Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:25:32 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2005 at 18:47:22, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >On February 14, 2005 at 16:51:47, Uri Blass 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. >> >>Movei is weak relative to the top programs also when both programs use the same >>external book so I do not see how the results of Movei prove something about the >>importance of book. > >Of course, the results doesnt prove anything because your book was a random >thing combined with the Movei blunders caused what you know. > >> >>You may be able to tune your book against movei's public book but if I come >>to the tournament with new book you will not be able to plan openings that >>moveidoes not understand. > >I did not tune the book against Movei.... I tune a book for a specific engine. >Anthony accepted my help and I did my best in 2 short months. Of course, how >could you understand that? > > >> >>Note that in the last tournament I used Dan Corbit's book in rounds 1-6 and got >>4.5 out of 6, but after movei got out of book against averno >>with 1.d4 Nf6 c4 e5 and got negative evaluation some moves later I decided that >>I do not like Corbit's book and replaced the book by the public book(still small >>book but at least movei is not out of book after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5). >> > >You continue missing what I have repeated you over the last 3 years. They are >random books. They are not tuned hy hand. Anything can happen. Again, how could >I explain you that? Three years in this forum and you repeat the same >_cantaleta_ :) > > >>Maybe it was a mistake because Movei lost the last 3 games but I do not think >>that part of the opponents tuned against Movei's public book(after all they >>cannot know that I will use it and I do not think that it is so important for >>them to win to waste many hours not only against movei's book but also against >>book of other programs because movei has no special importance) >> >>Uri > >Movei lost by itself. No for any tuned book against Movei. Zappa outsearched >Movei in tha game and played a better game. Movei made all kind of mistakes in >that game. It was not any book just the Movei game. Exactly, i saw Uri however blame the hardware of the opponent, who by the way has lower clocked processors than Movei uses. Vincent
This page took 0.01 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.