Poll
Who's the best centaur? (Closed)
| Alan (b3) | 11 | 5% | |
| Anson Williams (Cato) | 11 | 5% | |
| Anthony Cozzie | 10 | 5% | |
| Dagh Nielsen (Flying Saucers) | 17 | 8% | |
| Deep Junior | 10 | 5% | |
| Dennis Breder (Klosterfrau) | 10 | 5% | |
| Erdogan Günes (Zorro Z) | 10 | 5% | |
| Eros Riccio (Auryn) | 10 | 5% | |
| Graham Banks | 11 | 5% | |
| Iweta Rajlich | 10 | 5% | |
| Jiri Dufek (Xakru) | 10 | 5% | |
| Joerg Blauert (Rentner2) | 10 | 5% | |
| Marc Lacrosse | 10 | 5% | |
| Michael Krasenkow (Rajlich) | 10 | 5% | |
| Nelson Hernandez (Cato) | 10 | 5% | |
| Patrick S (Etaoin) | 10 | 5% | |
| Roman Chytilek (Xakru) | 10 | 5% | |
| Stephen Z (ZackS) | 10 | 5% | |
| Sujay Jagannathan (Hercules01) | 12 | 6% | |
| Vasik Rajlich | 15 | 7% |
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
ICEMAN: You need any help? You figured it out yet?
MAVERICK: What's that?
ICEMAN: Who's the best centaur?
MAVERICK: I can figure that one out on my own.
Well, unlike Maverick from the Top Gun movie I need some help!
I've added those players who I know are top centaurs, plus a few other luminaries from the chess world/fora.
The rules are:
1. Everyone has the same h/w (let's say the latest 8-way intel box)
2. Folks are dumped into the game just after the opening, the position is equal and everyone is out of prep
The idea is to identify the individual with the most centaur-processing-power, so try to split them out of their
team if they are in one (maybe an impossible task but let's give it a go).
PS. In case you hadn't guessed this is meant to be a little bit of light relief :)
MAVERICK: What's that?
ICEMAN: Who's the best centaur?
MAVERICK: I can figure that one out on my own.
Well, unlike Maverick from the Top Gun movie I need some help!
I've added those players who I know are top centaurs, plus a few other luminaries from the chess world/fora.
The rules are:
1. Everyone has the same h/w (let's say the latest 8-way intel box)
2. Folks are dumped into the game just after the opening, the position is equal and everyone is out of prep
The idea is to identify the individual with the most centaur-processing-power, so try to split them out of their
team if they are in one (maybe an impossible task but let's give it a go).
PS. In case you hadn't guessed this is meant to be a little bit of light relief :)
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Best are Rentner2 and Zacks, because they have the most games. Michal Krasenkow can´t be best, because 1+1<4 :-).
I guess the combination vas+iweta+dagh+michal is the best... ok, they played in different combinations, but I guess those who voted for Vas and not for Iweta underestimate Iweta's role in the team :)
I'm starting the rumour that Eros voted for himself (just joking Eros!) I hope Alan enjoys the secret message in your Playchess info :)
The poll facility here needs more entries, I realized I missed off Wing, Jeroen and Veselin Topalov ! My apologies ....
Nice game just concluded ..
