Author: Tony Werten
Date: 03:56:58 01/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2003 at 06:50:19, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 25, 2003 at 03:36:54, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On January 25, 2003 at 01:14:27, Charles Roberson wrote: >> >>> >>> The tournament was great fun. Tiring, but fun. I prefer the format at >>> WCCC 2002, but it would be too much for all tournaments to be like that. >>> >>> The competition was great. I have lots of analysis data. The talk on ch 64 >>> "compfortably numb" (pun intended). I enjoyed the IM commentary and Volker >>> performed excellently as TD. I hope to see more like these several times a >>> year. You can't get better competition without an expensive trip to Europe. >>> >>> Version 3.4 was used. It is 2x faster than 3.3 and more knowledgable: >>> better king safety, mobility, ... >>> It averaged a ply deeper than the Maastricht version even at half the time >>> control. >>> >>> I'll comment on some of the games as the theme seems repeatable. >>> >>> Game 1: Searcher - NoonianChess 1-0 >>> I tried our a virtually untested new book. Ran into a bug on move 6. >>> This caused the drop of a bishop for 2 pawns. Amazingly, Noonian played >>> quite well after this -- it used its center pawn advantage to control >>> the center and the game. Then a mistake on move 34; KxB should have been >>> the move (a free bishop and now Noonian would be up a full two pawns). >>> But seems there is a bug that caused the mistake. Analysis from CM8000 >>> revealed that after 34 ... KxB, Noonian can force the win of the other >>> bishop but alas Searcher could for a draw by perpetual check or 3frp. >>> >>> So, I was happy with the game and use my old tournament book for the >>> rest of the tournament. >>> >>> Game 3: NoonianChess - PostModernist 0 - 1 >>> Noonian gained a draw from PM in WCCC 2002. It was a great experience >>> competing against Andrew so, I was quite happy to do it again. Noonian >>> stayed in book for 10 or so moves. Noonian makes questionable bishop >>> moves on moves 17 and 18. (remember game 1 -- mistake in not taking a >>> free bishop). Noonian does not make the same mistakes when given the >>> positions but it does if the game is played to that point (a bug a bug >>> -- or is it something to dig into). After this, PostModernist performs >>> excellently in controlling the game. >>> >>> Game 4: Matacz - NoonianChess 0 -1 >>> Noonian won a pawn and created a passer on the A file by move 21. The >>> rest of the game centered on this one pawn. Noonian pushed the pawn and >>> Matacz spent most of the rest of the game keeping the a pawn from >>> promoting. There were times when I thought Noonian had stronger moves but >>> I'm not sure (I haven't analyzed it deeply but the stronger moves >>> involved a bishop -- hmm bishop problem sounds like a theme to me). >>> Finally, Matacz is able to capture the pawn on a2. However, Noonian has >>> too many threats on the king which causes the win of material and the >>> eventual mate of Matacz. A long game. After the first two, I kept >>> wondering when is the bug going to happen again and lose this one. >>> The great part of live games!!!! >>> >>> Game 5: NoonianChess - Aristarch 1 - 0 >>> The opening had me on the edge of my seat. Noonian was agressive from the >>> start with an attack on Aristarch's king side. I had some of >>> that "Australian speed skater luck": Aristarch lost its connection >>> for more than 15 minutes and forfeited the game. >>> >>> Game 6: Pepito - NoonianChess 1 - 0 >>> I was happy that Noonian held its own to move 35. Pepito sacs a rook for >>> the bishop and things go down hill from there. A rook for a bishop -- >>> hmm is there an issue with bishops? >>> >>> Game 7: NoonianChess - Amyan 0 - 1 >>> NoonianChess plays well from opening to midgame. I was happy to move >>> 25. Noonian has a nice position. I need to analyze this deeply to see >>> what really happened. At move 35, Noonian has a passer and seems there is >>> a lot of potential for a win. However, at move 41 Noonian gives up a rook >>> for a pawn and knight. I suspect it liked 3pawns and a knight vs a rook >>> and a pawn -- especially considering 2 of Noonians pawns are passers. >>> Amyan forces the trade of all this and the ending is a forced draw. >>> However, I didn't have egtb's and move 65 is a mistake. I loaded this >>> position into Noonian latter and it doesn't make the mistake. Another >>> bug to fix. Also, this the second game in live tournament competition >>> lost due to lack of egtb's -- the first is Goliath Lite - NoonianChess >>> Maastrict WCCC 2002. >>> >>> Game 8: Czolgista - NoonianChess 0 - 1 >>> I expected to win this one as the programs met in competition on ics this >>> week. However, Czolgista froze up on move two and lost on time having >>> made only one move. Wow, that Austrailian speed skater luck was with me. >>> >>> Game 9: NoonianChess - XiniX 1 - 0 >>> This is my favorite game. I have not analyzed it yet but I can't wait. >>> This game had classic horizon effect issues. Both sides had chances in >>> the middle game. So, it was quite exciting. Forget the edge of my seat -- >>> I was pacing during this one. At move 30, Noonian considers itself up >>> 2.8 pawns. The kibitzing made this far more interesting than without it. >>> For a series of moves Noonian and Xinix agree with the scores that >>> Noonian is up 3 pawns. Then Xinix searchers a little deeper and claims >>> the score is even. A move later (move 45), Noonian thinks it is down >>> 4/10 of a pawn. After several moves of 3 pawns up, now both programs >>> call it even. (so where is this bug?). Oh no -- on move 46 both programs >> >>This game showed a new bug in XiniX :( At move 45 XiniX thinks it's winning (it >>was) but then somehow at 46 got a different position on the board. At move 49 >>where I (manually) resigned, XiniX is actually trying to give a checkmate move, >>but winboard keeps saying "illegal move" :( > >Is not it the opposite? > >I do not see how 49.Rxf1 in the game is legal without 46.Ra1 so I guess that >Xinix said illegal move about Rxf1 of Noonian. > >What was the problem? I haven't looked again, but IIRC, a bishop at b7 had shown up (!) making Rf1 a doublecheck ( and a checkmate ? ) Tony > >Did Xinix ponder on the move that it expected(Maybe Ne6) instead of the move >that was played? > >Uri
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.