!
1 0.82 0.00 43 g8g7!
1 0.82 0.00 43 g8g7
1 0.82 0.00 77--g8g7
2 0.69 0.00 184 g8g7 e2f4
2 0.95 0.00 441 e4d2!
2 2.45 0.00 555 e4d2!
2 3.18 0.00 684 e4d2 b1b2
2 3.18 0.00 840--e4d2 b1b2
3 3.43 0.00 1052 e4d2!
3 3.41 0.00 1527--e4d2 b1b2 *
4 3.16 0.00 3244 e4d2?
4 1.66 0.00 3574 e4d2?
4 -0.24 0.00 4329 e4d2 f3h5 a4h4 h5h4
4 0.02 0.00 8602 g8g7!
4 0.94 0.00 15389 g8g7!
4 0.94 0.00 15389 g8g7 e2f4 a4b4 b1f1
4 1.20 0.00 23773 b7d5!
4 1.29 0.00 26459 b7d5!
4 1.29 0.00 26459 b7d5 e2f4 e4f2 h1g2
4 1.29 0.00 29607--b7d5 e2f4 e4f2 h1g2
5 1.04 0.00 72267 b7d5?
5 1.04 0.00 77167 b7d5 b1b2 a4a1 h1g2 g8g7
5 1.04 0.00 95443--b7d5 b1b2 a4a1 h1g2 g8g7
6 0.93 0.00 175685 b7d5 b1b2 e4g3 h1g2 d5f3 g2f3
6 0.93 1.00 415591--b7d5 b1b2 e4g3 h1g2 d5f3 g2f3
7 1.18 2.00 466063 b7d5!
7 2.17 3.00 653377 b7d5 b1b2 e4g3 h1g2 g3e2 f3d5 e2f4
7 2.17 3.00 797190--b7d5 b1b2 e4g3 h1g2 g3e2 f3d5 e2f4
8 2.16 6.00 1299308 b7d5 b1b2 e4g3 h1g2 g3e2 f3d5 e2f4 g2f3
8 2.16 9.00 2035478--b7d5 b1b2 e4g3 h1g2 g3e2 f3d5 e2f4 g2f3
9 2.41 12.00 2592140 b7d5!
9 3.48 26.00 4954725 b7d5 b1b2 e4g3 h1g2 g3e2 f3d5 e2f4 g2f3 f4d5
9 3.48 28.00 5564401--b7d5 b1b2 e4g3 h1g2 g3e2 f3d5 e2f4 g2f3 f4d5
10 3.73 36.00 7142980 b7d5!
10 3.71 79.00 13311112--b7d5 b1b2 e4g3 h1g2 g3e2 f3d5 e2f4 g2f3 f4d5 *
11 3.96 163.00 23655180 b7d5!
After forcing Nd2 it wants to play Qh5, but doesn't see how good it is (in a
reasonable time):
1 -9.82 0.00 12 f3f7
1 -9.56 0.00 21 b1b2!
1 -8.06 0.00 28 b1b2!
1 -3.18 0.00 49 b1b2
1 -3.18 0.00 155--b1b2
2 -2.93 0.00 245 b1b2!
2 -2.69 0.00 405 f3h5!
2 -1.19 0.00 444 f3h5!
2 -1.20 0.00 495--f3h5 *
3 -0.95 0.00 678 f3h5!
3 0.01 0.00 1026 f3h5 a4h4 b1b2
3 0.01 0.00 1250--f3h5 a4h4 b1b2
4 0.26 0.00 1748 f3h5!
4 0.24 0.00 3730--f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 *
5 -0.01 0.00 4126 f3h5?
5 -0.01 0.00 5849 f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 *
5 -0.01 0.00 6884--f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 *
6 -0.26 0.00 10399 f3h5?
6 -1.19 0.00 16355 f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7e7 h5f5 e7e2
6 -1.19 0.00 27698--f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7e7 h5f5 e7e2
7 -1.44 0.00 34347 f3h5?
7 -1.89 0.00 52292 f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7e7 h5h8 h4h8 g7h8Q
7 -1.89 0.00 116953--f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7e7 h5h8 h4h8 g7h8Q
8 -1.64 0.00 145927 f3h5!
8 -1.00 0.00 211266 f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7b2 h5h4 b2a1 e2g1 a1g1
8 -1.00 1.00 468725--f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7b2 h5h4 b2a1 e2g1 a1g1
9 -1.25 2.00 503593 f3h5?
9 -1.25 2.00 565654 f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7b2 h5h4 b2a1 e2g1 a1g1 *
9 -1.25 7.00 1745616--f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7b2 h5h4 b2a1 e2g1 a1g1 *
10 -1.50 7.00 1859614 f3h5?
10 -2.43 8.00 2086967 f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7b2 h5h4 b2a1 e2g1 a1g1
h1g1 d2f3
10 -2.43 22.00 5564632--f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7b2 h5h4 b2a1 e2g1 a1g1
h1g1 d2f3
11 -2.18 25.00 6336647 f3h5!
11 -2.20 204.00 48299343--f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7b2 h5h4 b2a1 e2g1 a1g1
h1g1 d2f3 *
12 -2.10 225.00 53129388 f3h5 a4h4 b1b2 b7b2 h5h4 b2a1 e2g1 a1g1
h1g1 d2f3 g1f2 f3h4
José C.
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.