[Event "Rated game, 3m + 0s"]
[Site "Engine Room"]
[Date "2007.11.07"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Intagrand, Rybka 2.3.2a mp FSC"]
[Black "Flyingfatman, Rybka 2.3.2a mp RSV"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A25"]
[WhiteElo "2742"]
[BlackElo "2893"]
[PlyCount "204"]
[EventDate "2007.11.07"]
[TimeControl "180"]
{Rybka 2.3.2a mp FSCD: 19.0 ply; 458kN/s Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU
@ 2.66GHz 3207MHz, (4 threads), blank.ctg,
PieceContainer->RestoreDeviceObjects} 1. c4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} f5 {[%emt 0:00:00]
} 2. g3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 3. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} e5 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 4. Nc3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nc6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 5. e3 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} d6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 6. Nge2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Be7 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 7. d4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} O-O {[%emt 0:00:00]} 8. O-O {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Qe8 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 9. Nd5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bd8 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 10. b3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} e4 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 11. Nef4 {
[%emt 0:00:06]} a5 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 12. f3 {[%emt 0:00:05]} exf3 {
[%emt 0:00:10]} 13. Nxf6+ {[%emt 0:00:04]} Bxf6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 14. Bxf3 {
[%emt 0:00:07]} a4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 15. Nd5 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Bd8 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} 16. Bd2 {[%emt 0:00:05]} Ne7 {[%emt 0:00:11]} 17. Nf4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} axb3 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 18. axb3 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Rxa1 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 19. Qxa1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} c6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 20. Qa7 {
[%emt 0:00:07]} Ng6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 21. Nd3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Qd7 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 22. Re1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Re8 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 23. h4 {
[%emt 0:00:06]} Bf6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 24. Bb4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Nh8 {
[%emt 0:00:05]} 25. Re2 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Nf7 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 26. Nf4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} g6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 27. Bc3 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Nh6 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} 28. Qa3 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Ng4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 29. e4 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} fxe4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 30. Bxe4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Re7 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 31. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Rxe2 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 32. Nxe2 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} Kf7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 33. Qc1 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Qe7 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 34. Bb4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Bf5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 35. Qf4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Qe3+ {[%emt 0:00:02]} 36. Qxe3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Nxe3 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 37. Kf2 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Nc2 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 38. Bc3 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Ke7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 39. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:02]} h5 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 40. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Kf7 {[%emt 0:00:08]} 41. Bg2 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Bg7 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 42. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Kf8 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} 43. Bh1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Ke7 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 44. Bg2 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Bf8 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 45. Nf4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Bh6 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} 46. Bh1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Kd7 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 47. Bf3 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} Bg7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 48. Ne2 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Bf6 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 49. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:12]} Bd8 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 50. Ng1 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Ke8 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 51. Ne2 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Bb6 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 52. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Kd7 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 53. b4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Bd8 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 54. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Na3 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} 55. c5 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Be7 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 56. Nf4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Bf6 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 57. Ne2 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Nc2 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 58. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Kc7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 59. Bg2 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Bg7 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 60. Bh1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Kd7 {
[%emt 0:00:05]} 61. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Ke7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 62. Bf3 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} Bf6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 63. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bh8 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 64. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} d5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 65. b5 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Kf7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 66. b6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Be6 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} 67. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bg4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 68. Bf3 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Bg7 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 69. Bxg4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} hxg4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 70. Kf1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bh6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 71. Be1 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Nxe1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 72. Kxe1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Be3 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 73. Kd1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Ke6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 74. Kc2 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} Kf5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 75. Kd3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Bf2 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 76. Kc2 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Ke4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 77. Nf4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Bxg3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 78. Nxg6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Bf2 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 79. h5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Be3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 80. Kd1 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Kxd4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 81. Nh4 {[%emt 0:00:05]} Bg5 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 82. Ng2 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Kxc5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 83. Ke2 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} d4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 84. h6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Bxh6 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 85. Nh4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Kc4 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 86. Kf1 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} d3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 87. Nf5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bf4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 88. Ke1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} g3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 89. Nh4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Be3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 90. Ng2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Kd4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 91. Nh4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Ke4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 92. Ng2 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} c5 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 93. Kf1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} c4 {[%emt 0:00:01]
} 94. Nh4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bf4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 95. Ng6 {[%emt 0:00:02]} d2 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 96. Ke2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} c3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 97. Nxf4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Kxf4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 98. Kd3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} d1=Q+ {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 99. Kxc3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} g2 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 100. Kc4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} g1=Q {[%emt 0:00:01]} 101. Kb4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Qgd4+ {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 102. Kb5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Q1a4# {[%emt 0:00:00]} 0-1
The poll facility here needs more entries, I realized I missed off Wing, Jeroen and Veselin Topalov ! My apologies ....
Nice game just concluded ..
