Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:20:38 01/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2003 at 06:56:58, Tony Werten wrote: >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 In that case it seems that Xinix wanted to play Rf3xf1#(otherwise I cannot see how it is a mate with the bishop at b7) and it means that it 46...Rxh3+ was a move with the rook at e8. 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.