Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Dutch Open Leiden after round 6

Author: Johan Hutting

Date: 16:37:18 10/20/02

Go up one level in this thread


On October 20, 2002 at 15:22:41, Uri Blass wrote:

>The
_released_
>winboard version of Ant is clearly better
>than the
_released_
>winboard version of Celes.

which is over a year old anyway.
>
>It lost against the baron and celes with

so baron is also clearly worse then ant?
Ant only scored 1 point vs Djenghis and a very lucky half point vs ZZZZZ.

>1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 and in both games the queen came later to d8.
>
>I do not understand this opening choice.

Their opening choice was 'fine' as far as I could tell. Hans Secelle (operator
Ant) mentioned he checked all booklines with fritz and didn't find any
weaknesses. Their search however had some major instabilities. They outsearched
Celes by 6-7 ply on some moves with a too small branching factor.

Also, after 15...Qa7 their position went downhill (Qd5, Qc5 or Qd7 seems better.
Celes expected Wc5, b4, Qd5 IIRC), Celes had a constant +2.xx after 18.Qg3 while
Ant's score fluctuated between -1.00 and -3.00 every couple of moves.

Their major problem seemed to be testing new settings, which 'might' be caused
by people not playing with ancient winboard versions. The programmer of Ant was
already attempting to figure out what caused the search inconsitencies during
the game. He'll quite probably show up with a much stronger playing version of
Ant next weekend, at least, I hope so for him.

Perhaps you should participate in a tournament yourself to figure out the
importance of good books, well tested engines and why to use unreleased
versions.



This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.