Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 09:06:24 02/15/05

Go up one level in this thread


On February 15, 2005 at 11:25:32, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>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

hardware was one of the advantage of zappa in the meaning that
zappa on movei's hardware is weaker.

zappa is simply better than movei but I think that in the future I will never
use the public book in these events.

It is probably only bad luck but after replacing Dan Corbit's book by movei's
public book before the game against zappa movei lost every game.

Uri



This page took 0.03 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.