![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Rybka's strong point is its ability to judge the position & resolve the problems mostly the tactical way. But the latest version of Hiarcs 12, always renowed for its human-like play, has made a ground-breaking improvement in its positional understanding of the game.
Rybka's play is quite suspect when the position demands complete understanding of the positional/strategic elements of the position. So I was curious to know how Rybka plays when pitted against Hiarcs 12 and the position turns into a positional battle; check the following game (set time 30min +15sec increment, Intel duo core 2threads);
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 (The popular Najdorf Sicilian)7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3
h5 9. Nd5 Nbd7 10. c4 Be7 11. Qd2 a5 12. Be2 a4 13. Nc1 h4 14. Nd3 h3 15. g4 a3?
(The position is lost strategically with this move.The rest of Hiarcs moves demonstrates its sound positional judgement and repluses Rybka's counter-attack)
16. O-O axb2 17. Qxb2 b6 18. Rfb1 Ra4 19. Nf2 Kf8 20. Bf1 Rh4 21. Kh1 Qa8 22.
Nxh3 Bxd5 23. cxd5 Nxg4 24. fxg4 Rxe4 25. Qc1!! Rexg4 26. Qc6 Qd8 27. Bf2 Rh6 28.
Rb3 Kg8 29. Bb5 Nf6 30. Bxb6 Qb8 31. Ra3 Rxh3 32. Rxh3 Bd8 33. Rc1 g5 34. Bxd8
1-0
Hope Vasik Rajlich works on his engine to fine tune its positional understanding for his next release.
Rybka's play is quite suspect when the position demands complete understanding of the positional/strategic elements of the position. So I was curious to know how Rybka plays when pitted against Hiarcs 12 and the position turns into a positional battle; check the following game (set time 30min +15sec increment, Intel duo core 2threads);
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 (The popular Najdorf Sicilian)7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3
h5 9. Nd5 Nbd7 10. c4 Be7 11. Qd2 a5 12. Be2 a4 13. Nc1 h4 14. Nd3 h3 15. g4 a3?
(The position is lost strategically with this move.The rest of Hiarcs moves demonstrates its sound positional judgement and repluses Rybka's counter-attack)
16. O-O axb2 17. Qxb2 b6 18. Rfb1 Ra4 19. Nf2 Kf8 20. Bf1 Rh4 21. Kh1 Qa8 22.
Nxh3 Bxd5 23. cxd5 Nxg4 24. fxg4 Rxe4 25. Qc1!! Rexg4 26. Qc6 Qd8 27. Bf2 Rh6 28.
Rb3 Kg8 29. Bb5 Nf6 30. Bxb6 Qb8 31. Ra3 Rxh3 32. Rxh3 Bd8 33. Rc1 g5 34. Bxd8
1-0
Hope Vasik Rajlich works on his engine to fine tune its positional understanding for his next release.
So, what is your explanation that Rybka - for example 232a x64/4 CPU, 40/40m CCRL - wins 40-15 (+26−1=28) against Hiarcs 12/4 CPU? Or the 32 bit single CPU version won against H12 SharpenPV=on (as recommended), 22−8 (+18−4=8).
(And Hiarcs is among the fastest at tactics.)
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html
From how many games did you draw your conclusions? One game only?
Also, I don't think that Hiarcs ever was more human-like than other typical engines, or not much more. The most human-like engine is definately Rybka, in the sense of classical human masters. I have studied and replayed A LOT of old master games, from Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca etc. When I first studied Rybka 1.0 games in Dezember 2005, it was like I'd see some of their games, not a computer's. At that moment I knew that a new chapter in computer chess had begun.
Your comment "...resolve the problems mostly the tactical way" fits to very old engines only. Even Fritz, starting as a mostly tactical wizard (1990), became more and more positional, during it's version history.
(And Hiarcs is among the fastest at tactics.)
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html
From how many games did you draw your conclusions? One game only?
Also, I don't think that Hiarcs ever was more human-like than other typical engines, or not much more. The most human-like engine is definately Rybka, in the sense of classical human masters. I have studied and replayed A LOT of old master games, from Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca etc. When I first studied Rybka 1.0 games in Dezember 2005, it was like I'd see some of their games, not a computer's. At that moment I knew that a new chapter in computer chess had begun.
Your comment "...resolve the problems mostly the tactical way" fits to very old engines only. Even Fritz, starting as a mostly tactical wizard (1990), became more and more positional, during it's version history.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
"(And Hiarcs is among the fastest at tactics.)"
Not anymore! H12 is pretty slow on my tests, on one core it is much slower than H10 and on 2 cores only slightly faster, despite having 2x the processing power
Not anymore! H12 is pretty slow on my tests, on one core it is much slower than H10 and on 2 cores only slightly faster, despite having 2x the processing power
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
> Not anymore! H12 is pretty slow on my tests, on one core it is much slower than H10 and on 2 cores only slightly faster, despite having 2x the processing power
What about HIARCS Paderborn 2007? To me it seems more tactical than H11.2 or H12PVON, but I haven't ran a serious test.
I keep forgetting about that one. I must do some testing on it. Is it rated on any lists?
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Thank you. In that list HIARCS Paderborn 2007 (in 2 CPU) is just 9 ELO weaker than HIARCS 12! I'd pay those rating points and more for my perceived better playing style :)
![[il]](/mwf/v12/flags/il.png "Israel")
I do not think that rybka is playing human-like
Rybka is usually better positionally relative to humans.
Only an engine that is weaker positionally than rybka can be human-like.
Uri
Rybka is usually better positionally relative to humans.
Only an engine that is weaker positionally than rybka can be human-like.
Uri
This is a surprising and remarkable statement! I would not hesitate to agree, but it is beyond my comprehension. I can only say that I saw soon, that Rybka is more human than any other engine, but that she is even better positionally, is a judgement I am glad to hear although I cannot verify it myself.
But if it's true it is the best what could happen to chess and computer chess.
But if it's true it is the best what could happen to chess and computer chess.
Note that Uri's statement does not imply that Rybka has more or better positional knowledge/understanding than humans, that is clearly not the case. But when 2300 (let's say, just to illustrate) chess knowledge is applied at the end of a 20 ply search, it will produce better positional moves most of the time than 2800 level knowledge applied at the end of an 8 ply search (this might be a rough approximation to Anand or Kramnik). So I'm inclined to agree with Uri; if Kramnik really played better positionally on average than Rybka he could probably win a match by avoiding tactics, but that is clearly not the case, since he couldn't even beat a handicapped Fritz.
I have a theory on this, bare with me:
Say Kasparov at 2800 elo makes a combination 7 moves (14ply) deep. At the end of the combination how does he decide who stands better? How do ANY of us humans decide who stands better?? Usually we play a deep line and then just count the pawns and pieces at the end and say "I'm a pawn up" etc.
Therefore, Garry's 2800 elo knowledge applies to the INITIAL position, but it does not apply to the tail end one after the combination. At the tail end of the combination he may evaluate like a 2000 elo player. Seriously, when you evaluate positions you normally do it in detail with the position right in front of you - not the one you're trying to hold in your mind's eye 10 moves ahead.
If my summary of human evaluation is correct, and it certainly is for me, then Rybka's 2300 elo knowledge applied to the LAST ply gives it a MASSIVE advantage over humans.
