![[ch]](/mwf/v12/flags/ch.png "Switzerland")
I just installed the engine a did a very short test vs Rybka 232a.
Seems very promising, even so it may no be stronger than Rybka 232a it may take position N°2
Seems very promising, even so it may no be stronger than Rybka 232a it may take position N°2
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
In my computer, Hiarcs Paderborn 2007 is giving it a beating, so probably the #2 isn't so on 1CPU computers with fast time controls.
I am going to test it tomorrow. I had a total system crash on my old test computer, yesterday (file system destroyed). :-( But today, I finished setting it up again, and Glaurung 2.1 runs fine, with the exception that sometimes, it didn't display a pv in the test positions I tried. But that was in Win98SE. I didn't try it yet, in Vista.
![[no]](/mwf/v12/flags/no.png "Norway")
A few points:
1. Thanks for testing Glaurung. I hope you're having fun doing so. :)
2. Glaurung won't be the new number 2. Not even close.
3. Who cares which program is number 1, 2, 10 or 100? It doesn't matter one iota. The important
thing is that all programs keep improving, and that the general level of computer chess keeps rising.
In the context of Glaurung 2.1, the important thing is not how it compares to Hiarcs or Rybka, but how
it compares to Glaurung 2.0.1 (the previous public version). I think it compares favorably, but whether
I am right remains to be seen.
4. Whether Glaurung is stronger than some version of Hiarcs can depend on a number of factors
besides the number of CPUs. For instance, Glaurung is likely to profit much more from 64-bit CPUs.
It is still possible that Hiarcs is far superior regardless of the conditions, but again, who cares (see
point 3 above).
5. I wish people would focus less on the strength of the new Glaurung, and more on the style. My
main goal with this version was to play more attractive chess than the unbelievably dull Glaurung 2.0.
Tord
1. Thanks for testing Glaurung. I hope you're having fun doing so. :)
2. Glaurung won't be the new number 2. Not even close.
3. Who cares which program is number 1, 2, 10 or 100? It doesn't matter one iota. The important
thing is that all programs keep improving, and that the general level of computer chess keeps rising.
In the context of Glaurung 2.1, the important thing is not how it compares to Hiarcs or Rybka, but how
it compares to Glaurung 2.0.1 (the previous public version). I think it compares favorably, but whether
I am right remains to be seen.
4. Whether Glaurung is stronger than some version of Hiarcs can depend on a number of factors
besides the number of CPUs. For instance, Glaurung is likely to profit much more from 64-bit CPUs.
It is still possible that Hiarcs is far superior regardless of the conditions, but again, who cares (see
point 3 above).
5. I wish people would focus less on the strength of the new Glaurung, and more on the style. My
main goal with this version was to play more attractive chess than the unbelievably dull Glaurung 2.0.
Tord
Hi Tord,
Thanks for the very good engine.
While I understand and respect your points on strength & style, they are linked to you.
As for me, strength is the 1st criteria.
Unfortunately for you, Glaurung is very strong and thus was the reason of my first post. :-)
In addition, it has an interesting playing style which is not the 1st criteria for me but remains important.
I do not agree with your point 3. My perception.
Regards
PS looking forward to see an iPhone version.
Thanks for the very good engine.
While I understand and respect your points on strength & style, they are linked to you.
As for me, strength is the 1st criteria.
Unfortunately for you, Glaurung is very strong and thus was the reason of my first post. :-)
In addition, it has an interesting playing style which is not the 1st criteria for me but remains important.
I do not agree with your point 3. My perception.
Regards
PS looking forward to see an iPhone version.
Hi,
I'm glad you like my engine, and are interested in the coming iPhone version. :)
It seems I should have expressed myself more clearly: Of course high strength is one of my
goals, and I am always happy to see my engine improve. But it is the absolute strength
that matters, not the strength relatively to other engines. If a version of my engine climbed
to one of the top few places on the rating lists for a short while, I would be pleased, but if it
stayed there for a long period, it would have been a failure for me: It would mean that
whatever improvements I had made were not useful to others.
The main point of chess programming is not to beat other programs, but to help each other
improve. If everybody realized that this way of thinking is the key to rapid progress, the
current chess programs would have been far stronger, and (more importantly) we would
have had a lot more fun.
Tord
I'm glad you like my engine, and are interested in the coming iPhone version. :)
It seems I should have expressed myself more clearly: Of course high strength is one of my
goals, and I am always happy to see my engine improve. But it is the absolute strength
that matters, not the strength relatively to other engines. If a version of my engine climbed
to one of the top few places on the rating lists for a short while, I would be pleased, but if it
stayed there for a long period, it would have been a failure for me: It would mean that
whatever improvements I had made were not useful to others.
The main point of chess programming is not to beat other programs, but to help each other
improve. If everybody realized that this way of thinking is the key to rapid progress, the
current chess programs would have been far stronger, and (more importantly) we would
have had a lot more fun.
Tord
Hi Tord,
Thanks for your fast answer.
Does your post mean that the iPhone version is on your agenda and will on day be existing for all of us ?
Can you tell me/us a little more and your expected window date of release.
Thanks for your fast answer.
Does your post mean that the iPhone version is on your agenda and will on day be existing for all of us ?
Can you tell me/us a little more and your expected window date of release.
There isn't really much to tell, except that the iPhone version is very much still
on my agenda, that work has started, and that the window for the date of release
is still infinite. How soon I can offer something depends to a great extent on
factors beyond my control, like how soon Apple will allow non-US developers to
distribute programs, and how the summer weather will be this year.
on my agenda, that work has started, and that the window for the date of release
is still infinite. How soon I can offer something depends to a great extent on
factors beyond my control, like how soon Apple will allow non-US developers to
distribute programs, and how the summer weather will be this year.
:-)
Hope bad weather :-)
Hope bad weather :-)
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
well i like your engine, i think it is really strong and fast , it seems to find deep moves faster than alot of other programs , even beat rybka on a couple positions . what programs inspired you to create your own ? im probably wrong but if i was half as good at programming as i am at chess i could write a powerfull chess program that would rock the world . but getting my ideas into a program is impossible . because i cant program . can you tell me anything about your program , im very curious to know more about it . unfortunetly i guess im curious about it mostly because its really strong and fast .
Hi Tord,
It's good to see you on the forum. I have definitely encountered some positions where Glaurung 1.2.1 has been able to find the winning combination faster than anything else, usually in a very tactical or spectacular way. Now, in encountering such highly potentially tactical types of positions (whatever that means), do you think that Glaurung 1.2.1 or Glaurung 2.1 would be better? I know that in general, the latter is probably close to 100 elo stronger, though I don't know how much of 1.2.1's style you've been able to introduce into 2.0 to make the new version.
It's good to see you on the forum. I have definitely encountered some positions where Glaurung 1.2.1 has been able to find the winning combination faster than anything else, usually in a very tactical or spectacular way. Now, in encountering such highly potentially tactical types of positions (whatever that means), do you think that Glaurung 1.2.1 or Glaurung 2.1 would be better? I know that in general, the latter is probably close to 100 elo stronger, though I don't know how much of 1.2.1's style you've been able to introduce into 2.0 to make the new version.
