Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 10:57:07 01/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2003 at 13:37:18, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On January 19, 2003 at 11:23:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>>On January 19, 2003 at 11:07:27, mike schoonover wrote:
>>
>>>crafty holds a very tuff position.good work prof. hyatt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[Event "ICS Unrated Standard match"]
>>>[Site "chessclub.com"]
>>>[Date "2003.01.19"]
>>>[Round "-"]
>>>[White "crafty"]
>>>[Black "SearcherX"]
>>>[Result "1/2-1/2"]
>>>[WhiteElo "2554"]
>>>[BlackElo "2528"]
>>>[TimeControl "2700+10"]
>>>
>>>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Ne2 d5 6. a3 Be7 7. cxd5 exd5 8.
>>>g3 c6 9. Bg2 Na6 10. O-O Nc7 11. h3 Bd7 12. Nf4 Qc8 13. h4 Bd6 14. Re1 Re8
>>>15. Bd2 Bxf4 16. exf4 Bh3 17. Rxe8+ Ncxe8 18. Bf3 Bg4 19. Bxg4 Nxg4 20. Qe2
>>>Nd6 21. Re1 Nf6 22. Nd1 a5 23. f3 c5 24. dxc5 Qxc5+ 25. Qf2 d4 26. Bc3 Nf5
>>>27. Re5 Qc8 28. Bxa5 Qc1 29. Qd2 Qb1 30. Kh2 Rc8 31. Nf2 Rc2 32. Qe1 Qxe1
>>>33. Bxe1 Ne3 34. Kh3 h5 35. g4 Rxb2 36. gxh5 Nfd5 37. Ne4 Nxf4+ 38. Kg3
>>>Ne2+ 39. Kf2 f6 40. Re8+ Kh7 41. Bd2 Nf4 42. a4 Nc4 43. Ke1 Ng2+ 44. Ke2
>>>Ra2 45. Rd8 Nf4+ 46. Ke1 Nxd2 47. Nxd2 Ra1+ 48. Kf2 Rxa4 49. Nb3 Ra2+ 50.
>>>Ke1 d3 51. Rd4 Ng2+ 52. Kd1 Ne3+ 53. Kc1 Rc2+ 54. Kb1 Rc3 55. Nc1 Nf5 56.
>>>Rd7 d2 57. Ne2 Rxf3 58. Kc2 Rf2 59. Kxd2 Ng3 60. Ke3 Rxe2+ 61. Kf3 b5 62.
>>>Kxg3 Re4 63. Rd8 Rc4 64. Rb8 b4 65. Re8 Rc5 66. Rb8 Rc4 67. Rb7 Kh6 68. Rb5
>>>Re4 69. Kh3 Rd4 70. Kg3 Re4 71. Rb7 Rd4 72. Rb5 Rc4 73. Kh3 Re4 74. Kg3 Rd4
>>>75. Kh3 Kh7 76. Rb8 Rc4 77. Kg3 Rc3+ 78. Kg4 Rc4+ 79. Kh3 Re4 80. Kg3 Rd4
>>>81. Kh3 Rd3+ 82. Kg4 b3 83. Kf4 Rc3 84. Kg4 Rd3 85. Kf4 Rc3 86. Kg4 Re3 87.
>>>Kf4 Rh3 88. Kg4 Rc3 89. Kf4 Rd3 90. Kg4 Re3 91. Rb4 Kg8 92. Kf5 Rf3+ 93.
>>>Kg6 Rg3+ 94. Kf5 Kf7 95. Rb7+ Kf8 96. Ke6 Re3+ 97. Kf5 Rg3 98. Ke6 Re3+ 99.
>>>Kf5 Rf3+ 100. Kg6 Rg3+ 101. Kf5 Rf3+ 102. Kg6 Rg3+ 103. Kf5 Re3 104. Kg6 f5
>>>105. Kxf5 Rg3 106. Kf4 Rd3 107. Kg5 Rg3+ 108. Kf4 Rd3 109. Kg5 Rc3 110. Kf5
>>>Re3 111. Kf4 Rc3 112. Kf5 Rf3+ 113. Kg4 Re3 114. Kf4 Rd3
>>>{Game drawn by repetition} 1/2-1/2
>>>
>>>regards
>>>mike
>>
>>Could someone with experience explain this game? I mean when I entered the game
>>it was objectively lost, chess, but Crafty always had a large time advantage.
>>The score often danced around -2.7 etc. What I want to know is this. Is it for
>>the programmers clear that the machines are still way too weak to win such an
>>endgame advantage? Was it therefore clear ong before that this was a typical
>>draw OR was it really a sensational game by Crafty to draw it in such a
>>position? Any comments?
>>
>
>I think you are misunderstanding the game. Just because crafty said "-2.7"
>doesn't mean black was winning. It just means that Crafty didn't quite
>understand the position itself. IM Schroer had said that this was a draw
>for a good while. It just took crafty a long time to see the eval climb
>back to 0.00, because it didn't understand that the position with the white
>rook behind the black pawn, with the kingside 2 vs 2 was simply a draw.
>
I am a bit disappointed with searcher because I spent some time working on the
eval for such positions and the importance rook behind the only passer, which
backfired against Postmodernist in an earlier round I think. Searcher is so
good at getting its rook trapped in front of the pawn on the opponent's back
rank.
I have no idea whether 'trading knights' to the rook and pawn ending sas best,
but clearly searcher thought it was. Clueless as usual.
Still I expected to get smashed before we started :-)
Frank
>
>
>>The Ferret game went the other way round. After it survived a terrible King
>>attack it looked to me that Ferret had at least counterchances with his pawn on
>>the queen side. Even when White had opened his King position with f4/g4 Black
>>must sek chances on the first ranks. With N and Q this is possible. How you
>>would judge that game? Was it a typical computer game, just odd, or was it
>>something special and why?
>>
>>You see, I have asked my questions sure on a chess base but I wished to hear how
>>real CC experts saw these two games.
>>
>>Unfortunately I didn't have the time to obs the rest of the games because Wijk
>>was also interesting.
>>
>>A technical aspect: could someone say if ICC uses less PC ressources than
>>playchess.com? I had the impression that the multitasked view on several boards
>>eeded less than in the ChessBase server and that is why there the PC system
>>often breaks down even if you try the second game in parallel. Of course there
>>you can also open an engine for analysis. Last: I couldn't get +ch64 working!
>>What was my fault?
>>
>>Rolf Tueschen
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.