Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:17:04 11/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 1999 at 09:09:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
Last 19 games of tol4511 against Moron, though i have to add a note
that a few of the games tol4511 forfeits is in a won or drawn position
aics% search moron tol4511
Your search found 93 games: [37 17 39 = (white win,draw,black win)]
0 2625 Moron 2467 tol4511 1-0 [ sr 30 0] D47 Res 17-Nov-99
1 2477 tol4511 2615 Moron 0-1 [ sr 30 0] B67 Res 17-Nov-99
2 2604 Moron 2488 tol4511 1-0 [ sr 30 0] E42 Fla 17-Nov-99
3 2518 tol4511 2531 Moron = [ sr 30 0] C29 Sta 16-Nov-99
4 2532 Moron 2517 tol4511 0-1 [ sr 30 0] D11 Mat 16-Nov-99
5 2499 tol4511 2550 Moron 0-1 [ sr 30 0] B66 Res 15-Nov-99
6 2502 tol4511 2504 Moron 1-0 [ sr 30 0] B12 Mat 14-Nov-99
7 2522 Moron 2484 tol4511 0-1 [ sr 30 0] C63 Mat 14-Nov-99
8 2465 tol4511 2541 Moron 0-1 [ sr 30 0] D37 Fla 14-Nov-99
9 2567 Moron 2479 tol4511 0-1 [ sr 30 0] D85 Mat 12-Nov-99
10 2457 tol4511 2589 Moron 0-1 [ sr 30 0] D29 Res 12-Nov-99
11 2578 Moron 2468 tol4511 0-1 [ sr 30 0] A00 Mat 12-Nov-99
12 2581 Moron 2410 tol4511 0-1 [ sr 30 0] D07 Mat 09-Nov-99
13 2408 tol4511 2588 Moron 0-1 [ sr 30 0] D25 Fla 06-Nov-99
14 2579 Moron 2417 tol4511 1-0 [ sr 30 0] B01 Res 06-Nov-99
15 2450 tol4511 2566 Moron 1-0 [ sr 30 0] B83 Mat 06-Nov-99
16 2589 Moron 2427 tol4511 1-0 [ sr 30 0] C08 Fla 06-Nov-99
17 2436 tol4511 2581 Moron 1-0 [ sr 30 0] E15 Mat 31-Oct-99
18 2605 Moron 2412 tol4511 1-0 [ sr 30 0] D68 Res 31-Oct-99
19 2420 tol4511 2597 Moron = [ sr 30 0] D37 Rep 31-Oct-99
Tol4511 plays at a pii450, so a lot faster than the hardware Christophe
advices. Also faster than K6-450
>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.