Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 14:39:03 02/14/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2005 at 17:03:52, John Merlino wrote: >On February 14, 2005 at 15:57:16, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>On February 14, 2005 at 11:40:12, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 14, 2005 at 10:56:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 14, 2005 at 10:33:12, Jon Dart wrote: >>>> >>>>>A few notes from Arasan's games in CCT7: >>>>> >>>>>Game 1 against Homer, Arasan had Black in a QID that Schroer called >>>>>"a super high-class line, very theoretical". Arasan was in book until >>>>>move 18. It appears Homer misplayed the next few moves. Arasan's score >>>>>rapidly climbed and it won. >>>>> >>>>>Arasan won easily against Alarm after it blundered here with .. Bxa3: >>>>> >>>>>[D] 3q1b1k/1p4pp/rn2rp2/BR2p3/p3N3/P2PP1P1/5P1P/1QR3K1 b - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>Black is not in good shape already, but the pawn can't be taken. >>>>> >>>>>Arasan lost against Fafis. The opening was some unusual variant of the >>>>>Four Knights .. Arasan was out of book at move 7. Arasan's score >>>>>was positive until move 45. I haven't analyzed this yet so I am >>>>>not sure where it went wrong but it lost rapidly after that. >>>>> >>>>>This game against nullmover gave me some anxious moments. 7 .. Ne8 >>>>>is unusual (..c6 is more common) and Arasan was out of book after >>>>>that. Black got what looked like a pretty scary k-side attack >>>>>in the KID. But Arasan defended - in fact its score was never >>>>>negative. Finally Arasan broke through on the q-side -- standard >>>>>play in the KID - and won. The nullmover author mentioned his program >>>>>had no passed pawn code and in general has a simple eval. >>>>> >>>>>[Event "?"] >>>>>[Site "chessclub.com"] >>>>>[Date "2005.02.13"] >>>>>[Round "?"] >>>>>[White "Arasan 9.0"] >>>>>[Black "nullmover"] >>>>>[Result "1-0"] >>>>>[ECO "E87"] >>>>>[WhiteElo "2594"] >>>>>[BlackElo "2202"] >>>>>[TimeControl "3000+3"] >>>>> >>>>>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 e5 7. d5 Ne8 >>>>>8. Qd2 f5 9. exf5 gxf5 10. Bd3 Na6 11. Nge2 Nb4 12. O-O f4 13. Bf2 >>>>>Nxd3 14. Qxd3 Rf5 15. Ne4 Rh5 16. b4 Rh6 17. Rfe1 Rg6 18. Kh1 Nf6 >>>>>19. N2c3 Nxe4 20. Nxe4 Bf5 21. Rg1 Kh8 22. a4 Qe7 23. c5 dxc5 >>>>>24. bxc5 Rg8 25. d6 Qf7 26. Rad1 Rh6 27. Rge1 cxd6 28. cxd6 b6 >>>>>29. Qd5 Be6 30. Qd2 Bf8 31. Qc3 Qg7 32. g4 Rh3 33. g5 Bg4 34. Rd3 Bf5 >>>>>35. a5 Rh5 36. Rd5 Bxe4 37. Rxe5 Qf7 38. R5xe4+ Bg7 39. Qc6 Rxg5 >>>>>40. Re8 Rg6 41. axb6 axb6 42. Bxb6 Qa2 43. Rxg8+ Kxg8 44. Re8+ >>>>> 1-0 {nullmover resigns} >>>>> >>>>>Against Pharaon, Arasan played a reasonable variant of the Slav and >>>>>was ok for a long time. Finally at this point Pharaon played Bh6: >>>>> >>>>>[D] q6k/3r1p2/p4Pp1/1pRn3p/3PQ3/P6P/1P1B4/6K1 w - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>and then posted the Bishop on g7. Neither Arasan nor Crafty would play >>>>>Bh6 at the tournament time level on the hardware I have, but Crafty >>>>>does eventually fail high on it, with a score of +1.7, so this may >>>>>have been the decisive move. >>>>> >>>>>I wasn't watching for a while, but the next time I looked Pharaon was up >>>>>a Knight--not quite sure how that happened, but seems like it found a >>>>>nice tactic. >>>>> >>>>>Pharaon was strong even before its recent version update and now it >>>>>is really formidable. >>>>> >>>>>In the Chompster game, 37 .. a4 by Chompster was a bad mistake, >>>>>gifting Arasan with an outside passer: >>>>> >>>>>[D] 2q1r1k1/5pp1/5bp1/p7/4PQ2/1Br5/P4RPP/5R1K b - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>But the game got into a bishop of opposite colors ending and was >>>>>drawn. I actually made the draw manually, which brought a protest >>>>>from sfarrell: he is right that under the rules this should not >>>>>have been done without the TD's consent. It seems several programs >>>>>broke this rule in this round. >>>>> >>>>>I was disappointed to lose the last game against cEng (witchess). It >>>>>had a very unusual opening: >>>>> >>>>>[Event "?"] >>>>>[Site "chessclub.com"] >>>>>[Date "2005.02.13"] >>>>>[Round "?"] >>>>>[White "witchess"] >>>>>[Black "Arasan 9.0"] >>>>>[Result "1-0"] >>>>>[ECO "C28"] >>>>>[WhiteElo "2397"] >>>>>[BlackElo "2594"] >>>>>[TimeControl "3000+3"] >>>>> >>>>>1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Nxe4 d5 6. Bd3 dxe4 >>>>>7. Bxe4 Ne7 8. c3 f5 9. Bc2 e4 10. Ne5 Qd5 11. f4 exf3 12. Nxf3 Qe6+ >>>>>13. Kf2 Qb6+ 14. d4 Be6 15. Ba4+ c6 16. Re1 Bd5 17. Bb3 O-O-O 18. Bg5 >>>>>Qc7 19. Bxd5 cxd5 20. Qe2 Qb6 21. c4 Rd7 22. cxd5 Kb8 23. Qe5+ Ka8 >>>>>24. d6 Rxd6 25. Bxe7 Bxe7 26. Qxe7 Rc8 27. Kg1 Rg8 28. Rac1 Rdd8 >>>>> 1-0 {ArasanX resigns} >>>>> >>>>>I analyzed this overnight with Crafty but didn't find where Arasan >>>>>went wrong. I didn't like 7.. Ne7 and 7.. Bd6 seems to be better - >>>>>this has occurred in a few games with this line. After Ne7, Arasan >>>>>had its Bishop locked in and failed to develop it. >>>> >>>>I watched this game live and found it a very strong game from witchess. >>>>Especially because it plays without book. Let's be honest there. That's 700 >>>>rating points (a real strong book). >>> >>>How did you get that estimate? >>> >>>Do you have one tournament when a program with no book performed 700 elo worse >>>than the same program with book? >>> >>>Uri >> >>Well.... I love that you continue missing the importance of the opening book. It >>will mean more easy points for your opponents! >> >>I have been reading your same "cantaleta" (*) for years and I have seen how >>Movei has been beated by books well tuned. >> >>Hopefully, you understand that in 20 years. Who knows...... >> >> >>Arturo. >> >>(*) Cantaleta = a repetitive nonsense made for years without showing any proof >>on your behalf. > >I don't think that Uri is saying that a good book is unimportant. There's a BIG >gap between saying that books aren't important and saying that they're worth 700 >points. What Vincent is saying is that if a top engine was playing without its >well-tuned book it couldn't beat a master -- and this is ludicrous. > >Preparing for the CM vs Christiansen match two and a half years ago, I played a >bunch of games on ICC with The King on a relatively humble P4-2.4, just for fun, >without a book. It easily beat every human that it came up against. It even did >well against most engines including accounts running Ruffian and Crafty, and >even occasionally beat Chess Tiger. > >The CM account's rating is now in the high 2700s, right around where Chompster >is. So, since Chompster tied for 8th in score in CCT7, if you give it another >700 rating points for having a good book, it will be in the high 3400s on ICC >and would easily have beaten any other engine in the CCT?? -- Uh, I don't think >so. > >Now, a good book is obviously better than no book, and I would be hard-pressed >to put a rating number on it. But 700 points is silly. > >jm In blitz, sure. One only has to look at the amount of time top GMs spend on opening preparation to realize the importance of a book. I am told Kasparov has a basement full of computers working on the Najdorf :) anthony
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.