Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 12:25:13 10/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
< a bit snipped> >A description of my Dutch open in Leiden. > >I enjoy reading tournamentreports from others, so this time I thought I would >write my own, for those that are interested in amateur computerchess. great! > >game 3, Xinix. > >[Event "24th DOCC"] >[Date "2004.10.16"] >[Round "03"] >[White "Neurosis"] >[Black "XiniX dubbel"] >[Result "1-0"] > >1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. Nc3 d5 5. e3 O-O 6. Be2 c5 7. dxc5 Qa5 8. >cxd5 Nxd5 9. Qxd5 Bxc3+ 10. Kf1 Bb4 11. a3 Bxc5 12. Bd2 Qb6 13. Rc1 Bd6 14. >Ne5 e6 15. Qd4 Qxd4 16. exd4 f6 17. Nc4 Bc7 18. Bb4 Bf4 19. Rc3 Rd8 20. Be7 >Rxd4 21. Bxf6 Rd5 22. Ne3 Bxe3 23. Rxc8+ Kf7 24. Bc3 Rc5 25. Rxb8 Rxb8 26. >fxe3 Rbc8 27. Kf2 e5 28. Rd1 Kf6 29. e4 R8c7 30. Ke3 Ke6 31. Bb4 Rc2 32. >Rd6+ Kf7 33. Bc3 R7xc3+ 34. bxc3 Rxc3+ 35. Kd2 Rxa3 36. Rd7+ Kf6 37. Rxb7 >h5 38. Bc4 h4 39. Rf7+ Kg5 40. Re7 Kf4 41. Bd5 Ra6 42. Ke2 Rb6 43. Rf7+ Kg4 >44. Ke3 Rb2 45. Rg7 Kg5 46. Kf3 Rc2 47. Re7 Rc3+ 48. Ke2 Rc2+ 49. Ke3 Rxg2 >50. Rxe5+ Kh6 51. Kf3 Rxh2 52. Kg4 a5 53. Re6 Rh1 54. Ra6 Ra1 55. Kxh4 a4 >56. Bf7 Kg7 57. Be6 Kf6 58. Bf5+ Ke5 59. Bxg6 Kf4 60. Rf6+ Ke5 61. Ra6 Kf4 >62. Rf6+ Ke5 63. Rf5+ Kd4 64. Ra5 a3 65. Kh3 Kc4 66. Bf7+ Kb4 67. Ra7 Re1 >68. Bd5 Rg1 69. Kh4 Re1 70. Kg3 Rf1 71. Be6 Ra1 72. Kf4 Rd1 73. Bf7 Rf1+ 74. >Ke5 Kc5 75. Bh5 Ra1 76. Bg4 Kb6 77. Ra4 Kc5 78. Be6 Kc6 79. Kd4 Kb5 80. Bd7+ >Kb6 81. Kc3 Kc7 82. Bf5 Kd6 83. Ra5 Rf1 84. Rxa3 Ke5 85. Kd2 Kf4 86. Ra7 >Rf2+ 87. Kd3 Rf1 88. Re7 Rd1+ 89. Ke2 Rc1 90. Kd3 Ra1 91. Bg6 Ra3+ 92. Kd4 >Ra4+ 93. Kd5 Ra5+ 94. Kd4 Ra4+ 95. Kd5 Ra5+ 96. Kc4 Kg5 97. Bf7 Kf6 98. Rb7 >Ke5 99. Kd3 Kf4 100. Kd4 Ra1 101. Bb3 Ra5 102. Rf7+ Kg5 103. Rg7+ Kh6 104. >Rb7 1-0 > >Xinix had been rewritten to a new programminglanguage for this tournament, >but was still having some problems. Never the less it was going to be a >very long and tiring (for the operators) fight. Neurosis had a won position >but could only slowly make progress in the endgame. Unfortunatly near the >end with my opponent just two minutes left on the clock desided Neurosis >wasn't playing on position (with as argument long time no pawnmoves, but >white can not just whack the e pawn forward here.) but on clock >(?! Computers/Neurosis can't do that.) and he called for the referee. Luckily I >had e5 in my PV for next move (when Neurosis had manouvred itself so that >finally became possible) and this argument had become invalid. So that was >an unfortunate end. Sorry Stan, i don't get that exactly. Why an unfortunate end? You won! > >Day 2, game 4, Ant. <snip> >[Event "24th DOCC"] >[Date "2004.10.17"] >[Round "05"] >[White "Kallisto II"] >[Black "Neurosis"] >[Result "1/2-1/2"] > >1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. Qc2 Nb6 8. >c5 Nbd7 9. Bd3 h6 10. Bf4 Nh5 11. Be5 Kh8 12. Nb5 Nxe5 13. dxe5 c6 14. Nd6 >f5 15. exf6 Nxf6 16. Ne5 Kg8 17. Ng6 Bxd6 18. cxd6 Qa5+ 19. Qd2 Qxd2+ 20. >Kxd2 Rd8 21. Ne5 Rxd6 22. Bg6 b6 23. Rhd1 Bb7 24. Nf7 Rd7 25. Ne5 Rc7 26. >f4 c5 27. g3 a5 28. Rac1 a4 29. a3 Ne8 30. Bxe8 Rxe8 31. Kc3 g5 32. Rg1 Kg7 >33. h4 Kf6 34. Ng4+ Kg7 35. Ne5 Kf6 36. Ng4+ Kg7 1/2-1/2 > >And here I found a bug. (Bugs only come out at important tournaments at >important moments, never at testing.) Yes - my excuse to don't test at all ;-) >Neurosis at the end did not think it >was a 3x rep because after 33. h4 Neurosis had stored a possible ep-field >at h3 in his position-code. hehe >This is a bug from the very beginning, and has >never come out before, at the time when coding it I had never realised I >shouldn't do that when there's not an actual pawn there to capture en >passant. What are the odds of that comming forward in such a tournament >huh. And so it ended in a draw without black realising it, and wanted to >play something else (black's a pawn up) next time white would rep with the >knight. But I was not unhappy about the result ofcourse, black could not of >done anything with his extra pawn anyway, actually white had some threats >here too. > >game 6, Nexus. > >[Event "24th DOCC"] >[Date "2004.10.17"] >[Round "06"] >[White "Neurosis"] >[Black "Nexus"] >[Result "0-1"] > >1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qb3 c5 5. Bg5 Nc6 6. dxc5 h6 7. Bd2 O-O 8. >O-O-O Bxc5 9. e3 b6 10. Nf3 Bb7 11. Bd3 Rc8 12. Na4 Be7 13. Rhf1 Qc7 14. h4 >d5 15. Kb1 Na5 16. Bxa5 dxc4 17. Qb5 cxd3 18. Bc3 Rfd8 19. Rc1 Bc6 20. Qa6 >Ne4 21. Rfd1 Qd7 22. Ne5 Bb5 23. Nxd7 Bxa6 24. Ne5 Nxf2 25. Be1 Nxd1 26. >Rxd1 d2 27. Rxd2 Rxd2 28. Bxd2 Bf6 0-1 > >That was the worst game of my program of the tournament. :( I think I was >outsearched by Nexus by atleast 4 ply everywhere. 12. Na4 is horrible. > I had the same feeling against Nexus ;-( <snip> >All in all I wasn't so lucky to get a draw against any of the top-programs, >but it was a nice tournament anyway. Neurosis is a young program anyway and >I've lots and lots of ideas so there's some hope for the future. > >What else, hmm ohyeah, some other spectacles were to be seen. >For instance Pro deo's operator Hans van der Zijden had thought he was >going to be bored during the games, and has brought rubix-cubes of various >sizes to pass time. It was impressive to see he could solve a normal size >cube in under a minute blindfolded. (first looking and remembering where the >colours are ofcourse.) >Then it's fun to see Jeroen Noomen battling it out in quick blitz games >against the strong programs, and having more then his fair share of draws >and wins. So people saying computers are stronger then people are wrong, the >people just need to know how the computers play. > >Hope more people will join the Leiden tournaments next time. Thanks to CSVN >and everyone else. Well said. Cheers, Gerd > >Stan
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.