Say Kasparov at 2800 elo makes a combination 7 moves (14ply) deep. At the end of the combination how does he decide who stands better? How do ANY of us humans decide who stands better?? Usually we play a deep line and then just count the pawns and pieces at the end and say "I'm a pawn up" etc.
Therefore, Garry's 2800 elo knowledge applies to the INITIAL position, but it does not apply to the tail end one after the combination. At the tail end of the combination he may evaluate like a 2000 elo player. Seriously, when you evaluate positions you normally do it in detail with the position right in front of you - not the one you're trying to hold in your mind's eye 10 moves ahead.
If my summary of human evaluation is correct, and it certainly is for me, then Rybka's 2300 elo knowledge applied to the LAST ply gives it a MASSIVE advantage over humans.
![[fi]](/mwf/v12/flags/fi.png "Finland")
> bare with me
I'd rather not. This laptop is hot enough with my pants on.
>Usually we play a deep line and then just count the pawns and pieces at the end and say "I'm a pawn up" etc.
What are you, 1100? Sure, human eval degrades as it gets harder to remember details about the position, but you're being WAY too harsh. I guesstimate 200 points at most (for top players).
Please put some trousers on, apart from anything else I have a disturbing image in my mind's eye.
NO - I am 2150 elo and I'm sure I'm not being too harsh. You CANNOT make sophisticted positional assessements at the tail end of a long combination. Analysis of the colour complexs, weak squares, pawn islands, bad bishops, uncoordination etc are all posible in the initial position, but not at the tail end.
OK, maybe the reduction isn't down to counting the pawns but it's nowhere near as high as the original assessment - not for DEEP calculations (say 10 plies).
NO - I am 2150 elo and I'm sure I'm not being too harsh. You CANNOT make sophisticted positional assessements at the tail end of a long combination. Analysis of the colour complexs, weak squares, pawn islands, bad bishops, uncoordination etc are all posible in the initial position, but not at the tail end.
OK, maybe the reduction isn't down to counting the pawns but it's nowhere near as high as the original assessment - not for DEEP calculations (say 10 plies).
> I have a disturbing image in my mind's eye.
It's your fault for using the wrong verb in the first place! Glad I was able to return the favour. :)
In other words, Vempele is pointing out that you used "bare" instead of "bear". These homonyms can be difficult to distinguish.
What you say about eval is true for you and for me (I'm very poor at visualization, at least by IM standards), but I think it is not true for most of the top players. They seem to be able to play blindfold chess at a pretty high level, except for occasional oversights. I think they can evaluate terminal positions of long lines at a very high standard, not so far below the current one, assuming they devote the same amount of time to the task. The test would be to see how much better a top player would play if allowed to use a pocket chess set to analyze during a game. My guess would be something like 20-30 Elo only. The reason that Rybka can outplay them positionally is not visualization difficulties, but the fact that Rybka can see both deeper and "fuller", thus finding many non-obvious ways to achieve positional advantages.
I think the analogy with blindfold chess is probably a good one, but not necessarily consistent with your conclusion of only a 20-30 Elo difference from seeing the position to be evaluated. I would guess that a blindfold handicap would be more along the lines of 100-200 Elo, even if the player practiced this on a daily basis. Has any testing ever been done in this area?
Regards,
Alan
Regards,
Alan
![[hu]](/mwf/v12/flags/hu.png "Hungary")
I'm not aware of any data about this.
As my WAG, I'll go with 50 Elo for the "positional visualization penalty" - slightly milder than the human having twice less time (at tournament time controls).
Vas
As my WAG, I'll go with 50 Elo for the "positional visualization penalty" - slightly milder than the human having twice less time (at tournament time controls).
Vas
Nothing standardized, but I have seen that GMs often defeat lesser masters at blindfold odds (I once lost such a game against Dzindzi when he was at his peak). Blindfold play may well be more than a 100 elo handicap, as you say, but this is different than the question of the quality of evaluation. In blindfold play, sometimes you forget some detail about the position (maybe you forget that h3 was inserted many moves earlier, for example).
As we all remember, there was a lot of discussion about the use of pocket chess sets during the K-T championship match and it seemed that most of the GM commentators attributed more advantage to this. Of course in this type of match, 20-30 Elo would be nothing to sneeze at.
Alan
Alan
![[au]](/mwf/v12/flags/au.png "Australia")
> Blindfold play may well be more than a 100 elo handicap
It also should depend on the time limit. For instance, Melody Amber is 25 minutes plus some increment (that has changed from year-to-year) I think. Playing blindfold at the classical (or even FIDE) time limit could be quite different.
A ChessBase article says:
Perhaps partially due to the later mental health problems of several prominent players, Morphy and Steinitz in particular, many believed that blindfold play was too taxing and led to mental sickness or even death. The USSR banned the displays in 1930, according to the Oxford Companion to Chess. Botvinnik spoke out against it, which may be why his top student, Kasparov, has declined to test his blindfold play. Most of the Melody Amber players agree that it is more tiring than a regular game even with a faster time control.
Topalov will play blindfolded against Jason Juett (rated around 1850 USCF) before the main M-Tel event commences. Might be interesting if VT hangs a piece early.
This is ridiculous; a suitable opponent would have to be at least a strong IM. I once saw GM Walter Browne defeat a USCF Master despite playing four blindfold games simultaneiously, and Browne was not a World Champion like Topalov.
even though he may be an eception i've herd that Vassily Ivanchuck stares into space away from the board most of the time and has done very well. but then again hes special lol.
> Please put some trousers on
Didn't think to check a dictionary until now - I didn't realize pants could mean anything other than
>1. trousers
(outside idioms, that is)
An engine which plays human-like chess is one which tends to prefer the same moves as top human players. This could be measured quite precisely.
It might turn out that, all things being equal, stronger engines play less like humans. I'm not sure that this would be the case, though.
Vas
It might turn out that, all things being equal, stronger engines play less like humans. I'm not sure that this would be the case, though.
