Author: Mark Young
Date: 18:58:07 10/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 1998 at 19:22:33, Steven Schwartz wrote:
>Just in from Thorsten...
>- Steve
>
>[Event "tournament of the top"]
>[Site "450Mhz machines, 40/120"]
>[Date "1998.10.18"]
>[Round "2"]
>[White "Junior 5.0 PII 450"]
>[Black "CSTal Black V289 K6 450"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "D68"]
>[Annotator "Junior 5.0"]
>
>1. c4 Nf6 2. d4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 0-0 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Rc1
>c6
>8. Bd3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nd5 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11. 0-0 Nxc3 12. Rxc3 e5 13. h3
>e4 14. Nd2 Kh8 15. Bb3 Nf6 16. Rc5 Nd7 17. Rc2 Nf6 18. a4 Be6 19. Rc5
>Bxb3 20. Qxb3 Nd5 21. Nb1 f5 22. Nc3 Nb6 23. Rd1 Qf7 24. Qxf7 Rxf7 25.
>d5
>Nd7 26. Rc4 Ne5 27. Rcd4 c5 28. R4d2 Rd8 29. Rf1 Rf6 30. f3 exf3 31.
>gxf3
>Rg6+ 32. Kh2 Rb6 33. Rc2 Rh6 34. Rg2 Nc4 35. Re2 Rb6 36. Rff2 Ne5 37.
>Rc2
>Nd3 38. Rf1 c4 39. Rb1 Ne5 40. Rf2 Nd3 41. Rg2 Ne5 42. Kg3 Rdd6 43.
>Rc2
>Rh6 44. Kf4 Nd3+ 45. Kxf5 Rxh3 46. Ke4 Rd6 47. Nb5 Rd8 48. Rxc4 Nf2+
>49. Kd4
>Rxf3 50. Rf1 h5 51. Rc2 Rdf8 52. d6 R3f7 53. Nc7 Ng4 54. Rxf7 Rxf7 55.
>Ne6
>Rf1 56. Rc8+ Kh7 57. d7 Rd1+ 58. Kc5 Rxd7 59. Nf8+ Kh6 60. Nxd7
>1-0
>
>
>[Event "tournament of the top"]
>[Site "450 Mhz machines, 40/120"]
>[Date "1998.10.18"]
>[Round "2"]
>[White "Junior 5.0 PII 450"]
>[Black "CSTal Black V289 K6 450"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "D68"]
>[Annotator "Junior 5.0"]
>[PlyCount "119"]
>
>{135168kB, Jun-book.ctg=351287 pos
>} 1. c4 {0} 1... Nf6 {13} 2. d4 {0} 2... e6
>{8} 3. Nf3 {0} 3... d5 {8} 4. Nc3 {0} 4... Be7 {7} 5. Bg5 {0} 5... O-O
>{9} 6.
>e3 {0} 6... Nbd7 {7} 7. Rc1 {0} 7... c6 {7} 8. Bd3 {0} 8... dxc4 {13}
>9. Bxc4 {
>0} 9... Nd5 {11} 10. Bxe7 {0} 10... Qxe7 {8} 11. O-O {0} 11... Nxc3
>{10} 12.
>Rxc3 {0} 12... e5 {9} 13. h3 {0} 13... e4 {7} 14. Nd2 {0.10/17 207}
>14... Kh8 {
>9} 15. Bb3 {0.23/17 269} 15... Nf6 {394} 16. Rc5 {0.12/17 191} 16...
>Nd7 {191}
>17. Rc2 {0.23/18 0} 17... Nf6 {150} 18. a4 {0.05/18 107} 18... Be6
>{184} 19.
>Rc5 {0.00/18 112} 19... Bxb3 {187} 20. Qxb3 {0.04/17 223} 20... Nd5
>{55} 21.
>Nb1 {0.12/18 289} 21... f5 {213} 22. Nc3 {0.14/18 434} 22... Nb6 {66}
>23. Rd1 {
>0.18/16 204} 23... Qf7 {274} 24. Qxf7 {0.10/18 375} 24... Rxf7 {128}
>25. d5 {
>0.12/18 176} 25... Nd7 {309} 26. Rc4 {0.16/19 0} 26... Ne5 {144} 27.
>Rcd4 {
>0.09/19 612} 27... c5 {7} 28. R4d2 {0.20/17 64} 28... Rd8 {368} 29.