[Event "Rated game, 3m + 0s"]
[Site "Engine Room"]
[Date "2007.11.07"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Intagrand, Rybka 2.3.2a mp FSC"]
[Black "Flyingfatman, Rybka 2.3.2a mp RSV"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A25"]
[WhiteElo "2742"]
[BlackElo "2893"]
[PlyCount "204"]
[EventDate "2007.11.07"]
[TimeControl "180"]
{Rybka 2.3.2a mp FSCD: 19.0 ply; 458kN/s Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU
@ 2.66GHz 3207MHz, (4 threads), blank.ctg,
PieceContainer->RestoreDeviceObjects} 1. c4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} f5 {[%emt 0:00:00]
} 2. g3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 3. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} e5 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 4. Nc3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nc6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 5. e3 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} d6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 6. Nge2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Be7 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 7. d4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} O-O {[%emt 0:00:00]} 8. O-O {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Qe8 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 9. Nd5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bd8 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 10. b3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} e4 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 11. Nef4 {
[%emt 0:00:06]} a5 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 12. f3 {[%emt 0:00:05]} exf3 {
[%emt 0:00:10]} 13. Nxf6+ {[%emt 0:00:04]} Bxf6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 14. Bxf3 {
[%emt 0:00:07]} a4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 15. Nd5 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Bd8 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} 16. Bd2 {[%emt 0:00:05]} Ne7 {[%emt 0:00:11]} 17. Nf4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} axb3 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 18. axb3 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Rxa1 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 19. Qxa1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} c6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 20. Qa7 {
[%emt 0:00:07]} Ng6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 21. Nd3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Qd7 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 22. Re1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Re8 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 23. h4 {
[%emt 0:00:06]} Bf6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 24. Bb4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Nh8 {
[%emt 0:00:05]} 25. Re2 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Nf7 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 26. Nf4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} g6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 27. Bc3 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Nh6 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} 28. Qa3 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Ng4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 29. e4 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} fxe4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 30. Bxe4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Re7 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 31. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Rxe2 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 32. Nxe2 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} Kf7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 33. Qc1 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Qe7 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 34. Bb4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Bf5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 35. Qf4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Qe3+ {[%emt 0:00:02]} 36. Qxe3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Nxe3 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 37. Kf2 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Nc2 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 38. Bc3 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Ke7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 39. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:02]} h5 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 40. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Kf7 {[%emt 0:00:08]} 41. Bg2 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Bg7 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 42. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Kf8 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} 43. Bh1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Ke7 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 44. Bg2 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Bf8 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 45. Nf4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Bh6 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} 46. Bh1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Kd7 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 47. Bf3 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} Bg7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 48. Ne2 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Bf6 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 49. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:12]} Bd8 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 50. Ng1 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Ke8 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 51. Ne2 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Bb6 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 52. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Kd7 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 53. b4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Bd8 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 54. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Na3 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} 55. c5 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Be7 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 56. Nf4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Bf6 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 57. Ne2 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Nc2 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 58. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Kc7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 59. Bg2 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Bg7 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 60. Bh1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Kd7 {
[%emt 0:00:05]} 61. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Ke7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 62. Bf3 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} Bf6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 63. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bh8 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 64. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} d5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 65. b5 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Kf7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 66. b6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Be6 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} 67. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bg4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 68. Bf3 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Bg7 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 69. Bxg4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} hxg4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 70. Kf1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bh6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 71. Be1 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Nxe1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 72. Kxe1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Be3 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 73. Kd1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Ke6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 74. Kc2 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} Kf5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 75. Kd3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Bf2 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 76. Kc2 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Ke4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 77. Nf4 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Bxg3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 78. Nxg6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Bf2 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 79. h5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Be3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 80. Kd1 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} Kxd4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 81. Nh4 {[%emt 0:00:05]} Bg5 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 82. Ng2 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Kxc5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 83. Ke2 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} d4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 84. h6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Bxh6 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 85. Nh4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} Kc4 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 86. Kf1 {
[%emt 0:00:02]} d3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 87. Nf5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bf4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 88. Ke1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} g3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 89. Nh4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Be3 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 90. Ng2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Kd4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 91. Nh4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Ke4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 92. Ng2 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} c5 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 93. Kf1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} c4 {[%emt 0:00:01]
} 94. Nh4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Bf4 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 95. Ng6 {[%emt 0:00:02]} d2 {
[%emt 0:00:01]} 96. Ke2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} c3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 97. Nxf4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} Kxf4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 98. Kd3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} d1=Q+ {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 99. Kxc3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} g2 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 100. Kc4 {
[%emt 0:00:00]} g1=Q {[%emt 0:00:01]} 101. Kb4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Qgd4+ {
[%emt 0:00:00]} 102. Kb5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Q1a4# {[%emt 0:00:00]} 0-1
Oh I see, you correct your failure about Wing (?), but I don´t see the clou in the line Wing, Jeroen and Veselin. Maybe you have to change Wing with Nelson in this line. Give me a hint, why Veselin appears here. If it is because of an opening trap in freestyle tournament, created by Veselin, you have much to do. All the freestylers stand on the shoulders of their human predecessors (like Garry said)!
