Author: Pablo Ignacio Restrepo
Date: 06:19:52 11/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
A. Steen. Hello. Do you have a nickname into playchess Steen. ? I would like to study yours games. Thanks in advance, Pablo On November 24, 2005 at 08:54:54, A. Steen wrote: >To the insolent trolls and abusive patzers - please first read: >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?464028 >before flaming, thanks. There, I was specifically requested by two members to >post at least one game. > >We are all patzers at chess. Just look at the optimal moves in the recently >calculated 7-man tablebases, see how incomprehensible they are and how hard it >is to differentiate between the winning, drawing and losing moves, and be >humble. Just like me. > >The purpose of agreeing to Graham's request is to show how easy it is to beat >Fruit. It walks punch drunk into losses in ways the Chessbase top engines do >not. Even though it beats those same engines in head-to-head play! > >I choose an exciting-looking (only in looks!) game from a controversial start, >to make it interesting for many readers. I was playing when in a relaxed, >confident frame of mind, and the annotations are similarly light-hearted. > >Another factor influencing my selection of this game is that there are one or >two disturbing aspects to Fruit's play in this game, which may be of assistance >to the developer team to identify. > >Thirdly, the whole thing was quite easy for me to play, as my attack almost >played itself some of the time, and the tightrope was easy to discern when it >was there. I still had quite a lot of time on the clock at the end of the game. >This illustrates my motif - Fruit is much weaker against reasonable humans than >it is against other engines. Most players here should be able to find most or >all of my moves, and so should most chess engines (but then why don't these >engines score better against Fruit?). > >Fourthly, given the above the game is certainly no showcase for my abilities. >So I cannot be again accused by the trolls of boasting or whatever. > >Fifthly, the game illustrates how one can boldly play against the "best" >computers, rather than indulge in "Father's" abusive shufflings and seek closed >positions. > >Below is the whole game, but please scroll down for some light illustrated >commentary, aimed at the 1500-rated player. As every one of my chessic >_critics_ on this board have demonstrated no more understanding than that of a >1500-player (if anything, I am being a little too generous here), that is an >appropriate level. Also, as this is not a deep game by any means - there being >few strategic concepts within it - such a light dusting isn't inappropriate. > >Lastly, since I would normally never comment on such a casual game, hopefully my >style of commentary won't reveal too much about who I might or might not be. > >[Event "Event"] >[Date "2005.11.??"] >[Round "1"] >[White "A. Steen"] >[Black "Fruit 2.2.1"] >[Result "1-0"] >[PlyCount "171"] >[TimeControl "900"] > >1. e4 Nc6 2. f4 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 d6 5. c4 Nb6 6. d5 Nb4 7. a3 Na6 8. Nf3 g6 >9. Nc3 Bg7 10. b4 Bg4 11. c5 dxe5 12. Qb3 Bxf3 13. gxf3 Nxd5 14. Qxd5 e4 15. >Bb5+ c6 16. Bxc6+ bxc6 17. Qxc6+ Kf8 18. Bb2 Nxc5 19. Qxc5 Qd3 20. Na4 Bxb2 21. >Nxb2 Qxf3 22. Rf1 Qh3 23. Qd4 Rg8 24. Nc4 g5 25. Ra2 Rc8 26. Re2 a5 27. Qxe4 >Qc3+ 28. Nd2 Qc1+ 29. Kf2 Qc7 30. Nb3 gxf4 31. Nc5 Rg6 32. Ke1 axb4 33. axb4 Re8 >34. Qe5 Qxe5 35. Nd7+ Kg7 36. Nxe5 Rf6 37. Re4 Ra8 38. Rexf4 Rxf4 39. Rxf4 f6 >40. Nc6 e5 41. Rg4+ Kh6 42. b5 Ra1+ 43. Ke2 Ra2+ 44. Ke3 Ra3+ 45. Ke4 Rb3 46. >Na7 Kh5 47. Rg3 Rb2 48. Kf5 Rf2+ 49. Ke6 Rb2 50. Rg7 e4 51. Kf5 Kh6 52. Rg3 Rxh2 >53. Rb3 e3 54. Rxe3 Rf2+ 55. Ke6 Kg5 56. Rb3 Re2+ 57. Kd7 Rd2+ 58. Kc8 Rd6 59. >Nc6 f5 60. Kc7 Rf6 61. b6 Rf7+ 62. Kd8 h5 63. b7 h4 64. b8=Q Rf8+ 65. Ke7 Rxb8 >66. Rxb8 Kf4 67. Kf6 h3 68. Rh8 Kg3 69. Nd4 f4 70. Ne2+ Kf3 71. Nxf4 Kxf4 72. >Rxh3 Ke4 73. Rh4+ Ke3 74. Kf5 Kd3 75. Ke5 Ke2 76. Kd4 