Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Most brilliant novelty from cct7 Witchess-Arasan

Author: Arturo Ochoa

Date: 15:57:07 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.
>

Well, if you think that Uri´s posting are not ludicrous, we are alll entering in
the absurd world of Uri. That is. It is a waste of time to repeat again and
again in this Forum, that a book tuned for a specific engine is a bid advantage
against other program or a GM.

Examples: Peter Berger and his excellent work in the WCC2004. He was absolutly
bright. Jeroen Noomen uses to prepare very tuned books for teh engines. Uri
Blass underestimates almost everything but the time has showed who goes in the
worng way.

A well-tuned book is important and will be important although you underrate this
reality. It is not important. It is good for the top engines and those engine
that work hardly in this area.


>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.
>

This is not relevant because you played in ICC for fun, not for testing. Playing
Blitz games against human is not a good way to test an engine. But you have your
methods. What can I say?


>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.


Well, there is no balance in the Uri´s position. He just thinks that a book is a
useless component. That is good because it will mean more point for the
opponents. I am happy. It is the easiest point. :)

a8a




This page took 0.14 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.