Iweta can see her name on list at least. But what is with Yingheng Chen? I think, we need some feminism in freestyle chess. I´m waiting for the first women team, crushing all these fat men (or better fatman?).
Agreed Roland, I even pointed my lack of Wing out 1 minute before your post. With 20/20 hindsight I would also have added Harvey and Sebi to the list had it been possible (not that I am suggesting that they are feminine in any way you understand).
You might also add a guy who claims "My brain is better than Rybka 6 days a week". :-)
Alan
Alan
Nah. His result is less 3. Oligarckh is much better! Result: 3.99!
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
But recall Nelson's proof that 1+0 is not less than 4--this could become crucial, depending on which one you remove...
You make me crazy. So I will describe, what I understand about Vas puzzle. 1 + 1 = 3. The first "1" stands for the engine. The second "1" stands for the GM (because of the article before). Result: Engine + GM is more than 2 because of synergy.
Now we come to the second line. 1 + 0 = 4. This was Vas joke! Engine without GM is better. Because 4 is more than 3. (I wouldn´t like any discussion about quarrel between Vas and Michal).
Now we come to my message: GMs (like Michal) can´t be best in freestyle, because they hurt! So I (virtual) remove Michal from the list.
Any questions from your side?
Now we come to the second line. 1 + 0 = 4. This was Vas joke! Engine without GM is better. Because 4 is more than 3. (I wouldn´t like any discussion about quarrel between Vas and Michal).
Now we come to my message: GMs (like Michal) can´t be best in freestyle, because they hurt! So I (virtual) remove Michal from the list.
Any questions from your side?
No further questions :-)
![[hu]](/mwf/v12/flags/hu.png "Hungary")
Actually, the 0 was specifically Anson :)
Obviously, we're stronger when Krasenkow plays, I have zero doubt about this. He missed the last one because I was getting ready for Mexico and was even working between games. In fact, Dagh played a bunch of the games with our account last time.
Vas
Obviously, we're stronger when Krasenkow plays, I have zero doubt about this. He missed the last one because I was getting ready for Mexico and was even working between games. In fact, Dagh played a bunch of the games with our account last time.
Vas
After a deeper look: I love the Germans :-). Rentner2, Klosterfrau and Ciron are on place 3-5 over all (First is Rajlich, second ZackS and eighth Alansacount :-)). Team Rajlich is first, that´s clear for me. But second has to be Klosterfrau!
I don´t consider the denier of their names in some tournaments.
I don´t consider the denier of their names in some tournaments.
Oh, please! What a bunch of kiss ass's. If you don't know who is on top of the list you should not be runing this pole. Dagh Nielsen (Flying Saucers) by a league.
Look to the mercs.
Oh I see, the auditorium likes the merc. He kills only in the opening. But not always. Sometimes he has trouble with his gun (engine?) in the Mexican area :-(.
Roland your merciless! :-)
![[kw]](/mwf/v12/flags/kw.png "Kuwait")
I believe by far the best Centaurs would be
1. Garry Kasparov
2. Topalov
3. Anand
not necessarily in that order. These are the 3 that come to mind that heavily use computers in analysis and finding new novelties or ideas. To be a good Centaur you have to know the strengths and weaknesses of a computer using database software and ofcourse chess engines ... and take advantage of that. Obviously they would have to take a Centaur match very seriously. I think though ... we are reaching the point where a stand alone chess engine on strong hardware and a decent book, will do quite well on its own. But for the next 5 years, human intervention should prevail.
1. Garry Kasparov
2. Topalov
3. Anand
not necessarily in that order. These are the 3 that come to mind that heavily use computers in analysis and finding new novelties or ideas. To be a good Centaur you have to know the strengths and weaknesses of a computer using database software and ofcourse chess engines ... and take advantage of that. Obviously they would have to take a Centaur match very seriously. I think though ... we are reaching the point where a stand alone chess engine on strong hardware and a decent book, will do quite well on its own. But for the next 5 years, human intervention should prevail.
What is centaur? Where can I download/buy these "Centaurs"? And how much each (euros pls)?
![[ee]](/mwf/v12/flags/ee.png "Estonia")
Centaur is team of human player and chess computer. I think you can buy a computer and a software (or use freeware). And be a centaur human player yourself.
team of computers will win coz they are smarter. I don't really know why you choose humans included.
I think, humans included will perform better. Of coarse, the top human player is needed for this. You know, chess engines are far from perfect and if to study the weaknesses of present engines, it is possible to find winning strategy against every engine. If combined with top human knowledge, the team is much harder to beat.
i am download Rajlich engine demo at Rajlich site. strong demo rajlich engine compared to uthers demo engines. i am almost buying rajlich engine and chessmaster is common so i buying chessmaster instead. i just wait for rajlich 30 to be sell then i buy.
Rajlich 2 cost 71,000 shilling but I buy chessmaster for 68,000 shilling, that not bad....
thanks, i think the best choose will be chessmaster for now
You can try free Arena GUI http://www.playwitharena.com/download/arena199beta4.zip with some strong free engines, including the Rybka 1.0 http://www.rybkachess.com/free/Rybka10FreeDownload.zip, the Spike Turin 1.2 http://spike.lazypics.de/downloads/spike_12.zip, the Fruit 2.3.1 http://www.superchessengine.com/Fruit-2-3-1-Win.zip, the Toga II 1.3.4 http://www.superchessengine.com/toga134.rar, the Glaurung 1.2.1 http://www.glaurungchess.com/wglaurung121.zip or some other free engines.
![[za]](/mwf/v12/flags/za.png "South Africa")
What is centaur?
I thought I was the only one who was curious about this. The way I undestand it, it cannot be bought, maybe it can be formed :) What is a centaur anyway?
I thought I was the only one who was curious about this. The way I undestand it, it cannot be bought, maybe it can be formed :) What is a centaur anyway?
Oh! I see that the question has been answered already. It turns out to be the way I thought it was.
First of all, it is comically absurd for me to even be on this list. If the question was "who is the best computer chess strategist" or "best theoretician" then I'd deserve mention. (Though even there what penetrating insights have I shared to deserve such an accolade? By design, damned few.) But "best centaur"? Who could possibly name me in the same breath as these other heavyweights? All of them and a long list you haven't included would slaughter me.
Very often centauring comes down to who is most skilled at steering an opponent into an opening trap. That is partly opponent research, partly prepared analysis and partly luck. In that category I would have to rate Dagh and Eros at the top of their class.
On the other hand another part of centauring is avoiding opening traps. Dagh, Dennis, Vas are tops there, I think.
And yet another part is real-time inventiveness. Without being immodest I think Anson is the top man there. So by the stipulated rules you outlined in your poll (neutralizing opening books) I have to vote for Anson (I didn't vote, though).
Finally there is temperament--coolness under pressure. I can't judge the opposition, but some signs of this are time management in the middle game, steadiness in the endgame when in time trouble, absence of mouse-slips, persistent defensive tenacity even when behind. Practically all the top guys are strong in temperament and it separates them from the field.
Overall--I think the best individual Freestyler, the one who puts it all together into a total package, is probably Dagh--largely on the basis of his fanatic opening prep. Dennis ranks quite high in my book as well. But Freestyle isn't predominantly an individual game, necessarily; it's about teams and synergies. And that is where the aggregated "Rajlich" team (some combination of Vas, Dagh, Jeroen, Iweta, Michel) is undeniably the strongest and where Anson's team is arguably the closest challenger, though it is quite possible that a cobbled-together team of all-stars could replace us as #2, especially if they worked together for a while.
Very often centauring comes down to who is most skilled at steering an opponent into an opening trap. That is partly opponent research, partly prepared analysis and partly luck. In that category I would have to rate Dagh and Eros at the top of their class.
On the other hand another part of centauring is avoiding opening traps. Dagh, Dennis, Vas are tops there, I think.
And yet another part is real-time inventiveness. Without being immodest I think Anson is the top man there. So by the stipulated rules you outlined in your poll (neutralizing opening books) I have to vote for Anson (I didn't vote, though).
Finally there is temperament--coolness under pressure. I can't judge the opposition, but some signs of this are time management in the middle game, steadiness in the endgame when in time trouble, absence of mouse-slips, persistent defensive tenacity even when behind. Practically all the top guys are strong in temperament and it separates them from the field.
Overall--I think the best individual Freestyler, the one who puts it all together into a total package, is probably Dagh--largely on the basis of his fanatic opening prep. Dennis ranks quite high in my book as well. But Freestyle isn't predominantly an individual game, necessarily; it's about teams and synergies. And that is where the aggregated "Rajlich" team (some combination of Vas, Dagh, Jeroen, Iweta, Michel) is undeniably the strongest and where Anson's team is arguably the closest challenger, though it is quite possible that a cobbled-together team of all-stars could replace us as #2, especially if they worked together for a while.
Actually, it would be interesting to have a 'pure centaur' competition. You equalize the hardware and allow only one human on each team. It's debateable whether the opening theory should be equalized, this could be done either way and would have a significant impact on the results.
Freestyle as it's currently done is very much a team activity. Guys who have serious weaknesses in one area can still contribute to a strong team.
Vas
Freestyle as it's currently done is very much a team activity. Guys who have serious weaknesses in one area can still contribute to a strong team.
Vas
It would be interesting, though I don't see how it could be done without the players competing face-to-face. It's not just a matter of equalizing the top machine, but equalizing any auxiliary machines, which gets complicated to enforce. As far as the opening prep, if you neutralize that aspect you'd be excluding years of added-value that has been developed. In that case a skilled OTB player would have an advantage as he could churn out solid theory straight from memory while his unskilled opponent might find himself in terra incognita fairly quickly.
It could be face-to-face, or it could be some sort of 'gentleman's agreement'.
Equalizing the opening prep would be really hard to do in practice. For example, could you use an opening book given to you by a friend? This part is more just something for discussion.
Vas
Equalizing the opening prep would be really hard to do in practice. For example, could you use an opening book given to you by a friend? This part is more just something for discussion.
Vas
![[no]](/mwf/v12/flags/no.png "Norway")
Isn't this what is known as "Advanced Chess"?
/* Steinar */
/* Steinar */
It seems that you're right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
So, we have a name for it.
I'd like to see multiple PCs as part of the standard setup, though.
Vas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
So, we have a name for it.
I'd like to see multiple PCs as part of the standard setup, though.
Vas
Seems to me a number of us, not just me, would read the Wiki article and want to refine any number of little points. The emphasis is off here, the concept is off there, this statement is too categorical, that statement is too narrow in scope. But the more I think about it the more I realize that everybody with experience has their own Freestyle/Advanced chess world-view and there exists a considerable range of subjects where we collectively have no consensus and potentially fierce disagreements.
But I think for the good of the hobby a basic reference work would be a good thing. (I won't be writing it, though.)
But I think for the good of the hobby a basic reference work would be a good thing. (I won't be writing it, though.)
Meanwhile, we need people who have lots of money to sponsor "Theme Freestyle Championships", such as King's Gambit, Volga Gambit, Marshall Attack, etc. It would be a good way to effectively "solve" many of the most fun openings.
This would be a sideshow of a sideshow of a sideshow! Games subcategory Chess subcategory Computer Chess subcategory Freestyle subcategory Volga Gambit. Yeah, I can visualize sponsors fighting each other tooth and nail to get the winning bid!
You're right--it needs to be Halloween Attack, not Volga Gambit.
Once we get the "people who have lots of money" part, we'll be just fine :)
Vas
Vas
Nelson, I think you sell yourself short on penetrating insights.
As I recall it,you were the first one(at least on this forum) to spot both the problem and the solution for Rybka in the Zappa Mexico/Rybka match!
After about 4 games,maybe 5,into the match you recognized that Zappa's opening book had been specifically tuned to Rybka's and had plenty of nasty novelties prepared that would throw Rybka into positions it wouldn't relish.
Your solution,that Rybka should leave book at the earliest practicable moment proved to be spot on,as the last 4 games demonstrated. I've no idea if your urgings played any role in Team Rybka's adopting this course but it can't
be denied that it's implementation over the final 4 games provided Rybka the opportunity to recover almost enough to catch Zappa by the end. Based on this alone it would be hard for any impartial observer to have come away
from Mexico believing that if the match had gone on for several more games Rybka would not have prevailed.
Regards,
David
As I recall it,you were the first one(at least on this forum) to spot both the problem and the solution for Rybka in the Zappa Mexico/Rybka match!
After about 4 games,maybe 5,into the match you recognized that Zappa's opening book had been specifically tuned to Rybka's and had plenty of nasty novelties prepared that would throw Rybka into positions it wouldn't relish.
Your solution,that Rybka should leave book at the earliest practicable moment proved to be spot on,as the last 4 games demonstrated. I've no idea if your urgings played any role in Team Rybka's adopting this course but it can't
be denied that it's implementation over the final 4 games provided Rybka the opportunity to recover almost enough to catch Zappa by the end. Based on this alone it would be hard for any impartial observer to have come away
from Mexico believing that if the match had gone on for several more games Rybka would not have prevailed.
Regards,
David
it would be hard for any impartial observer to have come away from Mexico believing that if the match had gone on for several more games Rybka would not have prevailed
It would have taken a lot more than several games. First, we saw that over a period of 4 games, Rybka made up 1 game of ground. It would have needed to make up 2 more games of ground to prevail. Furthermore, the Zappa team was still adjusting to the Rybka team's new strategy (which, unfortunately, was not employed in the game against Junior in Leiden, and hence the loss), and so one can expect that they would have had something of their own within a few more games. I think that the match would have had to be at least 20-24 games for Rybka to have come back and won. The programs were evenly matched, and the teams were doing their best to put in small advantages that might help.
It would have taken a lot more than several games. First, we saw that over a period of 4 games, Rybka made up 1 game of ground. It would have needed to make up 2 more games of ground to prevail. Furthermore, the Zappa team was still adjusting to the Rybka team's new strategy (which, unfortunately, was not employed in the game against Junior in Leiden, and hence the loss), and so one can expect that they would have had something of their own within a few more games. I think that the match would have had to be at least 20-24 games for Rybka to have come back and won. The programs were evenly matched, and the teams were doing their best to put in small advantages that might help.
Respectfully, I disagree that the programs were evenly matched. In Mexico, Rybka was the better engine. Had they not been caught pants-down in that one disastrous (and extremely unlikely) game where they inexorably went from 1-0 to 0-1 we wouldn't even be having this conversation. That game was miraculous--a kind of reverse-alchemy.
It is always easier to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory than vice versa.
Rybka may be the better engine, but I think that overall, Zappa played the better games. This sounds like a joke, but it's not, and it comes from a point that I know you understand quite well: Zappa is good at playing certain openings where Rybka doesn't play very well. Also, let's not forget that I think it was game 7 where Rybka should have lost but saved a draw, and game 8 that should have been drawn, but Rybka won. However, in the second half of the match, I think Rybka played the better chess.
Hopefully there will be a return match with an improved Rybka that doesn't make the sorts of mistakes that we saw, that has far better endgame technique in general, and that is far better at playing the opening phase of the game, against an improved Zappa that is also better at the endgame and is better at playing a wide variety of openings. I am still mystified why Erdo chose to play 3.Bb5 against the Sicilian than 2.Nc3 and head for the closed lines--perhaps he was afraid of what Jeroen and/or Dagh might have prepared, but the truth is that Zappa, even out of book, plays those lines extremely well.
Hopefully there will be a return match with an improved Rybka that doesn't make the sorts of mistakes that we saw, that has far better endgame technique in general, and that is far better at playing the opening phase of the game, against an improved Zappa that is also better at the endgame and is better at playing a wide variety of openings. I am still mystified why Erdo chose to play 3.Bb5 against the Sicilian than 2.Nc3 and head for the closed lines--perhaps he was afraid of what Jeroen and/or Dagh might have prepared, but the truth is that Zappa, even out of book, plays those lines extremely well.
Thanks David. You know, my comments might have been spot on but they were a mistake in a larger sense as I revealed too clearly what my role is on the Cato/Ibermax/Intagrand team. While others focus on tactics and minutiae, I focus on strategy--doing the right things as opposed to doing things right. If you get the "big picture" questions right, the fight is all downhill for you and all uphill for the other guy. Opening book technicians lose sight of this, having invested so much time and effort into their specialty. Believe me, opening books are important, but they are not as important as other, more fundamental things.
It is really clear to me that Rybka's overpowering strength relative to Zappa (and everyone else) is its middle-game evaluation. It was also clear to me that Erdo and Jeroen are both world-class bookmakers and it was unlikely one would consistently prevail over the other if they followed very long theoretical lines. As long as the battle was in the opening book domain, there was a 50-50 chance that Erdo could come out better, while if book was exited early with at least equality it would be unlikely for Rybka to lose to Zappa in a stand-up fight for the same reason that a battleship outguns a battlecruiser. At any rate the odds were better than 50-50 in a straight-ahead engine fight.
This is not rocket science, but apparently the Rybka team outsmarted themselves in the early going before finally seeing the error of their ways. The underlying premise they worked under, that favorable middle-game evaluations are the best you can hope for, was a bit of a misconception. It is a key goal, don't get me wrong, but there's even more that can be achieved if you force the opponent to fight on terrain he is unfamiliar with early on and you have clearly superior fire and maneuver in the strategic sense. Of course all this only applies when the bookmakers are evenly matched. If there is a large opening book superiority by one side then by all means you ought to ride that as far as you can. (Which brings up a point that has long bothered me: why don't second-tier engines at the big European computer tournaments put a hell of a lot more emphasis on bringing their books up to a decent standard? Their level of strategic ignorance in this aspect of competition beggars description.)
This is how a guy who doesn't play chess can add value. You just see things from a totally different perspective.
It is really clear to me that Rybka's overpowering strength relative to Zappa (and everyone else) is its middle-game evaluation. It was also clear to me that Erdo and Jeroen are both world-class bookmakers and it was unlikely one would consistently prevail over the other if they followed very long theoretical lines. As long as the battle was in the opening book domain, there was a 50-50 chance that Erdo could come out better, while if book was exited early with at least equality it would be unlikely for Rybka to lose to Zappa in a stand-up fight for the same reason that a battleship outguns a battlecruiser. At any rate the odds were better than 50-50 in a straight-ahead engine fight.
This is not rocket science, but apparently the Rybka team outsmarted themselves in the early going before finally seeing the error of their ways. The underlying premise they worked under, that favorable middle-game evaluations are the best you can hope for, was a bit of a misconception. It is a key goal, don't get me wrong, but there's even more that can be achieved if you force the opponent to fight on terrain he is unfamiliar with early on and you have clearly superior fire and maneuver in the strategic sense. Of course all this only applies when the bookmakers are evenly matched. If there is a large opening book superiority by one side then by all means you ought to ride that as far as you can. (Which brings up a point that has long bothered me: why don't second-tier engines at the big European computer tournaments put a hell of a lot more emphasis on bringing their books up to a decent standard? Their level of strategic ignorance in this aspect of competition beggars description.)
This is how a guy who doesn't play chess can add value. You just see things from a totally different perspective.
In general, in sports, you go with the proven solution, the one that got you there. That's where you've refined things and put all of the little things in place. If you start wild experiments, you'll run into all sorts of little surprises. Things take time to mature.
Where general thinking is crucial is in assembling everything together in the first place. You imagine it, then you make a rough first stab, then you refine it over months and maybe years, and then finally if things go well you get to a point where things work.
Vas
Where general thinking is crucial is in assembling everything together in the first place. You imagine it, then you make a rough first stab, then you refine it over months and maybe years, and then finally if things go well you get to a point where things work.
Vas
Ugh. Unfortunately some idiots have ruined your wonderful poll by making sure that everyone has at least six votes, thus making the results now practically meaningless. I guess it might be too late to close the poll and create a new one that only allows one vote per handle. :-( It was a good idea for a poll, though. Anyway, I voted for Dagh, since we're talking about best centaur, and not best Freestyle team.
The question was simply "Who's the best centaur?" Since the checkboxes allowed us to vote for more than one entity, I thought we could combine players. I decided that by throwing everyone together, that would form the best. Others seemed to have hit upon the same idea.
Okay, this is a good response. However, I would doubt that most of the others who did this used your logic, especially since by counting, I noticed that they would vote for all of the lowest ones together, but would not add votes for Dagh, Vas, Dennis, etc.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill