Author: Marc Lacrosse
Date: 15:37:34 11/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2005 at 17:13:26, Joachim Rang wrote: >On November 11, 2005 at 16:51:39, Theo van der Storm wrote: > >>[Event "25th DOCC"] >>[Site "Leiden NED"] >>[Date "2005.11.11"] >>[Round "3"] >>[White "Fruit"] >>[Black "Diep"] >>[Result "0-1"] >>[ECO "B90"] >> >>1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 d6 3. Nge2 Nf6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3 >>Nbd7 9. g4 b5 10. g5 b4 11. Nd5 Nxd5 12. exd5 Bf5 13. Bd3 Bxd3 14. Qxd3 Be7 15. >>Rg1 O-O 16. O-O-O a5 17. Nd2 a4 18. Ne4 Qc7 19. h4 b3 20. axb3 axb3 21. Qxb3 >>Rfb8 22. Qc3 Qb7 23. b3 Rc8 24. Qb2 Nb6 25. Bxb6 Qxb6 26. Rge1 Ra5 27. Kb1 Qa7 >>28. c4 Ra8 29. Nc3 f5 30. f4 e4 31. Re2 Bd8 32. Nb5 Qa6 33. Nc3 h5 34. Na4 Rb8 >>35. Nc3 Bb6 36. Nb5 Ra8 37. Nc3 Ra3 38. Kc2 Qa5 39. Ree1 Bf2 40. Rf1 Bc5 41. >>Rh1 Bb4 42. Na4 Qa7 43. c5 Bxc5 44. Ra1 Rxa1 45. Qxa1 Bd4 46. Qa2 Qb7 0-1 >> > >Nc3-Nb5-Nc3 - really stupid play by Fruit. :-( > >Joachim The problem is not 35.Nc3 36.Nb5 37.Nc3, Joachim. The problem is that sicilian structures with d6-e5 by black and 0-0-0 by white are played extremely weakly by Fruit in quite a few sublines. This is the second loss of Fruit against Diep (out of two competition games!) due to inappropriate opening choice by Fruit's book cooker, leading to objectively satisfying positions that Fruit plays badly and thus to subsequent disaster. First time I was the cooker, this time Jeroen is to be blamed. This leads me to three comments. 1. Congratulations to Vincent Diepeveen and to its opening advisors. 2. There are terrible weaknesses in Fruit's evaluation of quite a few early middle game structures (and this complements other kinds of positions of which Fruit has a really outstanding "understanding"). Thus Fruit is not able to play anything and it is still terribly difficult to build a weakness-free competition book for it. 3. Improving early middle game evaluation and planning should be given a much higher priority if Fabien intends to compete in tournaments like the dutch open. It is really incredible that the evaluation function of the competition "x-fruit" is still close to the publicly released one two months after release when engaging in such a tournament : all opponents have had all opportunities to test fruit's weaknesses. If tablebase implementation was such a commercial priority that any other development had to be stopped, then a logical consequence was to withdraw from any public competition until a new fruit could be produced with an improved evaluation. See what happened to shredder a few months ago. All opponents had tested their repertoire against the publicly available shredder 9. Deep shredder suffered more than one severe losses in Reykjavik. Fruit's fate will be the same in the following months if fabien continues to lose his time in bug-checking chessbase-gui or implementing tablebase or other marginally important features. Aside of tablebases, if other questionable improvements are commercial priorities , then stopping to play in public tournaments for a while is mandatory IMHO. Marc
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.