>Rf1 {
>0.07/18 0} 29... Rf6 {294} 30. f3 {0.29/17 244} 30... exf3 {240} 31.
>gxf3 {
>0.18/16 0} 31... Rg6+ {176} 32. Kh2 {0.32/17 285} 32... Rb6 {176} 33.
>Rc2 {
>0.06/17 502} 33... Rh6 {8} 34. Rg2 {0.33/17 328} 34... Nc4 {224} 35.
>Re2 {
>0.22/17 325} 35... Rb6 {197} 36. Rff2 {0.22/17 236} 36... Ne5 {280}
>37. Rc2 {
>0.16/18 198} 37... Nd3 {261} 38. Rf1 {0.15/17 27} 38... c4 {380} 39.
>Rb1 {
>0.02/17 417} 39... Ne5 {15} 40. Rf2 {-0.08/17 446} 40... Nd3 {8} 41.
>Rg2 {
>0.17/16 181} 41... Ne5 {184} 42. Kg3 {0.17/16 0} 42... Rdd6 {229} 43.
>Rc2 {
>0.26/15 139} 43... Rh6 {497} 44. Kf4 {0.32/14 92} 44... Nd3+ {166} 45.
>Kxf5 {
>0.41/16 0} 45... Rxh3 {207} 46. Ke4 {0.25/15 0} 46... Rd6 {200} 47.
>Nb5 {
>1.03/14 72} 47... Rd8 {184} 48. Rxc4 {1.39/16 0} 48... Nf2+ {205} 49.
>Kd4 {
>1.34/17 0} 49... Rxf3 {366} 50. Rf1 {1.37/17 0} 50... h5 {171} 51. Rc2
>{
>1.42/17 0} 51... Rdf8 {169} 52. d6 {1.52/16 0} 52... R3f7 {167} 53.
>Nc7 {
>2.19/17 158} 53... Ng4 {224} 54. Rxf7 {2.82/16 35} 54... Rxf7 {557}
>55. Ne6 {
>3.48/19 0} 55... Rf1 {582} 56. Rc8+ {3.63/19 0} 56... Kh7 {187} 57. d7
>{
>3.60/17 0} 57... Rd1+ {209} 58. Kc5 {3.49/18 0} 58... Rxd7 {170} 59.
>Nf8+ {
>3.70/19 0} 59... Kh6 {425} 60. Nxd7 {3.91/20 0} 1-0
>
>I have heard that the games posted in ccc cause some discussions about
>the strength of cstal dos v289. this amuses me.
>Since some testers have willingly tried to test a broken version (284)
>before, i can only laugh about them doing now "tests" with the version
>289.
>CSTal dos v289 was always able to get at least 50% against fritz or
>nimzo on my machines.
>
>Please - if you test cstal dos, do it on a fast amd machine, not on
>your rusty and old-fashioned and for cstal non optimal shit intel
>machines, at least 450 Mhz is needed, and at least 384 MB for
>Hash-tables (this is the minimum requirement, cstal will not run on
>machines with less ram).
>For the next windows98 version of cstal, you need at least 10.1 or
>16.8 Gigabyte harddrive-space, and a DVD-ROM (to get the
>5stone-tablebases installed and the giant-opening-book).
>
>Because of chessBase cstal win95 will not have any autoplayer-support.
>The ssdf-guys will not be allowed to test it, they will not get any
>version for free.
>Of course the license-agreement of cstal-win95 will not allow the user
>to publish test-results without the ok of the author. And anybody will
>be law-suited by chris, if they do so. The program will not run on a
>harddisk where any chessBase product is installed.
>
I find this post more sad then laughable. If this is what pure hate can do to
people, I do not want any part of it. Who do they think they are going to sue
when the Internet allows people to post anything they want under any name they
want to? When this accurse no court will take the case, because the results are
already in the public domain. Sorry but those terms are unenforceable and would
not see the light of a courtroom. CST and Rebel 10 can put anything they want in
the license agreement like that but it’s not worth the paper its written on.
Under American law, you can not pick and choose to enforce such terms. Either
they have to be enforced 100% of the time which mean you have to sue everyone
how breaks the terms or they lose all right for the terms to ever be enforced.
>Life can be so interesting and enjoyable :-))))))))))))))
>
>Have fun !
>best wishes
>
>mclane
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.