Vas
FWIW, here is a newer Rybka in action:
Vas
New game - Rybka 2.3.2r21 origmp, Blitz:4'+2"
Analysis by Rybka 2.3.2r21 origmp :
15...0-0
+/= (0.35) Depth: 2 00:00:00
15...a3
= (0.02) Depth: 2 00:00:00
15...a3
= (0.21) Depth: 3 00:00:00
15...a3
+/= (0.36) Depth: 4 00:00:00
15...0-0
= (0.22) Depth: 4 00:00:00
15...0-0 16.g5
= (0.18) Depth: 5 00:00:00
15...0-0 16.g5 Nh5 17.Rc1 Nc5
+/= (0.28) Depth: 6 00:00:00 26kN
15...0-0 16.g5 Nh5 17.Rc1 Nc5
+/= (0.28) Depth: 7 00:00:00 33kN
15...0-0 16.0-0 a3 17.b3 Nc5 18.Nxe7+
+/= (0.45) Depth: 8 00:00:00 92kN
15...0-0 16.0-0 a3 17.b3 Bxd5 18.cxd5 Nh7 19.Qb4
+/= (0.57) Depth: 9 00:00:00 191kN
15...a3 16.b3 Nc5 17.0-0 Bxd5 18.cxd5 Nxd3 19.Bxd3 0-0
+/= (0.51) Depth: 9 00:00:01 494kN
15...Nc5 16.Nxc5 dxc5 17.g5 Nh5 18.0-0-0 a3
+/= (0.42) Depth: 9 00:00:02 662kN
15...Rc8 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nxe5 Nd7 20.Nxd7 Bxd7 21.0-0 0-0
+/= (0.40) Depth: 9 00:00:02 664kN
15...Rc8 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nxe5 Nd7 20.Nxd7 Bxd7 21.0-0 0-0
+/= (0.40) Depth: 10 00:00:02 664kN
15...Rc8 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nxe5 Nd7 20.Nxd7 Bxd7 21.0-0 0-0
+/= (0.40) Depth: 11 00:00:02 692kN
15...Rc8 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nxe5 Nd7 20.Nxd7 Rd8 21.0-0 Rxd7 22.Qc2
+/= (0.42) Depth: 12 00:00:03 903kN
15...Rc8 16.Qb4 0-0 17.0-0 Nh7 18.Nf2 Bxd5 19.exd5 Bg5 20.Bxg5 Qxg5 21.Qxd6 Rfd8 22.Nxh3
+/= (0.57) Depth: 13 00:00:08 1855kN
15...a3 16.b3 Bxd5 17.cxd5 Nh7 18.Qb4 0-0 19.0-0 b6 20.Nf2 Ng5 21.Rac1 Nc5
+/= (0.49) Depth: 13 00:00:16 3224kN
15...Bxd5 16.cxd5 Nh7 17.Qb4 Bh4+ 18.Nf2 Bg5 19.Bc1 0-0 20.Nxh3 Bxc1 21.Rxc1 Nc5 22.Nf2
+/= (0.42) Depth: 13 00:00:16 3337kN
15...Bxd5 16.cxd5 Nh7 17.Qb4 Bh4+ 18.Nf2 Bg5 19.Bc1 0-0 20.Nxh3 Bxc1 21.Rxc1 Nc5 22.Nf2
+/= (0.38) Depth: 14 00:00:18 3725kN
15...Bxd5 16.cxd5 Nh7 17.Qb4 Bh4+ 18.Nf2 Bg5 19.Bc1 0-0 20.Nxh3 Bxc1 21.Rxc1 Nc5 22.Nf2
+/= (0.40) Depth: 15 00:00:24 4652kN
(Doe, 23.04.2008)
Vas
Vas
New game - Rybka 2.3.2r21 origmp, Blitz:4'+2"
r2qk2r/1p1nbpp1/3pbn2/3Np3/p1P1P1P1/3NBP1p/PP1QB2P/R3K2R b KQkq g3 0 1
Analysis by Rybka 2.3.2r21 origmp :
15...0-0
+/= (0.35) Depth: 2 00:00:00
15...a3
= (0.02) Depth: 2 00:00:00
15...a3
= (0.21) Depth: 3 00:00:00
15...a3
+/= (0.36) Depth: 4 00:00:00
15...0-0
= (0.22) Depth: 4 00:00:00
15...0-0 16.g5
= (0.18) Depth: 5 00:00:00
15...0-0 16.g5 Nh5 17.Rc1 Nc5
+/= (0.28) Depth: 6 00:00:00 26kN
15...0-0 16.g5 Nh5 17.Rc1 Nc5
+/= (0.28) Depth: 7 00:00:00 33kN
15...0-0 16.0-0 a3 17.b3 Nc5 18.Nxe7+
+/= (0.45) Depth: 8 00:00:00 92kN
15...0-0 16.0-0 a3 17.b3 Bxd5 18.cxd5 Nh7 19.Qb4
+/= (0.57) Depth: 9 00:00:00 191kN
15...a3 16.b3 Nc5 17.0-0 Bxd5 18.cxd5 Nxd3 19.Bxd3 0-0
+/= (0.51) Depth: 9 00:00:01 494kN
15...Nc5 16.Nxc5 dxc5 17.g5 Nh5 18.0-0-0 a3
+/= (0.42) Depth: 9 00:00:02 662kN
15...Rc8 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nxe5 Nd7 20.Nxd7 Bxd7 21.0-0 0-0
+/= (0.40) Depth: 9 00:00:02 664kN
15...Rc8 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nxe5 Nd7 20.Nxd7 Bxd7 21.0-0 0-0
+/= (0.40) Depth: 10 00:00:02 664kN
15...Rc8 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nxe5 Nd7 20.Nxd7 Bxd7 21.0-0 0-0
+/= (0.40) Depth: 11 00:00:02 692kN
15...Rc8 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.Nxe7 Qxe7 19.Nxe5 Nd7 20.Nxd7 Rd8 21.0-0 Rxd7 22.Qc2
+/= (0.42) Depth: 12 00:00:03 903kN
15...Rc8 16.Qb4 0-0 17.0-0 Nh7 18.Nf2 Bxd5 19.exd5 Bg5 20.Bxg5 Qxg5 21.Qxd6 Rfd8 22.Nxh3
+/= (0.57) Depth: 13 00:00:08 1855kN
15...a3 16.b3 Bxd5 17.cxd5 Nh7 18.Qb4 0-0 19.0-0 b6 20.Nf2 Ng5 21.Rac1 Nc5
+/= (0.49) Depth: 13 00:00:16 3224kN
15...Bxd5 16.cxd5 Nh7 17.Qb4 Bh4+ 18.Nf2 Bg5 19.Bc1 0-0 20.Nxh3 Bxc1 21.Rxc1 Nc5 22.Nf2
+/= (0.42) Depth: 13 00:00:16 3337kN
15...Bxd5 16.cxd5 Nh7 17.Qb4 Bh4+ 18.Nf2 Bg5 19.Bc1 0-0 20.Nxh3 Bxc1 21.Rxc1 Nc5 22.Nf2
+/= (0.38) Depth: 14 00:00:18 3725kN
15...Bxd5 16.cxd5 Nh7 17.Qb4 Bh4+ 18.Nf2 Bg5 19.Bc1 0-0 20.Nxh3 Bxc1 21.Rxc1 Nc5 22.Nf2
+/= (0.40) Depth: 15 00:00:24 4652kN
(Doe, 23.04.2008)
Vas
I see the "newer Rybka" is still "hiding" the nodes per second. :-) Will this be done the same way in Rybka 3? Also...how is the search going? :-)
The nps was the first thing I noticed!
> I see the "newer Rybka" is still "hiding" the nodes per second. Will this be done the same way in Rybka 3?
I'll revisit this before Rybka 3. I kind of like the nps, actually :)
> Also...how is the search going?
Very well and very slowly :)
Vas
Diabolically subtle implication,Vas!!!
I'm certain it will have its desired effect and lengthen the betting odds against a May release of Rybka 3.
You and I will have an even bigger pot to split.
Your share of the haul will almost certainly make your take from the engine distribution seem like chump change.
Excellent,
David
P.S. I know I don't have to remind you how critical it is to keep this strictly confidential. Nufsed
I'm certain it will have its desired effect and lengthen the betting odds against a May release of Rybka 3.
You and I will have an even bigger pot to split.
Your share of the haul will almost certainly make your take from the engine distribution seem like chump change.