Hello,
Thanks for your warm welcome! I don't expect to be a frequent visitor here.
These days I am skimming through all the computer chess forums looking
for posts about my new version, but I'm not likely to stay here when things
have settled down a bit and I feel confident that my new engine (especially
the Windows port, which I can't test myself) is stable and reliable.
The reason why Glaurung 1 sometimes find spectacular attacks very quickly
is that it used the king safety evaluation to guide the search, searching
sequences of attacking moves more deeply than passive moves. Glaurung 2
currently doesn't do this: In fact, it didn't evaluate king safety at all until
version 2.1 was released yesterday. I plan to experiment with using the
evaluation to guide the search again some time later, when my program is
more mature.
I haven't made any tests, buy I believe that Glaurung 1 is probably much
faster at finding most of the spectacular combinations you think about.
By the way, I hope the difference in strength from version 1.2.1 to 2.1 is
considerably bigger than 100 Elo points.
Tord
Thanks for your warm welcome! I don't expect to be a frequent visitor here.
These days I am skimming through all the computer chess forums looking
for posts about my new version, but I'm not likely to stay here when things
have settled down a bit and I feel confident that my new engine (especially
the Windows port, which I can't test myself) is stable and reliable.
The reason why Glaurung 1 sometimes find spectacular attacks very quickly
is that it used the king safety evaluation to guide the search, searching
sequences of attacking moves more deeply than passive moves. Glaurung 2
currently doesn't do this: In fact, it didn't evaluate king safety at all until
version 2.1 was released yesterday. I plan to experiment with using the
evaluation to guide the search again some time later, when my program is
more mature.
I haven't made any tests, buy I believe that Glaurung 1 is probably much
faster at finding most of the spectacular combinations you think about.
By the way, I hope the difference in strength from version 1.2.1 to 2.1 is
considerably bigger than 100 Elo points.
Tord
![[ar]](/mwf/v12/flags/ar.png "Argentina")
Hello Tord,
Where can we find the last Glaurung version for download?
Best Regards,
Patricio.
Where can we find the last Glaurung version for download?
Best Regards,
Patricio.
Thank you Turbo!
Best regards,
Patricio.
Best regards,
Patricio.
![[au]](/mwf/v12/flags/au.png "Australia")
I can confirm what tord says about glaurung. It is very aggressive and loves the attacking side. You will notice, i think, that it gets far fewer draws than its predicesors. another example: glaurung loves the white side of this position
[d]
Glaurung thinks it has a full point here, though this opening is perfectly fine for black and even one of noomen's test openings.
Tord explained that basically glaurung gives a big bonus to white because of the uncastled black king and maybe other factors that give white more attacking possibilities
best
J
[d]
r1b2k1r/ppqn1pp1/3bp2p/2p5/3P2Q1/3B1N2/PPP2PPP/R1B2RK1 w - - 0 13
[d]Glaurung thinks it has a full point here, though this opening is perfectly fine for black and even one of noomen's test openings.
Tord explained that basically glaurung gives a big bonus to white because of the uncastled black king and maybe other factors that give white more attacking possibilities
best
J
in contrast to the over-evaluation of white's position against a stodgy defense like the caro kann, glaurung probably evaluates gambits pretty well, since does not mind giving up the pawn for an attack
Glaurung thinks white has only a slight advantage in the benko gambit.....and generates almost the same evaluation as rybka
[d]
it might be interesting to see glaurung play with a gambit book?
J
Glaurung thinks white has only a slight advantage in the benko gambit.....and generates almost the same evaluation as rybka
[d]
rr4k1/3nppbp/q2p1np1/2pP4/4P3/2N2NPP/PP2RPK1/R1BQ4 w - - 0 15
[d]it might be interesting to see glaurung play with a gambit book?
J
Well, I think the main reason for the full point plus score in this position is not attacking
possibilities, but rather mobility and development. White's pieces are more active, and
black will need several tempi to activate Ra8, Bc8 and Rh8. Perhaps the most important
factor of all here for Glaurung is the rook on h8: I have a big penalty for rooks which are
trapped inside a king which has lost the right to castle, with no open files between the
king and the edge of the board.
Edit: I am writing about the first of your two positions here, not the second, but for
some reason my post ended up at the wrong place in the thread. Sorry.
To this patzer's eyes, white's position looks very good. Are there any strong players
around here who can explain in basic terms what is black's compensation for the poor
development? In a desperate attempt to bring the thread back on-topic: What does
Rybka think?
For the question in your other post about how Glaurung would do with a gambit book:
I guess it would depend greatly on the what gambits you include. The nature of the
compensation offered in sound gambit lines vary greatly between different gambits,
and Glaurung will understand it better in some cases than in others. It will play
some gambits like a grandmaster, and others like an ordinary club player.
Tord
possibilities, but rather mobility and development. White's pieces are more active, and
black will need several tempi to activate Ra8, Bc8 and Rh8. Perhaps the most important
factor of all here for Glaurung is the rook on h8: I have a big penalty for rooks which are
trapped inside a king which has lost the right to castle, with no open files between the
king and the edge of the board.
Edit: I am writing about the first of your two positions here, not the second, but for
some reason my post ended up at the wrong place in the thread. Sorry.
To this patzer's eyes, white's position looks very good. Are there any strong players
around here who can explain in basic terms what is black's compensation for the poor
development? In a desperate attempt to bring the thread back on-topic: What does
Rybka think?
For the question in your other post about how Glaurung would do with a gambit book:
I guess it would depend greatly on the what gambits you include. The nature of the
compensation offered in sound gambit lines vary greatly between different gambits,
and Glaurung will understand it better in some cases than in others. It will play
some gambits like a grandmaster, and others like an ordinary club player.
Tord
![[fi]](/mwf/v12/flags/fi.png "Finland")
>> Edit: I am writing about the first of your two positions here, not the second, but for
> some reason my post ended up at the wrong place in the thread. Sorry.
It's in the right place. The indenting makes it clear you're replying to the first position, and it obviously had to be placed below the earlier reply to that post.
Pure Flat View is still on my wish list for the forum, though :)
He's too used to the system on The Forum Whose Name Shall Not Be Uttered Here, but hopefully he will get more used to the system here as time goes on. :-)
![[hu]](/mwf/v12/flags/hu.png "Hungary")
Hi Tord,
welcome to our forum and thanks as always for the Glaurung sources.
This position looks a bit better for white to me too. At least it's up to black to prove that he can still equalize. Sometimes an "advantage" like this will just dissipate, white doesn't have any clear targets and often black can simply finish developing. It's not really realistic for an evaluation function to understand this - you just have to try to search as deeply as possible.
As you can see below, Rybka also likes white, but the scores gradually drop.
