Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: stuart taylor

Date: 15:51:40 02/16/05

Go up one level in this thread

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 ""]
>>>>[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 ""]
>>>>[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?
>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......
>(*) Cantaleta = a repetitive nonsense made for years without showing any proof
>on your behalf.

It certainly doesn't show the chess-thinking strength of the program when masked
with a good book.
A book is basically a thing you can buy, and is a regrettable necesity in chess
program competitioning.

This page took 0.13 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.