Author: Peter Berger
Date: 13:37:49 09/14/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2005 at 02:39:07, Mike Agnos wrote:
>I'm still fascinated by CSTal II and have been researching the archives for the
>past hour and a half. Oh what fun! (Although my wife doesn't understand.) For
>simple playing pleasure, I prefer CSTal II over my Fritz 7 and CM 9000. And it
>is *strong.* It's unbeatable my me unless it's severely handicapped. And what
>an interesting, crazy game! Sometimes I think it maneuvers me into blundering.
>It has made me a much better player against humans.
>
>I have to believe CSTal plays stronger on my 2GHz, 256MB computer than on the
>computers available when it was introduced. (Has anyone tested it on a modern
>machine?)
Yes, I have been playing some matches with CS Tal recently. I agree that it is
still a fascinating engine, although it is certainly not competitive with the
latest and greatest anymore.
It is a stress test of the ELO system to test it against the best, and sometimes
you would think that it simply can't win games anymore, ever.
Until it bites :) ( and a pretty and instructive game in my opinion).
Time control game in 50 minutes with 3 seconds inc/move. Toga II 1.0 played on a
PIV3.2GHz HT using the bigger Corbit book, Chess System Tal 2.03 on my Centrino
1.6GHz notebook.
[Event "50 3"]
[Site "PIV3.2-Centrino1.6"]
[Date "2005.09.11"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Chess Tal 2.03"]
[Black "Toga II 1.0"]
[ECO "D94"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 {0s} c5 {+0.01/1 0s} 2. c3 {3s} d5 {+0.01/1 0s}
3. exd5 {3s} Qxd5 {+0.01/1 0s} 4. d4 {3s} Nf6 {+0.01/1 0s}
5. Nf3 {3s} cxd4 {+0.01/1 0s} 6. cxd4 {3s} g6 {+0.01/1 0s}
7. Nc3 {3s} Qd8 {+0.01/1 0s} 8. Bc4 {4s} Bg7 {+0.01/1 0s}
9. O-O {3s} O-O {-0.43/14 1:47m} 10. Re1 {4s (Le3)} Nc6
{-0.40/15 1:59m} 11. d5 {3:27m (Lg5)} Na5 {-0.46/15 1:16m}
12. Bf1 {43s} Bf5 {-0.45/14 26s} 13. Bg5 {53s} Rc8
{-0.58/14 1:07m} 14. Qa4 {17s} h6 {-0.57/14 1:07m} 15. Bd2
{3:09m} b6 {-0.61/16 0s} 16. Ba6 {1:56m} Rc7 {-0.54/15 0s}
17. Bf4 {2:01m (Tac1)} Rxc3 {-0.39/15 1:56m} 18. bxc3 {3s}
Nxd5 {-0.33/16 1:37m} 19. Be5 {1:00m} Bxe5 {-0.46/16 2:31m}
20. Rxe5 {1:38m (Sxe5)} e6 {-0.37/15 1:52m} 21. g4 {2:22m
(Tc1)} Nxc3 {0.00/16 1:13m} 22. Qf4 {4s (Db4)} Nd5
{-0.41/15 1:14m} 23. Qxh6 {2:01m (Txd5)} Nf6 {-1.86/15
1:02m} 24. gxf5 {2:03m} Ng4 {-2.04/18 0s} 25. Qf4 {2:08m}
Nxe5 {-2.24/18 0s} 26. Qxe5 {1:26m} exf5 {-2.32/18 0s}
27. Rc1 {1:09m} Re8 {-2.56/17 0s} 28. Qc7 {1:16m} Qd5
{-2.57/16 3s} 29. Ng5 {1:48m} Rf8 {-3.05/15 0s} 30. h4
{1:53m (Lc8)} Qd4 {-2.47/16 1:20m} 31. Qxf7+ {47s} Rxf7
{-2.49/19 17s} 32. Rc8+ {30s} Kg7 {-2.49/20 45s} 33. Ne6+
{43s} Kf6 {-2.56/20 30s} 34. Nxd4 {3s} Rg7 {-2.83/17 51s}
35. Bb5 {49s (Sf3)} Re7 {-2.59/17 43s} 36. Nf3 {50s (Kg2)}
Nb7 {-2.44/18 1:19m} 37. Bc4 {4s (Tc6+)} Kg7 {-2.54/17
1:11m} 38. Bd5 {21s (Kg2)} Nc5 {-2.57/17 1:25m} 39. Kf1 {4s
(Kg2)} Nd3 {-2.42/17 59s} 40. Bc4 {1:32m} Nf4 {-2.49/19 0s}
41. Rd8 {39s} Kh6 {-2.52/18 38s} 42. Bb3 {1:26m (Td4)} Kg7
{-2.53/17 1:17m} 43. Rd4 {40s} Nh5 {-2.63/18 4s} 44. Ng5
{31s} Nf6 {-2.66/18 1:29m} 45. Rd6 {6s (Kg2)} Rd7 {-2.70/17
47s} 46. Rc6 {57s} Re7 {-2.85/17 17s} 47. Kg2 {47s} Rb7
{-3.05/17 5s} 48. Ne6+ {31s} Kh6 {-3.05/17 17s} 49. Nf4
{30s} Kg7 {-3.42/18 7s} 50. Kf3 {37s (h5)} b5 {-3.38/16
35s} 51. a3 {54s (h5)} a5 {-3.32/15 30s} 52. Ra6 {3s
(Se6+)} a4 {-3.51/16 34s} 53. Bc2 {3s (Ld5)} Rb8 {-3.52/16
39s} 54. Bd3 {5s (Tc6)} b4 {-3.79/15 1:01m} 55. Rxa4 {3s
(axb4)} bxa3 {-3.81/16 1:08m} 56. Rxa3 {3s} Rb6 {-3.81/16
35s} 57. Ra7+ {4s} Kh6 {-3.85/16 16s} 58. Rc7 {24s (Te7)}
Ng4 {-3.90/17 36s} 59. Re7 {3s} Nf6 {-3.98/17 24s} 60. Bc4
{44s (Te6)} Rd6 {-4.01/15 46s} 61. Bf7 {36s (Te6)} Nh5
{-4.05/16 22s} 62. Ne6 {36s (Te6)} Nf6 {-4.05/16 31s}
63. Nf8 {4s} g5 {-4.89/15 42s} 64. Re6 {3s (hxg5+)} Rxe6
{-5.07/19 19s} 65. hxg5+ {3s} Kxg5 {-5.24/22 15s} 66. Nxe6+
{33s} 1-0
>But there are minor flaws. In the endgame it's weak, if I can reach
>an endgame, which ain't too often. And CSTal is too often satisfied with draws
>by repetition. As for the bugs I read about in the archives, I haven't noticed
>any.
Yes, endgame is clearly its major weakness. I think it is interesting that
search depth is a much greater problem in the endgame compaired to the
middlegame.
Peter
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.