Vas
New game
Analysis by Rybka 2.3.2r21 origmp :
1.Be3
+/= (0.68) Depth: 2 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 2 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4 2.Be2 Kg8
+/= (0.47) Depth: 6 00:00:00 15kN
1.Be3 Nf6 2.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 6 00:00:00 22kN
1.Be3 Nf6 2.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 6 00:00:00 22kN
1.Be3 Kg8 2.c4 Nf6
+/= (0.58) Depth: 7 00:00:00 36kN
1.Be3 Kg8 2.Qh4 g5 3.Qh3
+/= (0.62) Depth: 8 00:00:00 88kN
1.Be3 Kg8 2.Qh4 g5 3.Qh3 e5
+/= (0.42) Depth: 9 00:00:00 160kN
1.Rd1 Kg8 2.Bd2 Nf6 3.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.46) Depth: 9 00:00:01 320kN
1.Rd1 e5 2.d5 Nf6 3.Qc4 b5 4.Qh4 c4 5.Be4 Nxe4 6.Qxe4 f5
+/= (0.34) Depth: 10 00:00:01 506kN
1.dxc5 Nxc5 2.Be3 Nxd3 3.cxd3 e5 4.Qe4 Bd7 5.Rac1 Bc6
+/= (0.35) Depth: 10 00:00:03 1184kN
1.dxc5 Nxc5 2.Be3 e5 3.Bf5 h5 4.Qh3 g6 5.Bxc8 Rxc8
+/= (0.31) Depth: 11 00:00:03 1273kN
1.Rd1 e5 2.d5 Nf6 3.Qh4 Bg4 4.c4 e4 5.Bxe4
+/= (0.33) Depth: 11 00:00:04 1397kN
1.Rd1 e5 2.d5 Nf6 3.Qc4 b5 4.Qh4 c4 5.Be4 Nxe4 6.Qxe4 f5 7.Qe2 Kf7
= (0.19) Depth: 12 00:00:08 2784kN
1.dxc5 Nxc5 2.Be3 e5 3.Bf5 h5 4.Qh3 g6 5.Bxc8 Rxc8 6.Qh4 Kg7 7.Rad1
+/= (0.36) Depth: 12 00:00:09 3161kN
1.Qe4 g5 2.c3 Kg7 3.g3 cxd4 4.cxd4 Nf6 5.Qe2 Nd5 6.Ne5 Nb4
+/= (0.40) Depth: 12 00:00:11 3812kN
1.Qe4 g5 2.c3 Kg7 3.g3 cxd4 4.cxd4 Nf6 5.Qe2 Nd5 6.Ne5 Nb4
+/= (0.40) Depth: 13 00:00:12 3819kN
1.Qe4 cxd4 2.Qxd4 Ne5 3.Nxe5 Bxe5 4.Qb4+ Qd6 5.Qxd6+ Bxd6 6.Be3 Bd7 7.Rad1 Bc6
+/= (0.38) Depth: 14 00:00:21 7107kN
1.Qe4 cxd4 2.Qxd4 Ne5 3.Nxe5 Bxe5 4.Qb4+ Qd6 5.Qxd6+ Bxd6 6.Be3 Bd7 7.Rad1 Bc6
+/= (0.34) Depth: 15 00:00:34 11313kN
1.Qe4 cxd4 2.Qxd4 Ne5 3.Nxe5 Bxe5 4.Qb4+ Qd6 5.Qxd6+ Bxd6 6.Be3 Bd7 7.Rad1 Bc6
+/= (0.32) Depth: 16 00:01:04 22696kN
1.Qe4 cxd4 2.Qxd4 Ne5 3.Nxe5 Bxe5 4.Qb4+ Kg8 5.f4 Bd6 6.Qe1 f5 7.Be3 Kh7
+/= (0.28) Depth: 17 00:02:36 53817kN
(Doe, 16.05.2008)
welcome to our forum and thanks as always for the Glaurung sources.
This position looks a bit better for white to me too. At least it's up to black to prove that he can still equalize. Sometimes an "advantage" like this will just dissipate, white doesn't have any clear targets and often black can simply finish developing. It's not really realistic for an evaluation function to understand this - you just have to try to search as deeply as possible.
As you can see below, Rybka also likes white, but the scores gradually drop.
Vas
New game
r1b2k1r/ppqn1pp1/3bp2p/2p5/3P2Q1/3B1N2/PPP2PPP/R1B2RK1 w - - 0 1
Analysis by Rybka 2.3.2r21 origmp :
1.Be3
+/= (0.68) Depth: 2 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 2 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Qh4 c4 2.Be2 Kg8
+/= (0.47) Depth: 6 00:00:00 15kN
1.Be3 Nf6 2.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 6 00:00:00 22kN
1.Be3 Nf6 2.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 6 00:00:00 22kN
1.Be3 Kg8 2.c4 Nf6
+/= (0.58) Depth: 7 00:00:00 36kN
1.Be3 Kg8 2.Qh4 g5 3.Qh3
+/= (0.62) Depth: 8 00:00:00 88kN
1.Be3 Kg8 2.Qh4 g5 3.Qh3 e5
+/= (0.42) Depth: 9 00:00:00 160kN
1.Rd1 Kg8 2.Bd2 Nf6 3.Qh4 c4
+/= (0.46) Depth: 9 00:00:01 320kN
1.Rd1 e5 2.d5 Nf6 3.Qc4 b5 4.Qh4 c4 5.Be4 Nxe4 6.Qxe4 f5
+/= (0.34) Depth: 10 00:00:01 506kN
1.dxc5 Nxc5 2.Be3 Nxd3 3.cxd3 e5 4.Qe4 Bd7 5.Rac1 Bc6
+/= (0.35) Depth: 10 00:00:03 1184kN
1.dxc5 Nxc5 2.Be3 e5 3.Bf5 h5 4.Qh3 g6 5.Bxc8 Rxc8
+/= (0.31) Depth: 11 00:00:03 1273kN
1.Rd1 e5 2.d5 Nf6 3.Qh4 Bg4 4.c4 e4 5.Bxe4
+/= (0.33) Depth: 11 00:00:04 1397kN
1.Rd1 e5 2.d5 Nf6 3.Qc4 b5 4.Qh4 c4 5.Be4 Nxe4 6.Qxe4 f5 7.Qe2 Kf7
= (0.19) Depth: 12 00:00:08 2784kN
1.dxc5 Nxc5 2.Be3 e5 3.Bf5 h5 4.Qh3 g6 5.Bxc8 Rxc8 6.Qh4 Kg7 7.Rad1
+/= (0.36) Depth: 12 00:00:09 3161kN
1.Qe4 g5 2.c3 Kg7 3.g3 cxd4 4.cxd4 Nf6 5.Qe2 Nd5 6.Ne5 Nb4
+/= (0.40) Depth: 12 00:00:11 3812kN
1.Qe4 g5 2.c3 Kg7 3.g3 cxd4 4.cxd4 Nf6 5.Qe2 Nd5 6.Ne5 Nb4
+/= (0.40) Depth: 13 00:00:12 3819kN
1.Qe4 cxd4 2.Qxd4 Ne5 3.Nxe5 Bxe5 4.Qb4+ Qd6 5.Qxd6+ Bxd6 6.Be3 Bd7 7.Rad1 Bc6
+/= (0.38) Depth: 14 00:00:21 7107kN
1.Qe4 cxd4 2.Qxd4 Ne5 3.Nxe5 Bxe5 4.Qb4+ Qd6 5.Qxd6+ Bxd6 6.Be3 Bd7 7.Rad1 Bc6
+/= (0.34) Depth: 15 00:00:34 11313kN
1.Qe4 cxd4 2.Qxd4 Ne5 3.Nxe5 Bxe5 4.Qb4+ Qd6 5.Qxd6+ Bxd6 6.Be3 Bd7 7.Rad1 Bc6
+/= (0.32) Depth: 16 00:01:04 22696kN
1.Qe4 cxd4 2.Qxd4 Ne5 3.Nxe5 Bxe5 4.Qb4+ Kg8 5.f4 Bd6 6.Qe1 f5 7.Be3 Kh7
+/= (0.28) Depth: 17 00:02:36 53817kN
(Doe, 16.05.2008)
[d]
This is called karpov variation, and has been played by anand , topolov, karpov, bologan..
in the 1987 final eliminator match to challenge kasparoav, karpov used this opening against sokolov, who failed to win a single game against it.
As for your request of an experts opinion on the position, Gallagher says" The system is extremely solid; Black's basic plan is to quietly develop his pieces and then to counter in the centre with c6-c5. After exchanging his c-pawn for white's d pawn, black should be left with a 1-0 central pawn majority, which may prove to be an advantage in the long run."
Do engines typically give a bonus for a central pawn majority? Does rybka?
best
Joseph
r1b2k1r/ppqn1pp1/3bp2p/2p5/3P2Q1/3B1N2/PPP2PPP/R1B2RK1 w - - 0 13
[d]This is called karpov variation, and has been played by anand , topolov, karpov, bologan..
in the 1987 final eliminator match to challenge kasparoav, karpov used this opening against sokolov, who failed to win a single game against it.
As for your request of an experts opinion on the position, Gallagher says" The system is extremely solid; Black's basic plan is to quietly develop his pieces and then to counter in the centre with c6-c5. After exchanging his c-pawn for white's d pawn, black should be left with a 1-0 central pawn majority, which may prove to be an advantage in the long run."
Do engines typically give a bonus for a central pawn majority? Does rybka?
best
Joseph
ok, I decided to play a moderately long game (40 moves 40 min repeating), using the caro kann karpov variation as an opening and and giving the attacking side to glaurung 2.1 (kasparov like i think) and the defending side to rybka 2.3.2amp (karpov on steriods in my view)
Here is the game, with comments. ( copy the game intact at the bottom if you want to play through it)
[Event "HBS-HZMDN1S, 40'/40+40'/40+40'"]
[Site "University of Wollongong"]
[Date "2008.05.17"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Glaurung 2.1"]
[Black "Rybka 2.3.2a mp 32-bit"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B17"]
[Annotator "0.98;0.15"]
[PlyCount "156"]
[TimeControl "40/2400:40/2400:2400"]
{Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz 2161 MHz W=18.5 ply; 1,210kN/
s B=16.9 ply; 107kN/s} 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Ng5 Ngf6
6. Bd3 e6 7. N1f3 Bd6 8. Qe2 h6 9. Ne4 Nxe4 10. Qxe4 Qc7 11. Qg4 Kf8 12. O-O c5
{Both last book move} 13. Qh4 {0.98/18 211}
[d]
Glaurung thinks it is winning, rybka thinks the position is equal. This evaluation difference will exist for a number of moves.
Kg8 {(b6) 0.15/17 106} 14. c3 {
(Re1) 0.76/18 136} c4 {(b6) 0.15/17 33}
[d]
So much for gallaghar suggestion that black exchange the c pawn and thereby obtain a central pawn majority. rybka seems to prefer to take space and cramp white if possible
15. Bc2 {1.00/19 72} b6 {0.12/16 22}
16. Qh3 {(Nd2) 0.98/19 110} Bb7 {0.09/15 33} 17. Re1 {(Nd2) 0.96/19 107} Rc8 {
(Rd8) 0.10/15 66} 18. Kh1 {(Nd2) 0.90/17 81} Bd5 {(Rd8) 0.00/14 32} 19. Re2 {
(Kg1) 0.86/17 94} g6 {(b5) 0.00/15 120} 20. Bd2 {0.88/18 79} Kg7 {0.05/16 98}
21. Rae1 {0.68/18 122} Rcd8 {0.00/16 220} 22. Bc1 {(b4) 0.66/18 136} Bb7 {
(Bf4) 0.00/16 29} 23. Bb1 {(Qh4) 0.66/17 66} Bd5 {0.00/17 240}
[d]
Rybka sees equality, but glaurung still thinks it has an advantage.
24. Be4 {
(Bc2) 0.62/18 97} Bxe4 {-0.13/15 69} 25. Rxe4 {0.54/16 14} Nf6 {
(g5) -0.13/17 290} 26. R4e2 {0.74/18 66} b5 {(Qc8) -0.07/16 63} 27. Kg1 {
(Ne5) 0.56/18 156} b4 {-0.21/16 40} 28. Ne5 {0.45/17 51} Nd5 {-0.21/16 70} 29.
f4 {(cxb4) 0.31/17 62} bxc3 {(Rb8) -0.32/15 95} 30. bxc3 {0.29/17 51} Rb8 {
-0.35/15 24} 31. Rf1 {(Qg3) 0.31/17 69} h5 {(Rb1) -0.37/15 65} 32. Qg3 {
0.23/16 69} Rb6 {(Rhd8) -0.38/15 92} 33. f5 {(Rfe1) 0.27/16 55}
[d]
Glaurung, the mad-dog attacker, has been patient up to this point, but finally decides to sac a pawn and open things up on the f file. Does he get enough?
h4 {-0.34/17 57
} 34. f6+ {0.03/16 46} Nxf6 {(Kg8) -0.30/18 37} 35. Qf3 {(Qg5) 0.00/18 85} Bxe5
{-0.65/15 23} 36. Rxe5 {0.00/18 73} Nd5 {-0.68/15 23}
[d]
now glaurung thinks it has full compensation for the pawn and the position is equal, wheras rybka thinks it has a -.68 advantage (which is a big advantage in rybkas conservative evalution numbers)
37. Bg5 {-0.01/18 73} f5
{-0.68/14 24} 38. Rfe1 {(h3) 0.00/18 73} Qd7 {-0.69/15 20} 39. Bc1 {
(h3) -0.17/17 49} Ra6 {(h3) -0.74/16 75} 40. R5e2 {(Bg5) -0.15/16 49} Kf7 {
(Rh5) -0.71/17 75} 41. Bf4 {(Bg5) -0.15/17 202} h3 {(Rh5) -0.89/15 21} 42. Be5
{-0.25/17 77} Rh5 {-0.85/15 26} 43. g3 {(gxh3) -0.43/17 80} Qd8 {
(Qc6) -0.99/15 113} 44. Rc2 {(Rf1) -0.13/17 100} Rb6 {-0.97/17 60} 45. Qe2 {
(Bf4) -0.33/18 105} Qc8 {-1.01/15 15} 46. Rf1 {-0.25/19 85} Kg8 {
(Qb7) -1.01/18 110} 47. Rcc1 {(Qe1) -0.19/19 68} Kh7 {(Qc6) -1.02/16 56} 48.
Rf3 {(Rf2) 0.00/20 87} Qb7 {(Qc6) -0.91/18 86} 49. Rf2 {0.00/19 82} Qa6 {
(Qc8) -0.91/17 28} 50. Rf3 {0.00/19 78} Qa3 {-0.75/17 87} 51. Rc2 {0.00/20 78}
Qa4 {(Qe7) -0.55/17 72} 52. Rc1 {0.00/19 60} Kg8 {(Qa3) -0.56/17 82} 53. g4 {
-0.17/18 62}
[d]
After alot of manuvering, glaurung invests another pawn in the attack (not a true pawn sac since no way that black can hold the pawn if he takes it)
Rh4 {(Qa3) -0.61/16 53} 54. Rg3 {0.33/17 50} Kf7 {
(Qc6) -0.61/15 15} 55. Qd2 {(Rf1) 0.00/17 92} Qd7 {(Rxg4) -0.61/17 66} 56. Rf1
{0.00/17 57} Ke8 {-0.61/16 28} 57. Qg5 {(Qe2) 0.00/17 50} Qh7 {-0.70/13 16} 58.
Qd2 {(gxf5) 0.00/18 51} Kd8 {(Qd7) -0.54/16 207} 59. gxf5 {(Qf2) 0.00/18 49}
gxf5 {(exf5) -0.37/18 114} 60. Qg5+ {(Qe2) -0.49/16 105}
[d]
This is the first time glaurung thinks it might have a bit of a disadvantage, at move 60. Rybka started having negative scores for glaurung back at move 24.
Ke8 {(Kc8) -1.09/17 57
} 61. Qc1 {(Qg8+) -0.35/17 33} Rh6 {-1.06/17 51} 62. Qc2 {-0.29/17 28} Rg6 {
(Kd8) -1.29/17 54} 63. Rff3 {-0.49/17 30} Rxg3+ {-1.67/16 25} 64. Rxg3 {
-1.68/18 37} Kf8 {-1.56/16 0}
[d]
This is the point that both engines think black has a winning position. I am having trouble finding the exact moment when glaurung's position went so downhill.
65. Bg7+ {(Kf2) -1.94/17 30} Kf7 {-1.96/15 0} 66.
Be5 {-3.13/18 59} Qh4 {-3.15/16 32} 67. Qc1 {-3.64/17 33} Qe4 {-3.64/17 14} 68.
[d]
the black queen gets behind white pawns, the rook is coming in on the b file, it is all over...
Kf2 {-3.50/18 46} Rb1 {-3.88/17 9} 69. Qd2 {-4.33/18 35} f4 {-4.32/17 14} 70.
Rg7+ {-5.27/19 38} Kf8 {-3.91/16 0} 71. Rg4 {-5.84/19 45} Rf1+ {-4.77/16 28}
[d]
Here is a nice tactic that finishes glaurung off. Black's queen will capture the key c3 pawn
72. Kxf1 {-3.00/6 0} Ne3+ {-5.00/17 18} 73. Qxe3 {-6.25/20 52} Qxe3 {
-5.00/19 182} 74. Rxf4+ {-6.33/20 70} Ke7 {-5.24/18 167} 75. Bf6+ {
(Rh4) -6.39/19 49} Ke8 {-4.53/16 0} 76. Be5 {-6.58/20 37} Qxc3 {-5.48/15 33}
77. Kf2 {-6.58/19 43} Qb2+ {-5.65/16 62} 78. Kg3 {-7.19/19 35} c3 {-5.76/17 145
} 0-1
[d]
It would not be rybka if it did not win with a passed pawn. Here is that C pawn ghallagher recomends you trade for the d pawn in order to have a pawn majority in the centre:)
full game below. Any comments at where glaurung went wrong? Was it a series of subtle mistakes? was the pawn sac a bad idea?
[Event "H40'/40+40'/40+40'"]
[Site ""]
[Date "2008.05.17"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Glaurung 2.1"]
[Black "Rybka 2.3.2a mp 32-bit"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B17"]
[Annotator "0.98;0.15"]
[PlyCount "156"]
[TimeControl "40/2400:40/2400:2400"]
{Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz 2161 MHz W=18.5 ply; 1,210kN/
s B=16.9 ply; 107kN/s} 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Ng5 Ngf6
6. Bd3 e6 7. N1f3 Bd6 8. Qe2 h6 9. Ne4 Nxe4 10. Qxe4 Qc7 11. Qg4 Kf8 12. O-O c5
{Both last book move} 13. Qh4 {0.98/18 211} Kg8 {(b6) 0.15/17 106} 14. c3 {
(Re1) 0.76/18 136} c4 {(b6) 0.15/17 33} 15. Bc2 {1.00/19 72} b6 {0.12/16 22}
16. Qh3 {(Nd2) 0.98/19 110} Bb7 {0.09/15 33} 17. Re1 {(Nd2) 0.96/19 107} Rc8 {
(Rd8) 0.10/15 66} 18. Kh1 {(Nd2) 0.90/17 81} Bd5 {(Rd8) 0.00/14 32} 19. Re2 {
(Kg1) 0.86/17 94} g6 {(b5) 0.00/15 120} 20. Bd2 {0.88/18 79} Kg7 {0.05/16 98}
21. Rae1 {0.68/18 122} Rcd8 {0.00/16 220} 22. Bc1 {(b4) 0.66/18 136} Bb7 {
(Bf4) 0.00/16 29} 23. Bb1 {(Qh4) 0.66/17 66} Bd5 {0.00/17 240} 24. Be4 {
(Bc2) 0.62/18 97} Bxe4 {-0.13/15 69} 25. Rxe4 {0.54/16 14} Nf6 {
(g5) -0.13/17 290} 26. R4e2 {0.74/18 66} b5 {(Qc8) -0.07/16 63} 27. Kg1 {
(Ne5) 0.56/18 156} b4 {-0.21/16 40} 28. Ne5 {0.45/17 51} Nd5 {-0.21/16 70} 29.
f4 {(cxb4) 0.31/17 62} bxc3 {(Rb8) -0.32/15 95} 30. bxc3 {0.29/17 51} Rb8 {
-0.35/15 24} 31. Rf1 {(Qg3) 0.31/17 69} h5 {(Rb1) -0.37/15 65} 32. Qg3 {
0.23/16 69} Rb6 {(Rhd8) -0.38/15 92} 33. f5 {(Rfe1) 0.27/16 55} h4 {-0.34/17 57
} 34. f6+ {0.03/16 46} Nxf6 {(Kg8) -0.30/18 37} 35. Qf3 {(Qg5) 0.00/18 85} Bxe5
{-0.65/15 23} 36. Rxe5 {0.00/18 73} Nd5 {-0.68/15 23} 37. Bg5 {-0.01/18 73} f5
{-0.68/14 24} 38. Rfe1 {(h3) 0.00/18 73} Qd7 {-0.69/15 20} 39. Bc1 {
(h3) -0.17/17 49} Ra6 {(h3) -0.74/16 75} 40. R5e2 {(Bg5) -0.15/16 49} Kf7 {
(Rh5) -0.71/17 75} 41. Bf4 {(Bg5) -0.15/17 202} h3 {(Rh5) -0.89/15 21} 42. Be5
{-0.25/17 77} Rh5 {-0.85/15 26} 43. g3 {(gxh3) -0.43/17 80} Qd8 {
(Qc6) -0.99/15 113} 44. Rc2 {(Rf1) -0.13/17 100} Rb6 {-0.97/17 60} 45. Qe2 {
(Bf4) -0.33/18 105} Qc8 {-1.01/15 15} 46. Rf1 {-0.25/19 85} Kg8 {
(Qb7) -1.01/18 110} 47. Rcc1 {(Qe1) -0.19/19 68} Kh7 {(Qc6) -1.02/16 56} 48.
Rf3 {(Rf2) 0.00/20 87} Qb7 {(Qc6) -0.91/18 86} 49. Rf2 {0.00/19 82} Qa6 {
(Qc8) -0.91/17 28} 50. Rf3 {0.00/19 78} Qa3 {-0.75/17 87} 51. Rc2 {0.00/20 78}
Qa4 {(Qe7) -0.55/17 72} 52. Rc1 {0.00/19 60} Kg8 {(Qa3) -0.56/17 82} 53. g4 {
-0.17/18 62} Rh4 {(Qa3) -0.61/16 53} 54. Rg3 {0.33/17 50} Kf7 {
(Qc6) -0.61/15 15} 55. Qd2 {(Rf1) 0.00/17 92} Qd7 {(Rxg4) -0.61/17 66} 56. Rf1
{0.00/17 57} Ke8 {-0.61/16 28} 57. Qg5 {(Qe2) 0.00/17 50} Qh7 {-0.70/13 16} 58.
Qd2 {(gxf5) 0.00/18 51} Kd8 {(Qd7) -0.54/16 207} 59. gxf5 {(Qf2) 0.00/18 49}
gxf5 {(exf5) -0.37/18 114} 60. Qg5+ {(Qe2) -0.49/16 105} Ke8 {(Kc8) -1.09/17 57
} 61. Qc1 {(Qg8+) -0.35/17 33} Rh6 {-1.06/17 51} 62. Qc2 {-0.29/17 28} Rg6 {
(Kd8) -1.29/17 54} 63. Rff3 {-0.49/17 30} Rxg3+ {-1.67/16 25} 64. Rxg3 {
-1.68/18 37} Kf8 {-1.56/16 0} 65. Bg7+ {(Kf2) -1.94/17 30} Kf7 {-1.96/15 0} 66.
Be5 {-3.13/18 59} Qh4 {-3.15/16 32} 67. Qc1 {-3.64/17 33} Qe4 {-3.64/17 14} 68.
Kf2 {-3.50/18 46} Rb1 {-3.88/17 9} 69. Qd2 {-4.33/18 35} f4 {-4.32/17 14} 70.
Rg7+ {-5.27/19 38} Kf8 {-3.91/16 0} 71. Rg4 {-5.84/19 45} Rf1+ {-4.77/16 28}
72. Kxf1 {-3.00/6 0} Ne3+ {-5.00/17 18} 73. Qxe3 {-6.25/20 52} Qxe3 {
-5.00/19 182} 74. Rxf4+ {-6.33/20 70} Ke7 {-5.24/18 167} 75. Bf6+ {
(Rh4) -6.39/19 49} Ke8 {-4.53/16 0} 76. Be5 {-6.58/20 37} Qxc3 {-5.48/15 33}
77. Kf2 {-6.58/19 43} Qb2+ {-5.65/16 62} 78. Kg3 {-7.19/19 35} c3 {-5.76/17 145
} 0-1
Here is the game, with comments. ( copy the game intact at the bottom if you want to play through it)
[Event "HBS-HZMDN1S, 40'/40+40'/40+40'"]
[Site "University of Wollongong"]
[Date "2008.05.17"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Glaurung 2.1"]
[Black "Rybka 2.3.2a mp 32-bit"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B17"]
[Annotator "0.98;0.15"]
[PlyCount "156"]
[TimeControl "40/2400:40/2400:2400"]
{Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz 2161 MHz W=18.5 ply; 1,210kN/
s B=16.9 ply; 107kN/s} 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Ng5 Ngf6
6. Bd3 e6 7. N1f3 Bd6 8. Qe2 h6 9. Ne4 Nxe4 10. Qxe4 Qc7 11. Qg4 Kf8 12. O-O c5
{Both last book move} 13. Qh4 {0.98/18 211}
[d]
r1b2k1r/ppqn1pp1/3bp2p/2p5/3P3Q/3B1N2/PPP2PPP/R1B2RK1 b - - 0 13
[d]Glaurung thinks it is winning, rybka thinks the position is equal. This evaluation difference will exist for a number of moves.
Kg8 {(b6) 0.15/17 106} 14. c3 {
(Re1) 0.76/18 136} c4 {(b6) 0.15/17 33}
[d]
r1b3kr/ppqn1pp1/3bp2p/8/2pP3Q/2PB1N2/PP3PPP/R1B2RK1 w - - 0 15
[d]So much for gallaghar suggestion that black exchange the c pawn and thereby obtain a central pawn majority. rybka seems to prefer to take space and cramp white if possible
15. Bc2 {1.00/19 72} b6 {0.12/16 22}
16. Qh3 {(Nd2) 0.98/19 110} Bb7 {0.09/15 33} 17. Re1 {(Nd2) 0.96/19 107} Rc8 {
(Rd8) 0.10/15 66} 18. Kh1 {(Nd2) 0.90/17 81} Bd5 {(Rd8) 0.00/14 32} 19. Re2 {
(Kg1) 0.86/17 94} g6 {(b5) 0.00/15 120} 20. Bd2 {0.88/18 79} Kg7 {0.05/16 98}
21. Rae1 {0.68/18 122} Rcd8 {0.00/16 220} 22. Bc1 {(b4) 0.66/18 136} Bb7 {
(Bf4) 0.00/16 29} 23. Bb1 {(Qh4) 0.66/17 66} Bd5 {0.00/17 240}
[d]
3r3r/p1qn1pk1/1p1bp1pp/3b4/2pP4/2P2N1Q/PP2RPPP/1BB1R2K w - - 0 24
[d]Rybka sees equality, but glaurung still thinks it has an advantage.
24. Be4 {
(Bc2) 0.62/18 97} Bxe4 {-0.13/15 69} 25. Rxe4 {0.54/16 14} Nf6 {
(g5) -0.13/17 290} 26. R4e2 {0.74/18 66} b5 {(Qc8) -0.07/16 63} 27. Kg1 {
(Ne5) 0.56/18 156} b4 {-0.21/16 40} 28. Ne5 {0.45/17 51} Nd5 {-0.21/16 70} 29.
f4 {(cxb4) 0.31/17 62} bxc3 {(Rb8) -0.32/15 95} 30. bxc3 {0.29/17 51} Rb8 {
-0.35/15 24} 31. Rf1 {(Qg3) 0.31/17 69} h5 {(Rb1) -0.37/15 65} 32. Qg3 {
0.23/16 69} Rb6 {(Rhd8) -0.38/15 92} 33. f5 {(Rfe1) 0.27/16 55}
[d]
7r/p1q2pk1/1r1bp1p1/3nNP1p/2pP4/2P3Q1/P3R1PP/2B2RK1 b - - 0 33
[d]Glaurung, the mad-dog attacker, has been patient up to this point, but finally decides to sac a pawn and open things up on the f file. Does he get enough?
h4 {-0.34/17 57
} 34. f6+ {0.03/16 46} Nxf6 {(Kg8) -0.30/18 37} 35. Qf3 {(Qg5) 0.00/18 85} Bxe5
{-0.65/15 23} 36. Rxe5 {0.00/18 73} Nd5 {-0.68/15 23}
[d]
7r/p1q2pk1/1r2p1p1/3nR3/2pP3p/2P2Q2/P5PP/2B2RK1 w - - 0 37
[d]now glaurung thinks it has full compensation for the pawn and the position is equal, wheras rybka thinks it has a -.68 advantage (which is a big advantage in rybkas conservative evalution numbers)
37. Bg5 {-0.01/18 73} f5
{-0.68/14 24} 38. Rfe1 {(h3) 0.00/18 73} Qd7 {-0.69/15 20} 39. Bc1 {
(h3) -0.17/17 49} Ra6 {(h3) -0.74/16 75} 40. R5e2 {(Bg5) -0.15/16 49} Kf7 {
(Rh5) -0.71/17 75} 41. Bf4 {(Bg5) -0.15/17 202} h3 {(Rh5) -0.89/15 21} 42. Be5
{-0.25/17 77} Rh5 {-0.85/15 26} 43. g3 {(gxh3) -0.43/17 80} Qd8 {
(Qc6) -0.99/15 113} 44. Rc2 {(Rf1) -0.13/17 100} Rb6 {-0.97/17 60} 45. Qe2 {
(Bf4) -0.33/18 105} Qc8 {-1.01/15 15} 46. Rf1 {-0.25/19 85} Kg8 {
(Qb7) -1.01/18 110} 47. Rcc1 {(Qe1) -0.19/19 68} Kh7 {(Qc6) -1.02/16 56} 48.
Rf3 {(Rf2) 0.00/20 87} Qb7 {(Qc6) -0.91/18 86} 49. Rf2 {0.00/19 82} Qa6 {
(Qc8) -0.91/17 28} 50. Rf3 {0.00/19 78} Qa3 {-0.75/17 87} 51. Rc2 {0.00/20 78}
Qa4 {(Qe7) -0.55/17 72} 52. Rc1 {0.00/19 60} Kg8 {(Qa3) -0.56/17 82} 53. g4 {
-0.17/18 62}
[d]
6k1/p7/1r2p1p1/3nBp1r/q1pP2P1/2P2R1p/P3Q2P/2R3K1 b - - 0 53
[d]After alot of manuvering, glaurung invests another pawn in the attack (not a true pawn sac since no way that black can hold the pawn if he takes it)
Rh4 {(Qa3) -0.61/16 53} 54. Rg3 {0.33/17 50} Kf7 {
(Qc6) -0.61/15 15} 55. Qd2 {(Rf1) 0.00/17 92} Qd7 {(Rxg4) -0.61/17 66} 56. Rf1
{0.00/17 57} Ke8 {-0.61/16 28} 57. Qg5 {(Qe2) 0.00/17 50} Qh7 {-0.70/13 16} 58.
Qd2 {(gxf5) 0.00/18 51} Kd8 {(Qd7) -0.54/16 207} 59. gxf5 {(Qf2) 0.00/18 49}
gxf5 {(exf5) -0.37/18 114} 60. Qg5+ {(Qe2) -0.49/16 105}
[d]
3k4/p6q/1r2p3/3nBp2/2pP3r/2P3Rp/P2Q3P/5RK1 w - - 0 60
[d]This is the first time glaurung thinks it might have a bit of a disadvantage, at move 60. Rybka started having negative scores for glaurung back at move 24.
Ke8 {(Kc8) -1.09/17 57
} 61. Qc1 {(Qg8+) -0.35/17 33} Rh6 {-1.06/17 51} 62. Qc2 {-0.29/17 28} Rg6 {
(Kd8) -1.29/17 54} 63. Rff3 {-0.49/17 30} Rxg3+ {-1.67/16 25} 64. Rxg3 {
-1.68/18 37} Kf8 {-1.56/16 0}
[d]
4k3/p6q/1r2p3/3nBp2/2pP4/2P3Rp/P1Q4P/6K1 b - - 0 64
[d]This is the point that both engines think black has a winning position. I am having trouble finding the exact moment when glaurung's position went so downhill.
65. Bg7+ {(Kf2) -1.94/17 30} Kf7 {-1.96/15 0} 66.
Be5 {-3.13/18 59} Qh4 {-3.15/16 32} 67. Qc1 {-3.64/17 33} Qe4 {-3.64/17 14} 68.
[d]
8/p4k2/1r2p3/3nBp2/2pPq3/2P3Rp/P6P/2Q3K1 w - - 0 68
[d]the black queen gets behind white pawns, the rook is coming in on the b file, it is all over...
Kf2 {-3.50/18 46} Rb1 {-3.88/17 9} 69. Qd2 {-4.33/18 35} f4 {-4.32/17 14} 70.
Rg7+ {-5.27/19 38} Kf8 {-3.91/16 0} 71. Rg4 {-5.84/19 45} Rf1+ {-4.77/16 28}
[d]
5k2/p7/4p3/3nB3/2pPqpR1/2P4p/P2Q1K1P/5r2 w - - 0 72
[d]Here is a nice tactic that finishes glaurung off. Black's queen will capture the key c3 pawn
72. Kxf1 {-3.00/6 0} Ne3+ {-5.00/17 18} 73. Qxe3 {-6.25/20 52} Qxe3 {
-5.00/19 182} 74. Rxf4+ {-6.33/20 70} Ke7 {-5.24/18 167} 75. Bf6+ {
(Rh4) -6.39/19 49} Ke8 {-4.53/16 0} 76. Be5 {-6.58/20 37} Qxc3 {-5.48/15 33}
77. Kf2 {-6.58/19 43} Qb2+ {-5.65/16 62} 78. Kg3 {-7.19/19 35} c3 {-5.76/17 145
} 0-1
[d]
4k3/p7/4p3/4B3/3P1R2/2p3Kp/Pq5P/8 w - - 0 79
[d]It would not be rybka if it did not win with a passed pawn. Here is that C pawn ghallagher recomends you trade for the d pawn in order to have a pawn majority in the centre:)
full game below. Any comments at where glaurung went wrong? Was it a series of subtle mistakes? was the pawn sac a bad idea?
[Event "H40'/40+40'/40+40'"]
[Site ""]
[Date "2008.05.17"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Glaurung 2.1"]
[Black "Rybka 2.3.2a mp 32-bit"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B17"]
[Annotator "0.98;0.15"]
[PlyCount "156"]
[TimeControl "40/2400:40/2400:2400"]
{Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz 2161 MHz W=18.5 ply; 1,210kN/
s B=16.9 ply; 107kN/s} 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Ng5 Ngf6
6. Bd3 e6 7. N1f3 Bd6 8. Qe2 h6 9. Ne4 Nxe4 10. Qxe4 Qc7 11. Qg4 Kf8 12. O-O c5
{Both last book move} 13. Qh4 {0.98/18 211} Kg8 {(b6) 0.15/17 106} 14. c3 {
(Re1) 0.76/18 136} c4 {(b6) 0.15/17 33} 15. Bc2 {1.00/19 72} b6 {0.12/16 22}
16. Qh3 {(Nd2) 0.98/19 110} Bb7 {0.09/15 33} 17. Re1 {(Nd2) 0.96/19 107} Rc8 {
(Rd8) 0.10/15 66} 18. Kh1 {(Nd2) 0.90/17 81} Bd5 {(Rd8) 0.00/14 32} 19. Re2 {
(Kg1) 0.86/17 94} g6 {(b5) 0.00/15 120} 20. Bd2 {0.88/18 79} Kg7 {0.05/16 98}
21. Rae1 {0.68/18 122} Rcd8 {0.00/16 220} 22. Bc1 {(b4) 0.66/18 136} Bb7 {
(Bf4) 0.00/16 29} 23. Bb1 {(Qh4) 0.66/17 66} Bd5 {0.00/17 240} 24. Be4 {
(Bc2) 0.62/18 97} Bxe4 {-0.13/15 69} 25. Rxe4 {0.54/16 14} Nf6 {
(g5) -0.13/17 290} 26. R4e2 {0.74/18 66} b5 {(Qc8) -0.07/16 63} 27. Kg1 {
(Ne5) 0.56/18 156} b4 {-0.21/16 40} 28. Ne5 {0.45/17 51} Nd5 {-0.21/16 70} 29.
f4 {(cxb4) 0.31/17 62} bxc3 {(Rb8) -0.32/15 95} 30. bxc3 {0.29/17 51} Rb8 {
-0.35/15 24} 31. Rf1 {(Qg3) 0.31/17 69} h5 {(Rb1) -0.37/15 65} 32. Qg3 {
0.23/16 69} Rb6 {(Rhd8) -0.38/15 92} 33. f5 {(Rfe1) 0.27/16 55} h4 {-0.34/17 57
} 34. f6+ {0.03/16 46} Nxf6 {(Kg8) -0.30/18 37} 35. Qf3 {(Qg5) 0.00/18 85} Bxe5
{-0.65/15 23} 36. Rxe5 {0.00/18 73} Nd5 {-0.68/15 23} 37. Bg5 {-0.01/18 73} f5
{-0.68/14 24} 38. Rfe1 {(h3) 0.00/18 73} Qd7 {-0.69/15 20} 39. Bc1 {
(h3) -0.17/17 49} Ra6 {(h3) -0.74/16 75} 40. R5e2 {(Bg5) -0.15/16 49} Kf7 {
(Rh5) -0.71/17 75} 41. Bf4 {(Bg5) -0.15/17 202} h3 {(Rh5) -0.89/15 21} 42. Be5
{-0.25/17 77} Rh5 {-0.85/15 26} 43. g3 {(gxh3) -0.43/17 80} Qd8 {
(Qc6) -0.99/15 113} 44. Rc2 {(Rf1) -0.13/17 100} Rb6 {-0.97/17 60} 45. Qe2 {
(Bf4) -0.33/18 105} Qc8 {-1.01/15 15} 46. Rf1 {-0.25/19 85} Kg8 {
(Qb7) -1.01/18 110} 47. Rcc1 {(Qe1) -0.19/19 68} Kh7 {(Qc6) -1.02/16 56} 48.
Rf3 {(Rf2) 0.00/20 87} Qb7 {(Qc6) -0.91/18 86} 49. Rf2 {0.00/19 82} Qa6 {
(Qc8) -0.91/17 28} 50. Rf3 {0.00/19 78} Qa3 {-0.75/17 87} 51. Rc2 {0.00/20 78}
Qa4 {(Qe7) -0.55/17 72} 52. Rc1 {0.00/19 60} Kg8 {(Qa3) -0.56/17 82} 53. g4 {
-0.17/18 62} Rh4 {(Qa3) -0.61/16 53} 54. Rg3 {0.33/17 50} Kf7 {
(Qc6) -0.61/15 15} 55. Qd2 {(Rf1) 0.00/17 92} Qd7 {(Rxg4) -0.61/17 66} 56. Rf1
{0.00/17 57} Ke8 {-0.61/16 28} 57. Qg5 {(Qe2) 0.00/17 50} Qh7 {-0.70/13 16} 58.
Qd2 {(gxf5) 0.00/18 51} Kd8 {(Qd7) -0.54/16 207} 59. gxf5 {(Qf2) 0.00/18 49}
gxf5 {(exf5) -0.37/18 114} 60. Qg5+ {(Qe2) -0.49/16 105} Ke8 {(Kc8) -1.09/17 57
} 61. Qc1 {(Qg8+) -0.35/17 33} Rh6 {-1.06/17 51} 62. Qc2 {-0.29/17 28} Rg6 {
(Kd8) -1.29/17 54} 63. Rff3 {-0.49/17 30} Rxg3+ {-1.67/16 25} 64. Rxg3 {
-1.68/18 37} Kf8 {-1.56/16 0} 65. Bg7+ {(Kf2) -1.94/17 30} Kf7 {-1.96/15 0} 66.
Be5 {-3.13/18 59} Qh4 {-3.15/16 32} 67. Qc1 {-3.64/17 33} Qe4 {-3.64/17 14} 68.
Kf2 {-3.50/18 46} Rb1 {-3.88/17 9} 69. Qd2 {-4.33/18 35} f4 {-4.32/17 14} 70.
Rg7+ {-5.27/19 38} Kf8 {-3.91/16 0} 71. Rg4 {-5.84/19 45} Rf1+ {-4.77/16 28}
72. Kxf1 {-3.00/6 0} Ne3+ {-5.00/17 18} 73. Qxe3 {-6.25/20 52} Qxe3 {
-5.00/19 182} 74. Rxf4+ {-6.33/20 70} Ke7 {-5.24/18 167} 75. Bf6+ {
(Rh4) -6.39/19 49} Ke8 {-4.53/16 0} 76. Be5 {-6.58/20 37} Qxc3 {-5.48/15 33}
77. Kf2 {-6.58/19 43} Qb2+ {-5.65/16 62} 78. Kg3 {-7.19/19 35} c3 {-5.76/17 145
} 0-1
> Do engines typically give a bonus for a central pawn majority? Does rybka?
Yes, but not enough. This is why engines (Rybka included) typically overestimate the white positions in open Sicilians.
Vas
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
One important factor in this position (to my mind) which has not yet been mentioned is the peculiar position of white's queen, which is only properly placed if white gets an attack. But there isn't really an attack for white here (one of the reasons being black's 'bad rook', by the way, which can even become active in case that black plays g5 and or h5 at some point).
Besides, connected rooks are much less important in closed positions.
Besides, connected rooks are much less important in closed positions.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill