Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:09:24 11/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 1999 at 20:49:55, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>I am playing a mail-chess game against an anonymous guy.
>Here is the game:
>
>
>
> Thorsten Czub - Rudi
>
> 1.d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Sc3 Sf6 4. f3 exf3 5. Dxf3 Dxd4
> 6. Le3 Dh4+ 7. g3 Dg4 8. 0-0-0 Dxf3 9. Sxf3 c6
> {until here it was "book"}
> 10. Lg2 Sbd7 11. The1 e6 12. Sd4 Lc5 13. Sa4 Lxd4
> 14. Lxd4 0-0 15. b3 Te8 16. Sb2 Sb6 17. Sd3 Sfd5
> 18. c4 Sf6 19. Lf3 Sfd7 20. Sf4 Kf8 21. Lb2 a5 22. La3+ Kg8
> 23. c5 a4 24. cxb6 axb3 25. Kb2 bxa2 26. Kxa2 Sxb6
> 27. Kb3 e5 28. Lc5 Sd7 29. Ld6 f6 30. Sd3 Sf8 31. Kb2 Le6
> 32. Sc5 Ta2+ 33.. Kc1 Txh2 34. Te2 Txe2 35. Lxe2 Lc8
> 36. Lc4+ Se6 37. Se4 Td8 38. Td3 b5 39. La2 Kf7 40. Ta3 f5
> 41. Lc7 Th8 42. Sd6+ Kf6 43. Lb6 Tf8
> 44. Ta7
>
>If you want we can let this game "replay" by several
>chess programs, as an example, and relate the evaluations of the programs
>to see that tiger has completely different score than any other.
Sure hard to compare a what i call 'piece square table' program,
plain stupid and dumb, searching however very deep (12 to 13 ply
at dutch open at 90 0 level!) and seemingly long PV lines.
Always putting pressure at near to static weak pawns in a position.
Very consequent play, yet quite chanceless in the future. Should pay
Jeroen more as his contribution is bigger!
Someone at the internet claiming to use tiger (tol4511):
tol4511 (2477) vs. Moron (2615) --- 1999.11.17 20:25:20
Rated standard match, initial time: 30 minutes, increment: 0 seconds
chesstiger diep
Move tol4511 Moron
---- ---------------- ----------------
1. e4 (0:16) c5 (0:00)
2. Nf3 (0:17) Nc6 (0:00)
3. d4 (0:07) cxd4 (0:00)
4. Nxd4 (0:07) Nf6 (0:00)
5. Nc3 (0:07) d6 (0:00)
6. Bg5 (0:07) e6 (0:00)
7. Qd2 (0:07) a6 (0:00)
8. O-O-O (0:06) Bd7 (0:00)
9. f4 (0:08) b5 (0:00)
10. Nxc6 (0:08) Bxc6 (0:00)
11. Bxf6 (0:07) Qxf6 (1:40)
12. h4 (1:16) b4 (0:59)
13. Ne2 (0:49) a5 (0:06)
14. Nd4 (1:22) Bxe4 (0:00)
15. Qe3 (1:11) d5 (0:57)
16. Bb5+ (0:50) Kd8 (0:00)
Here DIEP evaluated the position as 0.10,
getting about a 9 ply search or something.
Expecting Rhe1, i am not happy about the
position here, though probably only deep
analysis can give us insight!
17. Nc6+ (1:15) Kc7 (0:55)
Patzer sees check. Score jumpe directly up to about
a pawn up here.
18. Rhf1 (0:26) a4 (1:07)
Rhf1 caused the score to jump up again.
19. Ne5 (0:45) a3 (0:00)
20. b3 (0:58) Bxg2 (0:40)
21. Rg1 (0:39) Be4 (0:39)
22. Rg5 (0:09) h6 (0:38)
23. Rgg1 (0:49) Ra5 (0:37)
24. c4 (0:36) Bd6 (0:16)
25. Rdf1 (0:26) g6 (0:00)
26. Kd1 (0:53) Rc8 (0:36)
27. Qd4 (0:48) Kb7 (0:35)
28. Bd7 (1:31) Rc7 (0:34)
29. Qd2 (1:01) Bc5 (0:00)
30. h5 (1:27) Bxg1 (0:33)
31. Rxg1 (0:11) Qe7 (0:20)
32. hxg6 (0:28) fxg6 (0:02)
33. Bb5 (0:46) g5 (0:00)
34. Rg4 (1:09) Qc5 (0:43)
35. fxg5 (0:09) h5 (0:19)
36. Rg3 (0:38) dxc4 (0:06)
37. Nxc4 (1:27) Rxb5 (0:00)
{White resigns} 0-1
White didn't have much weak points to aim the
guns at this game.
>For the beginning i would like YOU to replay whites moves with your
>famous chess programs and to post the evaluation right behind
>the white moves, say after let white compute 10 minutes on a fast
>pc for each move.
>
>After we have some other programs i can present tigers score for each position
>with white to move and we can altogether confirm: tiger evaluates different
>than other programs.
>
>Now you can guess WHY or ask Christophe :-))) and i hope he will not
>really tell you.
>because somehow it seems to be the secret of its playing strength :-))
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.