Author: Eduard Nemeth
Date: 09:55:38 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2005 at 12:50:23, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>On April 25, 2005 at 12:05:52, Steve Glanzfeld wrote:
>
>>The observations from these games are important. It is obvious, that programs
>>should use a effective "no progress" rule. For example, when they evaluate
>>positively form themselves over a LONG sequence of moves, but the eval doesn't
>>get significantly better, they must consider "unusual" moves which change the
>>situation dramatically and let expect progress within small depths (as long as
>>the eval is still positive for the program, like RxNf1 in your example).
>>
>>Progs really look stupid in these time losses...
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> Hi Steve
> An interesting idea you have presented here. On the
> other hand: such problems (time losses) if one plays
> with the Fischer clock modud (4m+2s).
> Kurt
Kurt, Pablo played against Hydra 10 + 10 and he hold 2x draw.
Mach es doch einfach nach!
Danke!
At time on OLaychess.com (vor 2 Minuten!):
[Event "3m + 0s, rated"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2005.04.25"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Father"]
[Black "Omega-13, Shredder 9 UCI best"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2296"]
[BlackElo "2542"]
[PlyCount "175"]
[EventDate "2005.04.25"]
1. d4 {2} Nf6 {0} 2. e3 {0} d5 {0.22/13 8} 3. f4 {2} Bf5 {-0.43/13 8} 4. Nf3 {1
} e6 {-0.24/14 10} 5. Bd3 {2} Be7 {0.42/12 9} 6. O-O {1} O-O {0.32/13 4} 7. c3
{1} c5 {-0.52/12 7} 8. g3 {9} Nc6 {-1.29/12 9} 9. Re1 {15} Rc8 {-1.41/10 9} 10.
Nh4 {3} Be4 {-1.57/10 4} 11. Bxe4 {2} Nxe4 {-1.52/13 6} 12. Nf3 {1} f5 {
-1.60/12 10} 13. Re2 {2} Qe8 {-1.99/12 4} 14. Rg2 {1} Qh5 {-2.05/12 4} 15. Qe2
{1} c4 {-1.95/11 6} 16. Nbd2 {1} Qh3 {-1.86/12 3} 17. Nf1 {2} Bf6 {-2.37/11 5}
18. Bd2 {1} a5 {-2.22/11 5} 19. Be1 {0} Kh8 {-1.92/12 15} 20. a3 {0} a4 {
-2.52/11 1} 21. Rc1 {1} Na5 {-2.59/11 2} 22. Rc2 {0} Kg8 {-2.66/10 2} 23. N3d2
{1} Nb3 {-2.44/9 1} 24. Nf3 {2} Be7 {-2.82/10 2} 25. Kh1 {1} Kh8 {-2.26/10 4}
26. Kg1 {0} g5 {-2.72/10 3} 27. Kh1 {6} g4 {-3.26/12 2} 28. Ng1 {3} Qh6 {
-3.45/10 1} 29. Nd2 {9} Nbxd2 {-3.52/10 1} 30. Bxd2 {8} Rfe8 {-3.44/14 0} 31.
Be1 {1} Bf6 {-3.50/9 1} 32. Qf1 {10} Rg8 {-3.53/10 1} 33. Rge2 {3} Rc7 {
-3.38/9 1} 34. Qg2 {1} Rcc8 {-3.37/9 2} 35. Rc1 {6} Qh5 {-3.38/10 2} 36. Rcc2 {
4} Rge8 {-3.40/9 1} 37. Rc1 {2} Rcd8 {-3.36/9 1} 38. Rcc2 {0} Bg7 {-3.41/10 1}
39. Rc1 {0} Kg8 {-3.36/9 1} 40. Rcc2 {0} Kf7 {-3.45/9 1} 41. Rc1 {0} Bf6 {
-3.38/9 1} 42. Rcc2 {0} Rf8 {-3.52/9 1} 43. Rc1 {0} Rfe8 {-3.41/9 1} 44. Rcc2 {
0} Be7 {-3.41/10 1} 45. Rc1 {0} Rc8 {-3.35/9 1} 46. Rcc2 {0} Red8 {-3.43/8 1}
47. Rc1 {0} Bf6 {-3.42/9 1} 48. Rcc2 {0} Rh8 {-3.50/8 1} 49. Rc1 {0} Rhe8 {
-3.41/9 1} 50. Rcc2 {0} Qh6 {-3.43/9 1} 51. Rc1 {1} Rc6 {-3.37/9 1} 52. Rcc2 {0
} Rh8 {-3.47/8 1} 53. Rc1 {0} Rg8 {-3.38/9 0} 54. Rcc2 {0} Rb6 {-3.42/9 1} 55.
Rc1 {1} Rb5 {-3.44/7 0} 56. Rcc2 {1} Re8 {-3.54/8 1} 57. Rc1 {0} Rb8 {-3.42/8 0
} 58. Rcc2 {0} Ke7 {-3.48/8 1} 59. Rc1 {0} Bg7 {-3.42/8 0} 60. Rcc2 {0} Rd8 {
-3.47/8 0} 61. Rc1 {0} Rc8 {-3.45/8 0} 62. Rcc2 {0} Rc6 {-3.45/8 0} 63. Rc1 {0}
Ra5 {-3.45/8 0} 64. Rcc2 {1} Rc8 {-3.44/7 0} 65. Red2 {2} Nxd2 {-4.60/9 1} 66.
Bxd2 {0} Kf7 {-4.63/10 0} 67. Bc1 {0} Bf6 {-4.76/8 0} 68. Ne2 {3} Rd8 {
-4.50/9 1} 69. Kg1 {1} Rb5 {-4.47/14 0} 70. Rd2 {2} Bg7 {-4.53/8 0} 71. Rc2 {0}
Rf8 {-4.56/10 0} 72. Rd2 {0} Kg8 {-4.51/8 0} 73. Rc2 {0} Rf6 {-4.68/10 0} 74.
Rd2 {0} Qh5 {-4.86/10 0} 75. Rc2 {1} Rh6 {-5.16/11 0} 76. Rd2 {9} Qh3 {
. -5.35/10 1} 77. Qxh3 {2} Rxh3 {-5.27/19 0} 78. Kg2 {1} Rh6 {-4.79/14 0} 79.
Ng1 {1} Rg6 {-4.86/14 0} 80. Rc2 {0} Kf7 {-5.01/8 0} 81. Kf2 {1} Ke7 {-5.03/9 0
} 82. Kg2 {0} Bf6 {-5.26/8 0} 83. Kh1 {0} Kd6 {-5.40/8 0} 84. Kg2 {0} Ra5 {
-5.29/12 0} 85. Kh1 {0} Be7 {-5.34/9 0} 86. Kg2 {0} h5 {-5.30/12 0} 87. Kh1 {1}
h4 {Omega-13,Shredder 9 UCI best resigns -5.43/8 0} 88. Kg2 {
(Lag: Av=0.34s, max=0.7s) 1} 1-0
Pablo beat S9 UCI!!
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.