Kf3 77. Kd3 Kg3 78. Ra4 >Kf3 79. Kd2 Kf2 80. Ra3 Kg1 81. Rf3 Kh1 82. Ke2 Kg2 83. Ra3 Kg1 84. Kf3 Kh1 85. >Kg3 Kg1 86. Ra1# 1-0 > >Settings for Fruit 2.2.1 >Pondering: ON, of course. >Book: Fruit_ASv3.ctg, which I am told is the best one for Fruit 2.2.x. Learning >had been on and I had previously been trying to persuade the computer to play >Alekhine's Defence, which it would not. It prefers 1. .. N-c6 to 1. .. N-f6, >which is noteworthy. Of course, I take it out of book as soon as possible so all >that is moot. :) >CPU: Intel running at 3.8GHz, more RAM than you would imagine >Hash Table: 1024 Mb >TableBases: About 300 Gb >Engine Parameters: All standard, and "OwnBook" ticked and present >Other settings: Resign OFF. >I could not see Fruit's evaluation or the bar graph, of course. And I did not >takeback any of my moves. > > >1. e4 Nc6 2. f4 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 > >[D]r1bqkb1r/pppppppp/2n5/3nP3/3P1P2/8/PPP3PP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq d3 0 4 > >At this point Fruit shocked me by playing 4. .. g5, which is not a sensible >move. Maybe this was a bug or a result of something that was in the hash. I >switched on the appropriate pane, used takeback and pressed "+" to get MV mode, >and made Fruit play its second choice here, 4. .. d6. Given more time, Fruit >switches to 4. .. e6, which is sound. It is a little disturbing that the weaker >moves were considered. I am doing Fruit a favour by not holding it to 4. .. g5, >or the game would have been Short Shrift. :) > >d6 5. c4 Nb6 6. d5 Nb4 7. a3 Na6 > >[D]r1bqkb1r/ppp1pppp/nn1p4/3PP3/2P2P2/P7/1P4PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 8 > >I consider this position winning for white. > >** THE POINT IS, AGAINST FRITZ 9 OR SHREDDER 9.1 UCI I WOULD HAVE HAD TO FIGHT >FOR THE WIN FROM HERE ONWARDS. FRUIT IS JUST TOO DECENT AND HONEST! :) > >8. Nf3 g6 9. Nc3 Bg7 > >[D]r1bqk2r/ppp1ppbp/nn1p2p1/3PP3/2P2P2/P1N2N2/1P4PP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 10 > >I choose the most violent of the many alternatives here. > >10. b4 Bg4 11. c5 dxe5 12. Qb3 Bxf3 13. gxf3 > >[D]r2qk2r/ppp1ppbp/nn4p1/2PPp3/1P3P2/PQN2P2/7P/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 13 > >If 13. .. N-d7, 14. c6 1-0 >If 13. .. N-c8, 14. B-b5+ 1-0 >I know you saw those :) > >13. .. Nxd5! 14. Qxd5 > >[D]r2qk2r/ppp1ppbp/n5p1/2PQp3/1P3P2/P1N2P2/7P/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 14 > >Here I was expecting 14. .. exf, at which point I would have traded queens and >gone for an easy endgame win. Fruit's move (14. .. e4) is probably an >improvement. Investigating the position after the game, Fruit expected 14. .. >e4 to be answered by 15. Q-d2 (weird!), which shows it has no understanding of >the dynamical potentialities of the position. > >14. .. e4 > >Hereafter, I am seduced into attacking as wildly as I felt I could. Perhaps >Fruit is a psychologist. > >[D]r2qk2r/ppp1ppbp/n5p1/2PQ4/1P2pP2/P1N2P2/7P/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 0 15 > >I hope you can find my move here. However much time Fruit seems to be given in >post-mortem analysis, it does not find it for white (it oscillates from 15. Q-d2 >to 15. Qxd8+). > >15. Bb5+ > >I would have thought this move was totally obvious. > >15. .. c6 16. Bxc6+ > >[D]r2qk2r/pp2ppbp/n1B3p1/2PQ4/1P2pP2/P1N2P2/7P/R1B1K2R b KQkq - 0 16 > >Here I expected 16. .. K-f8, against which 17. B-b2 is forced. I have no idea >whether 16. .. K-f8 is better than the move Fruit played, which was to grab the >bishop. Fruit's king safety algorithm or weighting may need review. > >16. .. bxc6 17. Qxc6+ Kf8 > >[D]r2q1k1r/p3ppbp/n1Q3p1/2P5/1P2pP2/P1N2P2/7P/R1B1K2R w KQ - 0 18 > >Of course I cannot touch the black knight. > >18. Bb2 > >[D]r2q1k1r/p3ppbp/n1Q3p1/2P5/1P2pP2/P1N2P2/1B5P/R3K2R b KQ - 0 18 > >What black now did really woke me up. I had missed this entirely, and was >expecting 18. .. exf, which pawn I would doubtless pick up in due course along a >comfortable cruise to a win, view to a kill, etc. > >18. .. Nxc5! > >[D]r2q1k1r/p3ppbp/2Q3p1/2n5/1P2pP2/P1N2P2/1B5P/R3K2R w KQ - 0 19 > >To decline the sac would cost me the game. The point of black's move is to >deflect my Q from the long diagonal, where it paralyses black, and to gain >dynamical counterchances. Unfortunately for black, my moves are easy to find. > >19. Qxc5 Qd3 > >[D]r4k1r/p3ppbp/6p1/2Q5/1P2pP2/P1Nq1P2/1B5P/R3K2R w KQ - 0 20 > >Post-mortem analysis reveals that Fruit expected 20. R-d1 or 20. N-d1 here (I >cannot tell which), and spent its ponder time analysing what followed one of >those. This is the only move I spent more than a few seconds on, certainly >considering both those moves and 20. N-d5?, which might have been my choice >against a weak non-computer opponent and just for the hell of it. > >At the end it was a toss-up between 20. N-d1 and what I played, and it would >have made no difference which one I chose. > >20. Na4 Bxb2 21. Nxb2 Qxf3 22. Rf1 Qh3 23. Qd4 > >[D]r4k1r/p3pp1p/6p1/8/1P1QpP2/P6q/1N5P/R3KR2 b Q - 0 23 > >WQ is boss-lady. :) > >23. .. Rg8 24. Nc4 > >[D]r4kr1/p3p2p/6p1/5p2/1PNQpP2/P6q/7P/R3KR2 w Q f6 0 25 > >Here I expected Fruit to play 24. .. f5 to hold the pawn, giving me time to >activate my rooks, eject the black queen and advance my Q-side pawn majority, >get an isolated passed pawn (probably on the b-file) and the rest blindfold. > >Fruit, however, found something a little more interesting and probably better, >though it is all academic. > >24. .. g5 25. Ra2 Rc8 > >[D]r4kr1/p3p2p/6p1/5p2/1PNQpP2/P6q/7P/R3KR2 w Q f6 0 25 > >It is utterly obvious to state that if white were to blunder here with 26. >Qxa7??, Black would win with 26. .. Rxc4 picking up the hanging knight. What is >a little less obvious is that black's attack would be absolutely overwhelming, >and white must then sacrifice his queen in the next couple of moves to avoid >checkmate (I've just checked this by computer). > >26. Re2 a5 > >[D]2r2kr1/4pp1p/8/p5p1/1PNQpP2/P6q/4R2P/4KR2 w - a6 0 27 > >On post-mortem, Fruit insists here that PxRP is best for white, which is >ridiculous. > >27. Qxe4 Qc3+ 28. Nd2 Qc1+ 29. Kf2 Qc7 30. Nb3 gxf4 31. Nc5 Rg6 > >[D]2r2k2/2q1pp1p/6r1/p1N5/1P2Qp2/P7/4RK1P/5R2 w - - 0 32 > >At this point I momentarily and irrationally decided to kill the f4 pawn (on the >grounds that it might later give black something to help him with a perpetual?) > >Of course, correct was 32. Q-e5 forcing the exchange of queems; I never even saw >it until a few moves later. Black should not have permitted a Q exchange, but >that's a common computer failing in lost endgames. Once the Qs are out, all >chances of counterplay disappear. > >32. Ke1 axb4 33. axb4 Re8 34. Qe5 Qxe5 35. Nd7+ > >[D]4rk2/3Npp1p/6r1/4q3/1P3p2/8/4R2P/4KR2 b - - 0 35 > >The game is now totally over, but my cruel no-resign setting gave me the >satisfaction of checkmating Fruit. No more annotation is needed from this move >onwards, and I concede in advance that I am certain I fouled up in the endgame >and could have mated Fruit 10 moves earlier. :) > >32. .. Kg7 36. Nxe5 Rf6 37. Re4 Ra8 38. Rexf4 Rxf4 39. Rxf4 f6 40. Nc6 e5 41. >Rg4+ Kh6 42. b5 Ra1+ 43. Ke2 Ra2+ 44. Ke3 Ra3+ 45. Ke4 Rb3 46. Na7 Kh5 47. Rg3 >Rb2 48. Kf5 Rf2+ 49. Ke6 Rb2 50. Rg7 e4 51. Kf5 Kh6 52. Rg3 Rxh2 53. Rb3 e3 54. >Rxe3 Rf2+ 55. Ke6 Kg5 56. Rb3 Re2+ 57. Kd7 Rd2+ 58. Kc8 Rd6 59. Nc6 f5 60. Kc7 >Rf6 61. b6 Rf7+ 62. Kd8 h5 63. b7 h4 64. b8=Q Rf8+ 65. Ke7 Rxb8 66. Rxb8 Kf4 67. >Kf6 h3 68. Rh8 Kg3 69. Nd4 f4 70. Ne2+ Kf3 71. Nxf4 Kxf4 72. Rxh3 Ke4 73. Rh4+ >Ke3 74. Kf5 Kd3 75. Ke5 Ke2 76. Kd4 Kf3 77. Kd3 Kg3 78. Ra4 Kf3 79. Kd2 Kf2 80. >Ra3 Kg1 81. Rf3 Kh1 82. Ke2 Kg2 83. Ra3 Kg1 84. Kf3 Kh1 85. Kg3 Kg1 86. Ra1 >checkmate. > >1-0, and almost a suicide-chess game by Fruit. I am confident you, with or >without your engines, will find and agree with all or most of my moves. Fruit >put no Laskeresque poison into the waters, ever. > > >Best, > >A.S.
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.