Excellent,
David
P.S. I know I don't have to remind you how critical it is to keep this strictly confidential. Nufsed
New game - Deep Hiarcs 12, Blitz:5'
Analysis by Junior 9:
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Rc8
=/+ (-0.44) Depth: 3 00:00:00 0kN
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Qa5 3.Qxa5 Rxa5
= (-0.25) Depth: 6 00:00:00 3kN
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Qa5 3.Qxa5 Rxa5
= (-0.25) Depth: 6 00:00:00 3kN
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Nh7 3.Qb4 Bh4+ 4.Bf2 Qf6 5.Qxb7
= (-0.10) Depth: 9 00:00:00 49kN
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Nh7 3.Qb4 Qa5 4.Qxa5 Rxa5 5.Nf2 Ng5
= (-0.16) Depth: 12 00:00:00 752kN
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Nh7 3.0-0 Rc8 4.Rac1 Rxc1 5.Rxc1 Bg5 6.f4 exf4 7.Nxf4
= (0.06) Depth: 15 00:00:18 23905kN
(, 23.04.2008)
Not bad for "old Junior 9" in action:
Zherkovv
r2qk2r/1p1nbpp1/3pbn2/3Np3/p1P1P1P1/3NBP1p/PP1QB2P/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 1
Analysis by Junior 9:
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Rc8
=/+ (-0.44) Depth: 3 00:00:00 0kN
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Qa5 3.Qxa5 Rxa5
= (-0.25) Depth: 6 00:00:00 3kN
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Qa5 3.Qxa5 Rxa5
= (-0.25) Depth: 6 00:00:00 3kN
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Nh7 3.Qb4 Bh4+ 4.Bf2 Qf6 5.Qxb7
= (-0.10) Depth: 9 00:00:00 49kN
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Nh7 3.Qb4 Qa5 4.Qxa5 Rxa5 5.Nf2 Ng5
= (-0.16) Depth: 12 00:00:00 752kN
1...Bxd5 2.cxd5 Nh7 3.0-0 Rc8 4.Rac1 Rxc1 5.Rxc1 Bg5 6.f4 exf4 7.Nxf4
= (0.06) Depth: 15 00:00:18 23905kN
(, 23.04.2008)
Not bad for "old Junior 9" in action:
Zherkovv
Rybka2.3.2a can avoid 15...a3 with more time
New game - Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit, Blitz:1'+1"
Analysis by Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit :
15...Ra8-c8 16.Qd2-b4 Nf6-h7 17.Nd5xe7 Qd8xe7 18.Qb4xa4 Rc8xc4 19.Qa4-a8+ Qe7-d8 20.Qa8xd8+ Ke8xd8 21.b2-b3 Rc4-c8 22.Ke1-f2
² (0.59) Depth: 17 00:10:01 24373kN
15...a4-a3 16.b2xa3 Ra8xa3 17.0-0 Ra3-a4 18.Qd2-c2 Ra4-a8 19.Ra1-b1 b7-b6 20.Rf1-c1 0-0 21.Nd3-f2 Nd7-c5 22.Nf2xh3
² (0.51) Depth: 17 00:17:31 48249kN
15...Be6xd5 16.c4xd5 Nf6-h7 17.Qd2-b4 b7-b6 18.Ra1-c1 Nd7-c5 19.Qb4-b5+ Ke8-f8 20.Rc1-c4 Be7-g5 21.Be3-f2 Bg5-h4 22.Bf2xh4
² (0.43) Depth: 17 00:20:04 58180kN
15...Be6xd5 16.c4xd5 Nf6-h7 17.Qd2-b4 b7-b6 18.Ra1-c1 Nd7-c5 19.Qb4-b5+ Ke8-f8 20.Rc1-c4 Be7-g5 21.Be3xc5 b6xc5 22.Rc4xa4
² (0.39) Depth: 18 00:23:49 71423kN
15...Be6xd5 16.c4xd5 Nf6-h7 17.Qd2-b4 b7-b6 18.Ra1-c1 Nd7-c5 19.Qb4-b5+ Ke8-f8 20.Nd3-b4 Be7-g5 21.Nb4-c6 Qd8-c7 22.Be3xc5
² (0.42) Depth: 19 00:28:36 87134kN
(so k, 23.04.2008)
Uri
New game - Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit, Blitz:1'+1"
r2qk2r/1p1nbpp1/3pbn2/3Np3/p1P1P1P1/3NBP1p/PP1QB2P/R3K2R b KQkq g3 0 1
Analysis by Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit :
15...Ra8-c8 16.Qd2-b4 Nf6-h7 17.Nd5xe7 Qd8xe7 18.Qb4xa4 Rc8xc4 19.Qa4-a8+ Qe7-d8 20.Qa8xd8+ Ke8xd8 21.b2-b3 Rc4-c8 22.Ke1-f2
² (0.59) Depth: 17 00:10:01 24373kN
15...a4-a3 16.b2xa3 Ra8xa3 17.0-0 Ra3-a4 18.Qd2-c2 Ra4-a8 19.Ra1-b1 b7-b6 20.Rf1-c1 0-0 21.Nd3-f2 Nd7-c5 22.Nf2xh3
² (0.51) Depth: 17 00:17:31 48249kN
15...Be6xd5 16.c4xd5 Nf6-h7 17.Qd2-b4 b7-b6 18.Ra1-c1 Nd7-c5 19.Qb4-b5+ Ke8-f8 20.Rc1-c4 Be7-g5 21.Be3-f2 Bg5-h4 22.Bf2xh4
² (0.43) Depth: 17 00:20:04 58180kN
15...Be6xd5 16.c4xd5 Nf6-h7 17.Qd2-b4 b7-b6 18.Ra1-c1 Nd7-c5 19.Qb4-b5+ Ke8-f8 20.Rc1-c4 Be7-g5 21.Be3xc5 b6xc5 22.Rc4xa4
² (0.39) Depth: 18 00:23:49 71423kN
15...Be6xd5 16.c4xd5 Nf6-h7 17.Qd2-b4 b7-b6 18.Ra1-c1 Nd7-c5 19.Qb4-b5+ Ke8-f8 20.Nd3-b4 Be7-g5 21.Nb4-c6 Qd8-c7 22.Be3xc5
² (0.42) Depth: 19 00:28:36 87134kN
(so k, 23.04.2008)
Uri
can you explain why 15..a3 is so bad? I played through the game but it seems black has to do SOMETHING.
Analyzing this position I do not understand what is black's plan after 15.g4
It seems to me that white has a clear advantage even before 15...a3 because white is going to win h3(nothing is going to stop white from winning the pawn h3 and white may play moves likes Nf2 or Bf1 later)
Maybe 14...h3 is a weak move of black.
Uri
It seems to me that white has a clear advantage even before 15...a3 because white is going to win h3(nothing is going to stop white from winning the pawn h3 and white may play moves likes Nf2 or Bf1 later)
Maybe 14...h3 is a weak move of black.
Uri
I agree;Black's position is lost before 15...a3.
Going further & beyond the game itself, my concern is - What if certain lines in well known openings is flawed that even a top engine like rybka struggle to play & finally get defeated when pitted against another Strong engine? This may not be the case in super Grandmasters games because it is hard to exploit.
I have this feeling since many lines of important openings are today totally discarded in Grandmasters play; openings which where once seen in Strong GM tournaments few decades back are disputed to have flaws and GMs refuse to play them fearing the worse.
I suspect further growth of Engines will see downfall of many known lines in popular openings (maybe like the opening of the Game in discussion).
Going further & beyond the game itself, my concern is - What if certain lines in well known openings is flawed that even a top engine like rybka struggle to play & finally get defeated when pitted against another Strong engine? This may not be the case in super Grandmasters games because it is hard to exploit.
I have this feeling since many lines of important openings are today totally discarded in Grandmasters play; openings which where once seen in Strong GM tournaments few decades back are disputed to have flaws and GMs refuse to play them fearing the worse.
I suspect further growth of Engines will see downfall of many known lines in popular openings (maybe like the opening of the Game in discussion).
![[in]](/mwf/v12/flags/in.png "India")
Just to add to Hiarcs's positional chess superiority I'm adding here two games Hiracs 12 MP Vs Rybka 2.3.2a mp played on the server which amply demonstrates this fact.
[White HIARCS 12 MP 031.]
[Black Rybka 2.3.2a mp"]
[EventDate "2008.05.02"]
[EventType "blitz"]
1. e4 {B/0 0} c5 {B/0 0} 2. Nf3 {B/0 0} e6 {B/0 0} 3. d4 {B/0 0} cxd4 {B/0 0}
4. Nxd4 {B/0 0} Nc6 {B/0 0} 5. Nc3 {B/0 0} Qc7 {B/0 0} 6. Be2 {B/0 0} a6 {B/0 0
} 7. O-O {B/0 0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 8. Be3 {B/0 0} Bb4 {B/0 0} 9. Na4 {B/0 0} Be7 {
B/0 0} 10. Nxc6 {B/0 0} bxc6 {B/0 0} 11. Nb6 {B/0 0} Rb8 {B/0 0} 12. Nxc8 {
B/0 0} Qxc8 {B/0 0} 13. e5 {B/0 0} Nd5 {B/0 0} 14. Bc1 {B/0 0} Bc5 {B/0 0} 15.
c4 {B/0 0} Ne7 {B/0 0} 16. b3 {B/0 0} Qc7 {B/0 0} 17. Bb2 {B/0 0} O-O {B/0 0}
18. Bd3 {B/0 0} Rfd8 {B/0 0} 19. Qh5 {0.57/15 10} Ng6 {0.32/14 15} 20. Bc3 {
0.58/16 0} Qb6 {0.24/13 7} 21. Rae1 {0.70/14 0} d5 {(a5) 0.10/13 4} 22. exd6 {
1.14/14 5} Rxd6 {0.51/17 2} 23. Bxg6 {1.10/15 3} hxg6 {0.48/18 2} 24. Qe5 {
1.06/16 4} f6 {0.47/19 6} 25. Qe4 {1.06/17 0} e5 {(Qc7) 0.48/18 8} 26. b4 {
1.34/15 5} Bxb4 {0.48/17 3} 27. Rb1 {1.21/15 0} c5 {0.49/16 2} 28. a3 {
1.39/15 3} a5 {0.53/16 4} 29. axb4 {1.30/14 0} cxb4 {0.59/16 8} 30. Qxg6 {
1.22/15 0} Rbd8 {(Qc7) 0.61/16 4} 31. Ba1 {1.44/14 6} Qc5 {0.59/16 5} 32. Qc2 {
1.43/15 0} Rd3 {0.55/15 5} 33. h3 {1.41/14 0} Kf7 {(Rd2) 0.54/14 2} 34. Qa2 {
1.41/13 5} Ra3 {(Kg8) 0.54/16 2} 35. Qe2 {1.74/14 5} Rad3 {0.55/16 2} 36. Kh2 {
1.89/13 0} Qxc4 {(Qd6) 0.53/13 3} 37. Qh5+ {1.91/13 4} Kg8 {0.79/16 9} 38. f4 {
1.83/16 7} exf4 {0.88/16 6} 39. Qxa5 {2.08/14 0} b3 {(Qe6) 0.96/15 6} 40. Qf5 {
2.28/13 5} f3 {(Qc8) 1.01/15 5} 41. Rxf3 {2.40/13 3} Rxf3 {1.01/16 1} 42. Qxf3
{2.39/15 1} Rd3 {1.12/16 2} 43. Qf5 {2.48/14 1} Qc7+ {(Rd5) 1.22/15 2} 44. Kh1
{2.50/15 3} Qc2 {(Qd6) 1.32/17 2} 45. Qe6+ {2.98/15 5} Kh7 {1.43/18 2} 46. Qe4+
{3.17/15 0} Kh6 {1.51/18 4} 47. Qh4+ {3.17/15 0} Kg6 {1.51/19 5} 48. Rf1 {
3.27/15 0} Qc6 {1.68/18 6} 49. Qg4+ {3.16/15 0} Kf7 {1.73/18 5} 50. Bb2 {
3.53/15 0} Rd2 {1.61/13 1} 51. Rc1 {3.56/15 2} Qb7 {1.72/15 1} 52. Re1 {
3.73/15 2} Qb5 {1.60/10 0} 53. Ba3 {3.70/14 4} Qg5 {2.25/15 1} 54. Qf3 {
3.69/14 0} Qd5 {2.25/13 1} 55. Re7+ {4.06/16 2} Kg6 {2.79/18 3} 56. Qg3+ {
4.28/17 0} Qg5 {2.83/17 0} 57. Qxg5+ {4.35/17 2} fxg5 {2.15/17 1} 58. Rb7 {
4.42/18 1} Rd3 {2.44/18 1} 59. Kh2 {4.67/17 0} Re3 {2.54/14 1} 60. Bb2 {
5.35/17 2} Kf5 {3.05/17 0} 61. Bxg7 {5.50/16 2} Rd3 {(g4) 3.45/18 2} 62. Bb2 {
5.64/17 3} Kg6 {(Ke6) 3.45/14 2} 63. Bc1 {6.09/17 2} Rc3 {(Kf5) 3.87/18 0} 64.
Rb6+ {6.28/18 2} Kf5 {4.33/19 0} 65. Rb5+ {6.42/18 2} Ke6 {(Ke4) 4.54/20 1} 66.
Bxg5 {6.75/17 2} Rd3 {4.54/15 1} 67. h4 {7.39/17 5} Kd7 {4.54/16 0} 68. h5 {
8.72/16 3} Kc6 {4.68/15 2} 69. h6 {9.85/15 0} Kxb5 {5.07/17 2} 70. h7 {
12.22/12 2} Rd8 {(b2) 5.07/16 0} 71. Bxd8 {#25/14 2} b2 {5.07/15 0} 72. h8=Q {
#23/14 1} b1=Q {5.07/14 0} 73. Qe8+ {#23/13 2} Ka6 {#23/13 0} 74. Qc6+ {
#22/14 2} Ka7 {#22/12 0} 75. Bb6+ {#21/14 2} Qxb6 {#20/5 0} 76. Qxb6+ {#20/1 0}
Kxb6 {#20/1 0} 77. g4 {#19/1 0} Kc5 {#18/1 0} 78. Kg3 {#18/1 0} Kd5 {#17/1 0}
79. Kf4 {#17/1 0} Kd6 {#16/1 0} 80. Kg5 {#16/1 0} Ke5 {#15/1 0} 81. Kh6 {
#15/1 0} Ke6 {#14/1 0} 82. g5 {#14/1 0} Ke7 {#13/1 0} 83. Kh7 {#13/1 0} Kd6 {
#12/1 0} 84. g6 {#12/1 0} Kc5 {#11/1 0} 85. g7 {#11/1 0} Kd4 {#10/1 0} 86. g8=Q
{#10/1 0} Kc5 {#9/1 0} 87. Kg6 {#9/1 0} Kd4 {#8/1 0} 88. Kf5 {#8/1 0} Kd3 {
#8/1 0} 89. Qd5+ {#7/1 0} Kc3 {#6/1 0} 90. Ke4 {#6/1 0} Kc2 {#6/1 0} 91. Kd4 {
#5/1 0} Kb2 {#5/1 0} 92. Qe4 {#4/1 0} Kc1 {#3/1 0} 93. Kc3 {#3/1 0} Kd1 {#3/1 0
} 94. Qe5 {#2/1 0} Kc1 {#2/1 0} 95. Qe1# {(Lag: Av=0.20s, max=0.8s) #1/1 0} 1-0
Hiarcs completely outplayed Rybka in this position with 38.f4! exf4 39.Qxa5 opening up another front on the kingside.
[White HIARCS 12 MP 031."]
[Black Rybka 2.3.2a mp"]
[EventDate "2008.05.02"]
[EventType "blitz"]
1. e4 {B/0 0} c5 {B/0 0} 2. Nf3 {B/0 0} Nc6 {0.22/15 5} 3. d4 {(Sb1-c3) B/0 0}
cxd4 {0.06/11 1} 4. Nxd4 {B/0 0} g6 {B/0 0} 5. c4 {B/0 0} Bg7 {0.07/13 4} 6.
Be3 {B/0 0} Qb6 {0.01/14 2} 7. Nb3 {(Sd4-b5) B/0 0} Qc7 {-0.03/14 5} 8. Qd2 {
(Dd1-c2) B/0 0} Nf6 {-0.02/13 2} 9. Nc3 {B/0 0} O-O {0.10/14 6} 10. Be2 {B/0 0}
d6 {0.14/14 7} 11. O-O {B/0 0} b6 {0.12/14 13} 12. Bh6 {(Sb3-d4) B/0 0} Bxh6 {
0.08/13 5} 13. Qxh6 {B/0 0} Be6 {0.15/13 4} 14. f4 {(Sc3-d5) 0.76/15 11} Na5 {
-0.05/12 2} 15. Nxa5 {0.64/13 6} Qc5+ {0.00/15 8} 16. Kh1 {(Tf1-f2) 0.94/16 0}
Qxa5 {0.00/15 2} 17. f5 {1.28/15 4} Bd7 {0.02/14 0} 18. Rf4 {(Dh6-f4) 1.06/15 8
} Bc6 {0.39/12 3} 19. Rh4 {1.12/15 6} Qe5 {0.63/15 3} 20. Rf1 {1.28/14 2} Rfb8
{(g5) 0.75/15 12} 21. Rf3 {(Le2-d3) 1.39/13 5} Rb7 {(g5) 0.81/12 1} 22. Rg3 {
3.21/14 4} e6 {2.00/15 1} 23. fxg6 {2.75/15 7} fxg6 {1.98/18 0} 24. Rg5 {
2.75/16 3} Qd4 {1.96/18 2} 25. e5 {2.66/14 0} Qf2 {1.96/16 0} 26. Rf4 {
2.67/16 3} Qxf4 {2.12/16 2} 27. Rxg6+ {3.01/14 0} hxg6 {2.27/17 5} 28. Qxf4 {
3.11/16 0} Nh5 {2.35/16 2} 29. Qg4 {3.11/14 3} Rf8 {(Ng7) 2.36/14 1} 30. Qxg6+
{(Kh1-g1) 3.12/14 9} Rg7 {2.22/14 0} 31. Qxe6+ {4.23/15 4} Kh8 {3.06/18 3} 32.
Nd5 {4.26/15 0} Rf2 {3.06/16 1} 33. Qc8+ {4.23/15 3} Rg8 {3.18/18 0} 34. Qh3 {
4.33/16 4} Rg5 {3.32/18 2} 35. Qe3 {4.42/13 0} Rxe2 {3.29/17 1} 36. Qxe2 {
4.50/16 1} Bxd5 {3.45/18 0} 37. cxd5 {4.43/16 3} Rxe5 {3.84/20 4} 38. Qf1 {
4.50/16 0} Kg7 {3.84/18 0} 39. g4 {4.57/16 3} Nf6 {3.84/17 0} 40. Qa6 {
4.61/15 2} Nxg4 {(Kg6) 3.97/16 2} 41. Qxa7+ {4.76/14 2} Kg6 {3.97/17 0} 42. Qb8
{(Da7-d7) 4.95/14 2} Nf2+ {(Nf6) 3.65/12 1} 43. Kg2 {5.00/15 2} Ne4 {4.08/16 0}
44. Kf3 {5.21/15 3} Ng5+ {4.32/15 0} 45. Kf4 {5.23/16 2} Nf7 {4.50/15 0} 46.
Qxb6 {5.47/14 2} Rxd5 {4.46/16 6} 47. a4 {5.71/15 0} Rf5+ {4.87/14 4} 48. Ke3 {
5.75/14 0} Rh5 {(Re5+) 5.04/14 1} 49. a5 {6.47/12 3} Kf5 {(Rh3+) 5.02/14 0} 50.
a6 {(Db6-c7) 7.58/12 4} Ne5 {5.76/9 1} 51. Qb7 {(Ke3-d4) 7.80/13 0} Rh3+ {
7.21/8 1} 52. Ke2 {(Ke3-d2) 8.07/14 0} Rxh2+ {7.31/8 1} 53. Kd1 {8.20/14 0} Rh8
{(Kf6) 7.35/8 1} 54. a7 {8.45/13 2} Ke6 {7.59/10 1} 55. a8=Q {8.64/14 0} Rxa8 {
7.60/9 0} 56. Qxa8 {8.89/15 5} Ke7 {8.29/11 0} 57. b4 {(Da8-d5) 25.93/14 1} Nd7
{8.29/8 1} 58. Qe4+ {(Kd1-c2) #21/15 0} Kf6 {9.61/9 1} 59. Qe8 {
(b4-b5) #17/14 2} Nc5 {11.16/7 1} 60. bxc5 {#10/17 1} dxc5 {#10/1 0} 61. Kd2 {
#9/1 0} Kg5 {#8/1 0} 62. Qe5+ {#8/1 0} Kg6 {#8/1 0} 63. Kd3 {#7/1 0} Kf7 {
#6/1 0} 64. Ke4 {#6/1 0} Kg6 {#6/1 0} 65. Qe6+ {#5/1 0} Kh7 {#4/1 0} 66. Qf7+ {
#4/1 0} Kh8 {#4/1 0} 67. Ke5 {#3/1 0} c4 {#3/1 0} 68. Kf6 {#2/1 0} c3 {#2/1 0}
69. Qg7# {(Lag: Av=0.34s, max=1.2s) #1/1 0} 1-0
As we all know Hiracs is famous for its kingside attacks, check out this position from the game above:
Hiracs plays 21.Rf3! Rb7? 22.Rg3 e6 23.fxg6 fxg6 24.Rg5 Qd4 25.e5 Qf2 26.Rf4!! breaking through Black's defences on the kingside.
The resulting position is completely winning for White
[White HIARCS 12 MP 031.]
[Black Rybka 2.3.2a mp"]
[EventDate "2008.05.02"]
[EventType "blitz"]
1. e4 {B/0 0} c5 {B/0 0} 2. Nf3 {B/0 0} e6 {B/0 0} 3. d4 {B/0 0} cxd4 {B/0 0}
4. Nxd4 {B/0 0} Nc6 {B/0 0} 5. Nc3 {B/0 0} Qc7 {B/0 0} 6. Be2 {B/0 0} a6 {B/0 0
} 7. O-O {B/0 0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 8. Be3 {B/0 0} Bb4 {B/0 0} 9. Na4 {B/0 0} Be7 {
B/0 0} 10. Nxc6 {B/0 0} bxc6 {B/0 0} 11. Nb6 {B/0 0} Rb8 {B/0 0} 12. Nxc8 {
B/0 0} Qxc8 {B/0 0} 13. e5 {B/0 0} Nd5 {B/0 0} 14. Bc1 {B/0 0} Bc5 {B/0 0} 15.
c4 {B/0 0} Ne7 {B/0 0} 16. b3 {B/0 0} Qc7 {B/0 0} 17. Bb2 {B/0 0} O-O {B/0 0}
18. Bd3 {B/0 0} Rfd8 {B/0 0} 19. Qh5 {0.57/15 10} Ng6 {0.32/14 15} 20. Bc3 {
0.58/16 0} Qb6 {0.24/13 7} 21. Rae1 {0.70/14 0} d5 {(a5) 0.10/13 4} 22. exd6 {
1.14/14 5} Rxd6 {0.51/17 2} 23. Bxg6 {1.10/15 3} hxg6 {0.48/18 2} 24. Qe5 {
1.06/16 4} f6 {0.47/19 6} 25. Qe4 {1.06/17 0} e5 {(Qc7) 0.48/18 8} 26. b4 {
1.34/15 5} Bxb4 {0.48/17 3} 27. Rb1 {1.21/15 0} c5 {0.49/16 2} 28. a3 {
1.39/15 3} a5 {0.53/16 4} 29. axb4 {1.30/14 0} cxb4 {0.59/16 8} 30. Qxg6 {
1.22/15 0} Rbd8 {(Qc7) 0.61/16 4} 31. Ba1 {1.44/14 6} Qc5 {0.59/16 5} 32. Qc2 {
1.43/15 0} Rd3 {0.55/15 5} 33. h3 {1.41/14 0} Kf7 {(Rd2) 0.54/14 2} 34. Qa2 {
1.41/13 5} Ra3 {(Kg8) 0.54/16 2} 35. Qe2 {1.74/14 5} Rad3 {0.55/16 2} 36. Kh2 {
1.89/13 0} Qxc4 {(Qd6) 0.53/13 3} 37. Qh5+ {1.91/13 4} Kg8 {0.79/16 9} 38. f4 {
1.83/16 7} exf4 {0.88/16 6} 39. Qxa5 {2.08/14 0} b3 {(Qe6) 0.96/15 6} 40. Qf5 {
2.28/13 5} f3 {(Qc8) 1.01/15 5} 41. Rxf3 {2.40/13 3} Rxf3 {1.01/16 1} 42. Qxf3
{2.39/15 1} Rd3 {1.12/16 2} 43. Qf5 {2.48/14 1} Qc7+ {(Rd5) 1.22/15 2} 44. Kh1
{2.50/15 3} Qc2 {(Qd6) 1.32/17 2} 45. Qe6+ {2.98/15 5} Kh7 {1.43/18 2} 46. Qe4+
{3.17/15 0} Kh6 {1.51/18 4} 47. Qh4+ {3.17/15 0} Kg6 {1.51/19 5} 48. Rf1 {
3.27/15 0} Qc6 {1.68/18 6} 49. Qg4+ {3.16/15 0} Kf7 {1.73/18 5} 50. Bb2 {
3.53/15 0} Rd2 {1.61/13 1} 51. Rc1 {3.56/15 2} Qb7 {1.72/15 1} 52. Re1 {
3.73/15 2} Qb5 {1.60/10 0} 53. Ba3 {3.70/14 4} Qg5 {2.25/15 1} 54. Qf3 {
3.69/14 0} Qd5 {2.25/13 1} 55. Re7+ {4.06/16 2} Kg6 {2.79/18 3} 56. Qg3+ {
4.28/17 0} Qg5 {2.83/17 0} 57. Qxg5+ {4.35/17 2} fxg5 {2.15/17 1} 58. Rb7 {
4.42/18 1} Rd3 {2.44/18 1} 59. Kh2 {4.67/17 0} Re3 {2.54/14 1} 60. Bb2 {
5.35/17 2} Kf5 {3.05/17 0} 61. Bxg7 {5.50/16 2} Rd3 {(g4) 3.45/18 2} 62. Bb2 {
5.64/17 3} Kg6 {(Ke6) 3.45/14 2} 63. Bc1 {6.09/17 2} Rc3 {(Kf5) 3.87/18 0} 64.
Rb6+ {6.28/18 2} Kf5 {4.33/19 0} 65. Rb5+ {6.42/18 2} Ke6 {(Ke4) 4.54/20 1} 66.
Bxg5 {6.75/17 2} Rd3 {4.54/15 1} 67. h4 {7.39/17 5} Kd7 {4.54/16 0} 68. h5 {
8.72/16 3} Kc6 {4.68/15 2} 69. h6 {9.85/15 0} Kxb5 {5.07/17 2} 70. h7 {
12.22/12 2} Rd8 {(b2) 5.07/16 0} 71. Bxd8 {#25/14 2} b2 {5.07/15 0} 72. h8=Q {
#23/14 1} b1=Q {5.07/14 0} 73. Qe8+ {#23/13 2} Ka6 {#23/13 0} 74. Qc6+ {
#22/14 2} Ka7 {#22/12 0} 75. Bb6+ {#21/14 2} Qxb6 {#20/5 0} 76. Qxb6+ {#20/1 0}
Kxb6 {#20/1 0} 77. g4 {#19/1 0} Kc5 {#18/1 0} 78. Kg3 {#18/1 0} Kd5 {#17/1 0}
79. Kf4 {#17/1 0} Kd6 {#16/1 0} 80. Kg5 {#16/1 0} Ke5 {#15/1 0} 81. Kh6 {
#15/1 0} Ke6 {#14/1 0} 82. g5 {#14/1 0} Ke7 {#13/1 0} 83. Kh7 {#13/1 0} Kd6 {
#12/1 0} 84. g6 {#12/1 0} Kc5 {#11/1 0} 85. g7 {#11/1 0} Kd4 {#10/1 0} 86. g8=Q
{#10/1 0} Kc5 {#9/1 0} 87. Kg6 {#9/1 0} Kd4 {#8/1 0} 88. Kf5 {#8/1 0} Kd3 {
#8/1 0} 89. Qd5+ {#7/1 0} Kc3 {#6/1 0} 90. Ke4 {#6/1 0} Kc2 {#6/1 0} 91. Kd4 {
#5/1 0} Kb2 {#5/1 0} 92. Qe4 {#4/1 0} Kc1 {#3/1 0} 93. Kc3 {#3/1 0} Kd1 {#3/1 0
} 94. Qe5 {#2/1 0} Kc1 {#2/1 0} 95. Qe1# {(Lag: Av=0.20s, max=0.8s) #1/1 0} 1-0
Hiarcs completely outplayed Rybka in this position with 38.f4! exf4 39.Qxa5 opening up another front on the kingside.
3r2k1/6p1/5p2/p3p2Q/1pq5/3r3P/5PPK/BR3R2 w - - 0 38
[White HIARCS 12 MP 031."]
[Black Rybka 2.3.2a mp"]
[EventDate "2008.05.02"]
[EventType "blitz"]
1. e4 {B/0 0} c5 {B/0 0} 2. Nf3 {B/0 0} Nc6 {0.22/15 5} 3. d4 {(Sb1-c3) B/0 0}
cxd4 {0.06/11 1} 4. Nxd4 {B/0 0} g6 {B/0 0} 5. c4 {B/0 0} Bg7 {0.07/13 4} 6.
Be3 {B/0 0} Qb6 {0.01/14 2} 7. Nb3 {(Sd4-b5) B/0 0} Qc7 {-0.03/14 5} 8. Qd2 {
(Dd1-c2) B/0 0} Nf6 {-0.02/13 2} 9. Nc3 {B/0 0} O-O {0.10/14 6} 10. Be2 {B/0 0}
d6 {0.14/14 7} 11. O-O {B/0 0} b6 {0.12/14 13} 12. Bh6 {(Sb3-d4) B/0 0} Bxh6 {
0.08/13 5} 13. Qxh6 {B/0 0} Be6 {0.15/13 4} 14. f4 {(Sc3-d5) 0.76/15 11} Na5 {
-0.05/12 2} 15. Nxa5 {0.64/13 6} Qc5+ {0.00/15 8} 16. Kh1 {(Tf1-f2) 0.94/16 0}
Qxa5 {0.00/15 2} 17. f5 {1.28/15 4} Bd7 {0.02/14 0} 18. Rf4 {(Dh6-f4) 1.06/15 8
} Bc6 {0.39/12 3} 19. Rh4 {1.12/15 6} Qe5 {0.63/15 3} 20. Rf1 {1.28/14 2} Rfb8
{(g5) 0.75/15 12} 21. Rf3 {(Le2-d3) 1.39/13 5} Rb7 {(g5) 0.81/12 1} 22. Rg3 {
3.21/14 4} e6 {2.00/15 1} 23. fxg6 {2.75/15 7} fxg6 {1.98/18 0} 24. Rg5 {
2.75/16 3} Qd4 {1.96/18 2} 25. e5 {2.66/14 0} Qf2 {1.96/16 0} 26. Rf4 {
2.67/16 3} Qxf4 {2.12/16 2} 27. Rxg6+ {3.01/14 0} hxg6 {2.27/17 5} 28. Qxf4 {
3.11/16 0} Nh5 {2.35/16 2} 29. Qg4 {3.11/14 3} Rf8 {(Ng7) 2.36/14 1} 30. Qxg6+
{(Kh1-g1) 3.12/14 9} Rg7 {2.22/14 0} 31. Qxe6+ {4.23/15 4} Kh8 {3.06/18 3} 32.
Nd5 {4.26/15 0} Rf2 {3.06/16 1} 33. Qc8+ {4.23/15 3} Rg8 {3.18/18 0} 34. Qh3 {
4.33/16 4} Rg5 {3.32/18 2} 35. Qe3 {4.42/13 0} Rxe2 {3.29/17 1} 36. Qxe2 {
4.50/16 1} Bxd5 {3.45/18 0} 37. cxd5 {4.43/16 3} Rxe5 {3.84/20 4} 38. Qf1 {
4.50/16 0} Kg7 {3.84/18 0} 39. g4 {4.57/16 3} Nf6 {3.84/17 0} 40. Qa6 {
4.61/15 2} Nxg4 {(Kg6) 3.97/16 2} 41. Qxa7+ {4.76/14 2} Kg6 {3.97/17 0} 42. Qb8
{(Da7-d7) 4.95/14 2} Nf2+ {(Nf6) 3.65/12 1} 43. Kg2 {5.00/15 2} Ne4 {4.08/16 0}
44. Kf3 {5.21/15 3} Ng5+ {4.32/15 0} 45. Kf4 {5.23/16 2} Nf7 {4.50/15 0} 46.
Qxb6 {5.47/14 2} Rxd5 {4.46/16 6} 47. a4 {5.71/15 0} Rf5+ {4.87/14 4} 48. Ke3 {
5.75/14 0} Rh5 {(Re5+) 5.04/14 1} 49. a5 {6.47/12 3} Kf5 {(Rh3+) 5.02/14 0} 50.
a6 {(Db6-c7) 7.58/12 4} Ne5 {5.76/9 1} 51. Qb7 {(Ke3-d4) 7.80/13 0} Rh3+ {
7.21/8 1} 52. Ke2 {(Ke3-d2) 8.07/14 0} Rxh2+ {7.31/8 1} 53. Kd1 {8.20/14 0} Rh8
{(Kf6) 7.35/8 1} 54. a7 {8.45/13 2} Ke6 {7.59/10 1} 55. a8=Q {8.64/14 0} Rxa8 {
7.60/9 0} 56. Qxa8 {8.89/15 5} Ke7 {8.29/11 0} 57. b4 {(Da8-d5) 25.93/14 1} Nd7
{8.29/8 1} 58. Qe4+ {(Kd1-c2) #21/15 0} Kf6 {9.61/9 1} 59. Qe8 {
(b4-b5) #17/14 2} Nc5 {11.16/7 1} 60. bxc5 {#10/17 1} dxc5 {#10/1 0} 61. Kd2 {
#9/1 0} Kg5 {#8/1 0} 62. Qe5+ {#8/1 0} Kg6 {#8/1 0} 63. Kd3 {#7/1 0} Kf7 {
#6/1 0} 64. Ke4 {#6/1 0} Kg6 {#6/1 0} 65. Qe6+ {#5/1 0} Kh7 {#4/1 0} 66. Qf7+ {
#4/1 0} Kh8 {#4/1 0} 67. Ke5 {#3/1 0} c4 {#3/1 0} 68. Kf6 {#2/1 0} c3 {#2/1 0}
69. Qg7# {(Lag: Av=0.34s, max=1.2s) #1/1 0} 1-0
As we all know Hiracs is famous for its kingside attacks, check out this position from the game above:
Hiracs plays 21.Rf3! Rb7? 22.Rg3 e6 23.fxg6 fxg6 24.Rg5 Qd4 25.e5 Qf2 26.Rf4!! breaking through Black's defences on the kingside.
rr4k1/p3pp1p/1pbp1npQ/4qP2/2P1P2R/2N5/PP2B1PP/5R1K w - - 0 21
The resulting position is completely winning for White
7k/p5r1/1pbpQ3/3NP2n/2P5/8/PP2BrPP/7K w - - 0 33
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
> Hiarcs completely outplayed Rybka in this position with 38.f4! exf4 39.Qxa5 opening up another front on the kingside. >>
Trouble is, 38.f4! is also the obvious choice for Rybka, if Rybka is given that position... :-p
3r2k1/6p1/5p2/p3p2Q/1pq5/3r3P/5PPK/BR3R2 w - - 0 38
Trouble is, 38.f4! is also the obvious choice for Rybka, if Rybka is given that position... :-p
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill