![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
I just played a very long game between Rybka 4 and Zappa Mexico II. I thought 5 Nh3 for Zappa didn't make much sense, but it played well after then, and I thought it could hold the Queen and Knight endgame. Both evals agreed with me for a while, then Rybka went on to win. What was the final blunder? At what point was this a forced win for Rybka?
Conditions:
G - 12 Hours + 30 seconds increment per move. 1 Gig of Hash Each. I7-920 - Stock Speed at 2.67 GHZ (I need a good waterblock to go back to overclocking)
Gui - Aquarium
Starting Position:
Conditions:
G - 12 Hours + 30 seconds increment per move. 1 Gig of Hash Each. I7-920 - Stock Speed at 2.67 GHZ (I need a good waterblock to go back to overclocking)
Gui - Aquarium
Starting Position:
rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/4pn2/4P3/2Pp4/2N5/PP1P1PPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
Attachment: 072010.pgn (16k)
Maybe 21. g4?!
18. Nf2 is suspect, seems like white took too long to play f4, and needed to place greater importance on the center squares. If you look at the position after 23...Qxd8 you can see that black has the advantage, and a substantial part of that is black's central control. How did white lose the center so quickly? The answer to that is probably where the "blunder" is.
Also the engine I am looking at this (superficially) with insists on 16. fxe4 as opposed to Qxe4, but that one I don't understand. Probably I don't understand any of this anyways.
18. Nf2 is suspect, seems like white took too long to play f4, and needed to place greater importance on the center squares. If you look at the position after 23...Qxd8 you can see that black has the advantage, and a substantial part of that is black's central control. How did white lose the center so quickly? The answer to that is probably where the "blunder" is.
Also the engine I am looking at this (superficially) with insists on 16. fxe4 as opposed to Qxe4, but that one I don't understand. Probably I don't understand any of this anyways.
21. g4 dosen't look great to me either. I'll look at this more later.
We all get spoiled by Rybka's good evals, but we somethimes forget that Vas is an IM. While many other engine authors, such as Mr Cozzie are just as Brilliant, or perhaps more brilliant than Vas, Vas's chess strength clearly shows in Rybka.
I'll repeat my sentiment from past posts, and state that Zappa Mexico II is my 2nd favorite engine, but play enough games against Rybka 4, and you will understand why Rybka is #1!
I played the long game (G 12 Hours + 30 second increments) between the engines, in order to give Zappa the best chances, as Zappa does better with more time. Rybka also performs well with a lot of time!! When I have a chance, I'll play a 2nd game from the samke position, giving Rybka the white pieces. Before I do this, I'm going to give Zappa the position before it's 5th, 18yh and 21st moves, in infinite analysis, to see if given enough time and plies, it will vary.
We all get spoiled by Rybka's good evals, but we somethimes forget that Vas is an IM. While many other engine authors, such as Mr Cozzie are just as Brilliant, or perhaps more brilliant than Vas, Vas's chess strength clearly shows in Rybka.
I'll repeat my sentiment from past posts, and state that Zappa Mexico II is my 2nd favorite engine, but play enough games against Rybka 4, and you will understand why Rybka is #1!
I played the long game (G 12 Hours + 30 second increments) between the engines, in order to give Zappa the best chances, as Zappa does better with more time. Rybka also performs well with a lot of time!! When I have a chance, I'll play a 2nd game from the samke position, giving Rybka the white pieces. Before I do this, I'm going to give Zappa the position before it's 5th, 18yh and 21st moves, in infinite analysis, to see if given enough time and plies, it will vary.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
I suspect that fxe4 is preferred because it 1) increases central control and 2) exposes the backward black f-pawn, and presuambly these points outwiegh the isolating of the white pawn - i.e more on positional evaluation terms rather than tactical issues.
It is interesting to note that in the Q+N ending one of white's problems is the h7-b1 diagonal. Eg if white plays Qxh4 black repsonds with Qg6 and kills white in short order. This tactical problem would not have occured after fxe4 instead of Qxe4, but I doubt the engines saw that far enough ahead in recommending fxe4.
It is interesting to note that in the Q+N ending one of white's problems is the h7-b1 diagonal. Eg if white plays Qxh4 black repsonds with Qg6 and kills white in short order. This tactical problem would not have occured after fxe4 instead of Qxe4, but I doubt the engines saw that far enough ahead in recommending fxe4.
In an opening I wouldn't play even at a coffee house, black lost this game with 3...Nf6 (Assuming I have the move sequence or position correct)
The sequence goes:
1 c4 Nf6
2 Nc3 e6
3 e4 d5
4 e5 d4
This should lead to an even game.
1 c4 Nf6
2 Nc3 e6
3 e4 d5
4 e5 d4
This should lead to an even game.
Hmmmm.... the opening lost for black, the opening give an equal game.
I am not sure either of these views is right. I used to play this occasionally as black a few decades ago. Theory at the time held that white had a sizeable advantage but no clear win. White scores 58% in this opening, more in the main line, according to my Chessbase DB. Most of the games are in the last 10 years so the old opinion looks about right, though doubtless thoery has moved on. I would certainly agree that it is shakey for black.
Of course there is also a mnior flaw in the "lost for black" opinion - black won ! :)
I spent a long time yesterday looking a this interesting game and one position in particular, first unaided, then with long (2 hour albeit on relatively puny hardware) analsysis of a critical position followed by interactive analysis with S9 and R3.
Unaided, I felt that the position should be tenable if white had played 31. Kb2 instead of 31. bxa4. R3 and S9 both slightly preferred this to bxa4. As I analysed more deeply using the engines I became less convinced that the position was tenable after Kb2. I analysed what I felt was the best holding line for white through to a loss. I could reach positions several moves on with -0.6 evals but they looked pretty awful to me (i.e much worse than -0.6) and I had analysed some similar positions through to losses.
I think it would take me many more hours, possibly days, of work to feel sure one way or the other about the position after 31 Kb2.
I am also not sure the position is lost after bxa4. This is a really hard position for a human to analyse - the engines willl be way better at crunching that one. All I can say is that as a human I would be deeply suspiscious of bxa4. OTB, and assuming I was on reasonably good form, I would have found some of black's tactical motifs after bxa4 and rejected it as far too dangerous.
29 h3 appears to be a poor move. It clearly strengthens the K-sisde structure in a general way but achieves very little in the short term. Given that white is facing serious tactical problems after a5 a4, h3 was probably a waste of time that white cannot afford. Perhaps the position is OK for white if he plays b3 instead of h3, though I have not analysed this.
But the bottom line is that I can't answer your original question Dragon49. Even a very strong GM might struggle with that one :)
BTW, I found R4's play in this endgame very impressive. In the thread on endgames that R4 plays badly we have had still more examples of where it evaluates endgames poorly and still very few of where it plays badly. I am beginning to think it plays endings really well. In the absence of remote Rybka appearing, or even any update on it, I might have to resort to buying R4 (instead rather than as well as renting, just in case you are reading this Vas!).
I am not sure either of these views is right. I used to play this occasionally as black a few decades ago. Theory at the time held that white had a sizeable advantage but no clear win. White scores 58% in this opening, more in the main line, according to my Chessbase DB. Most of the games are in the last 10 years so the old opinion looks about right, though doubtless thoery has moved on. I would certainly agree that it is shakey for black.
Of course there is also a mnior flaw in the "lost for black" opinion - black won ! :)
I spent a long time yesterday looking a this interesting game and one position in particular, first unaided, then with long (2 hour albeit on relatively puny hardware) analsysis of a critical position followed by interactive analysis with S9 and R3.
Unaided, I felt that the position should be tenable if white had played 31. Kb2 instead of 31. bxa4. R3 and S9 both slightly preferred this to bxa4. As I analysed more deeply using the engines I became less convinced that the position was tenable after Kb2. I analysed what I felt was the best holding line for white through to a loss. I could reach positions several moves on with -0.6 evals but they looked pretty awful to me (i.e much worse than -0.6) and I had analysed some similar positions through to losses.
I think it would take me many more hours, possibly days, of work to feel sure one way or the other about the position after 31 Kb2.
I am also not sure the position is lost after bxa4. This is a really hard position for a human to analyse - the engines willl be way better at crunching that one. All I can say is that as a human I would be deeply suspiscious of bxa4. OTB, and assuming I was on reasonably good form, I would have found some of black's tactical motifs after bxa4 and rejected it as far too dangerous.
29 h3 appears to be a poor move. It clearly strengthens the K-sisde structure in a general way but achieves very little in the short term. Given that white is facing serious tactical problems after a5 a4, h3 was probably a waste of time that white cannot afford. Perhaps the position is OK for white if he plays b3 instead of h3, though I have not analysed this.
But the bottom line is that I can't answer your original question Dragon49. Even a very strong GM might struggle with that one :)
BTW, I found R4's play in this endgame very impressive. In the thread on endgames that R4 plays badly we have had still more examples of where it evaluates endgames poorly and still very few of where it plays badly. I am beginning to think it plays endings really well. In the absence of remote Rybka appearing, or even any update on it, I might have to resort to buying R4 (instead rather than as well as renting, just in case you are reading this Vas!).
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Mikenas-Variation or seldom called franco-indian opening; i use to play that way as to avoid normal Indian-variations or QGD.
My point of view: even 2.fxg7 is not the best, i allways play bxc3 as white, but this is human, Zappa´s continuation looks sound. Never seen that 5.Knight h3 line before. After move 68 it is tablebase game, no wonder of R4; Between move 20 to 50 R4 seems to provide more knowledge of position and dynamic process than Zappa, imho R4 takes over with strategic planning not by a single move.
max
My point of view: even 2.fxg7 is not the best, i allways play bxc3 as white, but this is human, Zappa´s continuation looks sound. Never seen that 5.Knight h3 line before. After move 68 it is tablebase game, no wonder of R4; Between move 20 to 50 R4 seems to provide more knowledge of position and dynamic process than Zappa, imho R4 takes over with strategic planning not by a single move.
max
My point is, in engine v engine play, it's silly to give white such a huge advantage after only four moves. There are so many better openings to chose from, like 2...e5.
The same can be said about the Queen's Pawn after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3, which works well at the coffeehouse, but will most often lose in engine v engine.
The same can be said about the Queen's Pawn after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3, which works well at the coffeehouse, but will most often lose in engine v engine.
I'll look at the lines mentioned in a bit. To be fair to Rybka, I'm going to play from the same starting position, this time, with Rybka having White - same time control and conditions. To the poster who suggested that Rybka played with a better strategical understanding in the endgame, I suspect it simply outsearched Zappa and the search advantage appeared strategical. This reminds me of a comment that somebody made (maybe Kasparov - I don't remember) after Deep Blue Beat Kasparov in a match. They said that Deep Blue searched so far ahead, that it passed the turing test, as it appeared to have a plan! In any event, this was a very pretty game by Rybka. I haven't looked at too many of the endgame play complaints on the board. The only endgame where I see misevals from Rybka, are where it has an extra pawn, however, one of its rooks is in front of the pawn, and the eval should be 0.00, however Rybka thinks the game is won. Weaker engines show evals much closer to 0.00. I don't have any other personal experience with bad endgame play or evals. Purchase Rybka, if you have not yet. In spite of some well publicized bugs, it is still by far the best engine available.
I'll post the next game and result when it is finished.
I'll post the next game and result when it is finished.
![[dk]](/mwf/v12/flags/dk.png "Denmark")
To me, it seems that the first "dubious" move was 15. Be4 (at least thats what preliminary R4 analysis says) so I'm running IDeA from move that move (including alternatives) and are gonna see what it leads to.
So far, it seems that there are many moves that were better than Be4. 15. Rhe1, 15. Rhf1, 15. b3, 15. Nf2 are all good alternatives, but it's hard to say if the game was lost from that position. I'm sure a draw could be reached by correct play, but it's a really complicated position, so I'll let it run overnight.
Edit: When i say "15. Be4" i obviously mean the 15th move from the first position in the game, since you didn't go from the starting position. It's actually the 19th move in the game.
So far, it seems that there are many moves that were better than Be4. 15. Rhe1, 15. Rhf1, 15. b3, 15. Nf2 are all good alternatives, but it's hard to say if the game was lost from that position. I'm sure a draw could be reached by correct play, but it's a really complicated position, so I'll let it run overnight.
Edit: When i say "15. Be4" i obviously mean the 15th move from the first position in the game, since you didn't go from the starting position. It's actually the 19th move in the game.
I keep analyzing this position from time to time. I saw some disagreements over Be4 as well. It's hard to believe that challenging + exchanging black's bishop here is bad; it appears to help control the center. Perhaps it is bad though because of the knight's far away position, and when things are exchanged black emerges as having better placed pieces for the purpose of central control.
I was surprised to see b3 come up in my own computer analysis, looks like a very interesting alternative.
I was surprised to see b3 come up in my own computer analysis, looks like a very interesting alternative.
I played from the same position,this time with Rybka having the White pieces. Rybka won this game as well. I don't have many comments as I haven't looked at it too much yet. While I was watching, I saw that Zappa did not expect White to avoid trading Queens with 7. Qc2. I wonder if this was due to some built in eval weights, telling Rybka that it would be needed in the future. Also, Zappa got the "problem" c8 bishop out, and moved it around in Rybka's queenside, however I'm not sure if it was ever ideally placed. If I figure out exactly when Rybka was won, I'll post it. Take a look. This should be fun to figure out!
Same conditions as the first game - see the first post in the thread:
Same conditions as the first game - see the first post in the thread:
Attachment: 0729.pgn (11k)
So i finally decided yesterday to get my lazy ass moving, and set up Aquarium for with 4 x Single Core Rybka 4 for IDeA analysis.
While it's clearly evident that 15. Be4 is the inferior move in the position (I'm busy doing more analysis on the in-between alternatives to see if they turn out really good or bad), a delta of 0.29 in those scores should definitely not be a gamebreaker. I'll be posting more analysis in a few days to see where else in the game Zappa went wrong.
Edit: Some further analysis on 15. b3 actually shows it at -0.15 rather than -0.22 as in the picture above. It's a much better move than anticipated. The variation goes:
...with the position being very equal. Notice how it still recommends white plays Be4, just waiting until after b3 (and this time, black doesn't take the bishop).
While it's clearly evident that 15. Be4 is the inferior move in the position (I'm busy doing more analysis on the in-between alternatives to see if they turn out really good or bad), a delta of 0.29 in those scores should definitely not be a gamebreaker. I'll be posting more analysis in a few days to see where else in the game Zappa went wrong.
Edit: Some further analysis on 15. b3 actually shows it at -0.15 rather than -0.22 as in the picture above. It's a much better move than anticipated. The variation goes:
15. b3 c5
16. Be4 Nd4
17. Bxd4 cxd4
18. Bxb7 Qxb7
19. Nf2...with the position being very equal. Notice how it still recommends white plays Be4, just waiting until after b3 (and this time, black doesn't take the bishop).
I'll look at the alternatives when I have a chance. I'm too busy having fun, playing the position with Rybka and other engines. I started a 2 game match against Naum 4.2. Rybka won the first game with Black. See:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=18389
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=18389
It takes a while, but Zappa finally realizes the 5 Nh3 is not best:
Analysis by Zappa Mexico II 64:
5.0-0-0 Qf6 6.Bc3 Qg5+ 7.Kb1 Nc5 8.Qb5+ c6
+/= (0.68) Depth: 9/32 00:00:00 593kN
5.0-0-0 Qf6 6.Bc3 Qg5+ 7.Kb1 Nc5 8.Qb5+
+/= (0.68) Depth: 9/32 00:00:00 839kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nh3 a4 7.Qg3 Bf6 8.Bg5 Bxg5+ 9.Qxg5 Qxg5+ 10.Nxg5
+/= (0.65) Depth: 10/32 00:00:01 2091kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nh3 a4 7.Qg3 Bf6 8.Bg5 Bxg5+ 9.Qxg5 Qxg5+ 10.Nxg5
+/= (0.65) Depth: 10/32 00:00:01 2704kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nh3 a4 7.Qg3 Rg8 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3
+/= (0.67) Depth: 11/32 00:00:01 3553kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nh3 a4 7.Qg3 Rg8 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3
+/= (0.67) Depth: 12/32 00:00:01 4081kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Bg5 a4 8.Qc2 f6 9.Bf4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 12/34 00:00:03 8297kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Bg5 a4 8.Qc2 f6 9.Bf4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 12/34 00:00:03 9975kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Bg5 a4 8.Qb5 c6 9.Bxe7 cxb5 10.Bd6 bxc4 11.Bxc4
+/- (0.73) Depth: 13/34 00:00:05 16491kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Bg5 a4 8.Qb5 c6 9.Bxe7 cxb5 10.Bd6 bxc4 11.Bxc4
+/- (0.73) Depth: 13/34 00:00:06 18034kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Qg3 Rg8 7.Kc2 Kf8 8.Bf4 Qf6 9.Qa3+ c5 10.Bd6+ Ke8 11.Nf3
+/= (0.67) Depth: 14/37 00:00:09 28810kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Qg3 Rg8 7.Kc2 Kf8 8.Bf4 Qf6 9.Qa3+ c5 10.Bd6+ Ke8 11.Nf3
+/= (0.67) Depth: 14/37 00:00:13 38997kN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Nf3 Nc5 7.Qe3 Qe7 8.Ne5 Bb7 9.Bb4 a5 10.Rd7 Qf6 11.Bxc5 Qxe5
+/= (0.59) Depth: 15/46 00:00:33 96375kN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Nf3 Nc5 7.Qe3 Qe7 8.Ne5 Bb7 9.Bb4 a5 10.Rd7 Qf6 11.Bxc5 Qxe5
+/= (0.59) Depth: 15/46 00:00:43 127mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Qf6 7.Bf3 Nc5 8.Qa3 Nd3+ 9.Kc2 Nxb2 10.Bc6+ Bd7 11.Bg5 Bxc6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6
+/= (0.52) Depth: 16/50 00:01:03 188mN
5.Nh3 a5 6.0-0-0 Qe7 7.Qg3 Rg8 8.Kb1 Qf6 9.Bc1 a4 10.Ng5 h6 11.Ne4
+/= (0.55) Depth: 16/50 00:01:43 314mN
5.Nh3 a5 6.0-0-0 Qe7 7.Qg3 Rg8 8.Kb1 Qf6 9.Bc1 a4 10.Ng5 h6 11.Ne4
+/= (0.55) Depth: 16/50 00:02:02 370mN
5.Nh3 Qf6 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 b6 8.Nf4 h5 9.Be3 Bb7 10.Rg1 Rd8 11.Be2 Qe5 12.Rxd8+ Kxd8
+/= (0.47) Depth: 17/53 00:03:54 707mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Bb7 7.Bf3 Bxf3 8.Nxf3 Nc5 9.Qb5+ Qd7 10.Qxd7+ Nxd7 11.Rhe1 h6 12.Kc2 0-0-0
+/= (0.60) Depth: 17/53 00:04:34 826mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Bb7 7.Bf3 Bxf3 8.Nxf3 Nc5 9.Qb5+ Qd7 10.Qxd7+ Nxd7 11.Rhe1 h6 12.Kc2 0-0-0
+/= (0.60) Depth: 17/53 00:04:51 878mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Nc5 7.Qc2 Qf6 8.Nf3 Bb7 9.Bg5 Bh6 10.h4 Bxg5+ 11.hxg5 Qf4+ 12.Qd2 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 0-0-0+ 14.Ke3 Rxd1 15.Rxd1
+/= (0.33) Depth: 18/55 00:07:20 1327mN
5.Nh3 Qf6 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 b6 8.Bf4 e5 9.Bg5 Bh6 10.Qe3 Bxg5 11.Nxg5 Bb7 12.Be2 0-0 13.Qg3
+/= (0.46) Depth: 18/55 00:08:33 1527mN
5.Nh3 Qf6 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 b6 8.Bf4 e5 9.Bg5 Bh6 10.Qe3 Bxg5 11.Nxg5 Bb7 12.Be2 0-0 13.Qg3
+/= (0.46) Depth: 18/55 00:11:02 1969mN
5.Nh3 Qe7 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qf3 0-0 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3 e5 10.Qd5+ Ne6 11.Bd3 f5 12.Qa5 Bd7 13.Bc2
+/= (0.40) Depth: 19/57 00:13:37 2429mN
5.Nh3 Qe7 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qf3 0-0 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3 e5 10.Qd5+ Ne6 11.Bd3 f5 12.Qa5 Bd7 13.Bc2
+/= (0.40) Depth: 19/57 00:20:16 3617mN
5.Nh3 Qe7 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 e5 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3 b6 10.Be2 0-0 11.Bf3 e4 12.Be2 Bb7 13.Nf4 Rfd8
+/= (0.42) Depth: 20/59 00:25:05 4484mN
5.Nh3 Qe7 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 e5 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3 b6 10.Be2 0-0 11.Bf3 e4 12.Be2 Bb7 13.Nf4 Rfd8
+/= (0.42) Depth: 20/59 00:32:30 5817mN
5.Nh3 Qe7 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 b6 8.Be2 Ne4 9.Qb3 Nxd2 10.Rxd2 Bd7 11.Qf3 0-0 12.Qg3 e5 13.Bg4 Bc6
+/= (0.29) Depth: 21/61 00:43:29 7788mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Nh3 Bb7 7.Bg5 f6 8.Bf4 e5 9.Be3 Qe7 10.Qa4 0-0-0 11.Qxa7 f5 12.Bg5 Bf6 13.Bxf6 Nxf6
+/= (0.40) Depth: 21/61 01:12:48 13107mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Nh3 Bb7 7.Bg5 f6 8.Bf4 e5 9.Be3 Qe7 10.Qa4 0-0-0 11.Qxa7 f5 12.Bg5 Bf6 13.Bxf6 Nxf6
+/= (0.40) Depth: 21/61 01:33:01 16773mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Nc5 7.Qc2 Qf6 8.Nf3 Qg6 9.Bf4 Qxc2+ 10.Kxc2 Bb7 11.Ne5 Bxg2 12.Rhg1 Be4+ 13.Kc1 Rg8 14.b4 Na4 15.Bd3 Nc3
= (0.25) Depth: 22/63 02:10:55 23746mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Nc5 7.Qc2 Qf6 8.Nf3 Qg6 9.Bf4 Qxc2+ 10.Kxc2 Bb7 11.Ne5 Bxg2 12.Rhg1 Be4+ 13.Kc1 Rg8 14.b4 Na4 15.Bd3 Nc3
= (0.25) Depth: 22/63 03:59:32 43628mN
r1bqk2r/pppn1pbp/4p3/8/2P5/1Q6/PP1B1PPP/R3KBNR w KQkq - 0 1
Analysis by Zappa Mexico II 64:
5.0-0-0 Qf6 6.Bc3 Qg5+ 7.Kb1 Nc5 8.Qb5+ c6
+/= (0.68) Depth: 9/32 00:00:00 593kN
5.0-0-0 Qf6 6.Bc3 Qg5+ 7.Kb1 Nc5 8.Qb5+
+/= (0.68) Depth: 9/32 00:00:00 839kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nh3 a4 7.Qg3 Bf6 8.Bg5 Bxg5+ 9.Qxg5 Qxg5+ 10.Nxg5
+/= (0.65) Depth: 10/32 00:00:01 2091kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nh3 a4 7.Qg3 Bf6 8.Bg5 Bxg5+ 9.Qxg5 Qxg5+ 10.Nxg5
+/= (0.65) Depth: 10/32 00:00:01 2704kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nh3 a4 7.Qg3 Rg8 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3
+/= (0.67) Depth: 11/32 00:00:01 3553kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nh3 a4 7.Qg3 Rg8 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3
+/= (0.67) Depth: 12/32 00:00:01 4081kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Bg5 a4 8.Qc2 f6 9.Bf4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 12/34 00:00:03 8297kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Bg5 a4 8.Qc2 f6 9.Bf4
+/= (0.64) Depth: 12/34 00:00:03 9975kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Bg5 a4 8.Qb5 c6 9.Bxe7 cxb5 10.Bd6 bxc4 11.Bxc4
+/- (0.73) Depth: 13/34 00:00:05 16491kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Nf3 Qe7 7.Bg5 a4 8.Qb5 c6 9.Bxe7 cxb5 10.Bd6 bxc4 11.Bxc4
+/- (0.73) Depth: 13/34 00:00:06 18034kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Qg3 Rg8 7.Kc2 Kf8 8.Bf4 Qf6 9.Qa3+ c5 10.Bd6+ Ke8 11.Nf3
+/= (0.67) Depth: 14/37 00:00:09 28810kN
5.0-0-0 a5 6.Qg3 Rg8 7.Kc2 Kf8 8.Bf4 Qf6 9.Qa3+ c5 10.Bd6+ Ke8 11.Nf3
+/= (0.67) Depth: 14/37 00:00:13 38997kN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Nf3 Nc5 7.Qe3 Qe7 8.Ne5 Bb7 9.Bb4 a5 10.Rd7 Qf6 11.Bxc5 Qxe5
+/= (0.59) Depth: 15/46 00:00:33 96375kN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Nf3 Nc5 7.Qe3 Qe7 8.Ne5 Bb7 9.Bb4 a5 10.Rd7 Qf6 11.Bxc5 Qxe5
+/= (0.59) Depth: 15/46 00:00:43 127mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Qf6 7.Bf3 Nc5 8.Qa3 Nd3+ 9.Kc2 Nxb2 10.Bc6+ Bd7 11.Bg5 Bxc6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6
+/= (0.52) Depth: 16/50 00:01:03 188mN
5.Nh3 a5 6.0-0-0 Qe7 7.Qg3 Rg8 8.Kb1 Qf6 9.Bc1 a4 10.Ng5 h6 11.Ne4
+/= (0.55) Depth: 16/50 00:01:43 314mN
5.Nh3 a5 6.0-0-0 Qe7 7.Qg3 Rg8 8.Kb1 Qf6 9.Bc1 a4 10.Ng5 h6 11.Ne4
+/= (0.55) Depth: 16/50 00:02:02 370mN
5.Nh3 Qf6 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 b6 8.Nf4 h5 9.Be3 Bb7 10.Rg1 Rd8 11.Be2 Qe5 12.Rxd8+ Kxd8
+/= (0.47) Depth: 17/53 00:03:54 707mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Bb7 7.Bf3 Bxf3 8.Nxf3 Nc5 9.Qb5+ Qd7 10.Qxd7+ Nxd7 11.Rhe1 h6 12.Kc2 0-0-0
+/= (0.60) Depth: 17/53 00:04:34 826mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Bb7 7.Bf3 Bxf3 8.Nxf3 Nc5 9.Qb5+ Qd7 10.Qxd7+ Nxd7 11.Rhe1 h6 12.Kc2 0-0-0
+/= (0.60) Depth: 17/53 00:04:51 878mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Nc5 7.Qc2 Qf6 8.Nf3 Bb7 9.Bg5 Bh6 10.h4 Bxg5+ 11.hxg5 Qf4+ 12.Qd2 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 0-0-0+ 14.Ke3 Rxd1 15.Rxd1
+/= (0.33) Depth: 18/55 00:07:20 1327mN
5.Nh3 Qf6 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 b6 8.Bf4 e5 9.Bg5 Bh6 10.Qe3 Bxg5 11.Nxg5 Bb7 12.Be2 0-0 13.Qg3
+/= (0.46) Depth: 18/55 00:08:33 1527mN
5.Nh3 Qf6 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 b6 8.Bf4 e5 9.Bg5 Bh6 10.Qe3 Bxg5 11.Nxg5 Bb7 12.Be2 0-0 13.Qg3
+/= (0.46) Depth: 18/55 00:11:02 1969mN
5.Nh3 Qe7 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qf3 0-0 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3 e5 10.Qd5+ Ne6 11.Bd3 f5 12.Qa5 Bd7 13.Bc2
+/= (0.40) Depth: 19/57 00:13:37 2429mN
5.Nh3 Qe7 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qf3 0-0 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3 e5 10.Qd5+ Ne6 11.Bd3 f5 12.Qa5 Bd7 13.Bc2
+/= (0.40) Depth: 19/57 00:20:16 3617mN
5.Nh3 Qe7 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 e5 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3 b6 10.Be2 0-0 11.Bf3 e4 12.Be2 Bb7 13.Nf4 Rfd8
+/= (0.42) Depth: 20/59 00:25:05 4484mN
5.Nh3 Qe7 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 e5 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3 b6 10.Be2 0-0 11.Bf3 e4 12.Be2 Bb7 13.Nf4 Rfd8
+/= (0.42) Depth: 20/59 00:32:30 5817mN
5.Nh3 Qe7 6.0-0-0 Nc5 7.Qa3 b6 8.Be2 Ne4 9.Qb3 Nxd2 10.Rxd2 Bd7 11.Qf3 0-0 12.Qg3 e5 13.Bg4 Bc6
+/= (0.29) Depth: 21/61 00:43:29 7788mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Nh3 Bb7 7.Bg5 f6 8.Bf4 e5 9.Be3 Qe7 10.Qa4 0-0-0 11.Qxa7 f5 12.Bg5 Bf6 13.Bxf6 Nxf6
+/= (0.40) Depth: 21/61 01:12:48 13107mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Nh3 Bb7 7.Bg5 f6 8.Bf4 e5 9.Be3 Qe7 10.Qa4 0-0-0 11.Qxa7 f5 12.Bg5 Bf6 13.Bxf6 Nxf6
+/= (0.40) Depth: 21/61 01:33:01 16773mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Nc5 7.Qc2 Qf6 8.Nf3 Qg6 9.Bf4 Qxc2+ 10.Kxc2 Bb7 11.Ne5 Bxg2 12.Rhg1 Be4+ 13.Kc1 Rg8 14.b4 Na4 15.Bd3 Nc3
= (0.25) Depth: 22/63 02:10:55 23746mN
5.0-0-0 b6 6.Be2 Nc5 7.Qc2 Qf6 8.Nf3 Qg6 9.Bf4 Qxc2+ 10.Kxc2 Bb7 11.Ne5 Bxg2 12.Rhg1 Be4+ 13.Kc1 Rg8 14.b4 Na4 15.Bd3 Nc3
= (0.25) Depth: 22/63 03:59:32 43628mN
Zappa is good but you need big hardware to use it best,very risky to use interactive AN with Zappa as root move can often change at d22 or even more.this quite often happens in corr games,nothing to do with position being discussed,just thought i woud mention it.
I appreciate the advice.
I think I have decent Hardware - I7-920 6 Gig or Ram. Unfortunately, with the hot summer weather in my area (consistently >85f, often in the high 90s and sometimes >100) I was forced to boot into non overclocked mode @2.67 GHZ. I need to get some liquid cooling, to put my overclock back. I was running at 4.1 GHZ for a few months. I can't wait to get that back. Zappa working better with faster chips and more cores will influence my decision to get better hardware though. I wonder if Mr Cozzie, and Vas hold a lot of Intel stock, hoping people keep upgrading which will drive the price up!
I like Zappa a lot. There is something very pretty about the way it plays. My own elostat currently has it 214 elo less than Rybka 4. I think this is pretty close to the official rating lists. I just noticed that Aquarium allows time handicap games. I just played a 2 game no book match between Rybka 4 and Zappa Mexico II, Rybka with 1 minute per game and Zappa with 2 minutes per game. Rybka won the match 1.5 - 1. I find that given enough time, Zappa will find the truth in a position. I wonder if there are some difficult moves that Rybka will find, that given time, Zappa will never find. I also wonder in a long match (not sure how to define this, maybe >G180 +30 sec increments for the engine with less time) how much % of a time handicap would Zappa need to score 50% against Rybka, given a long enough series of games to be statistically relevant.
I need 4 pc's:
One for my correspondence games, one for 24x7 engine matches, one for playing with "test positions," and 1 for general Internet browsing and word processing. The first 3 need to be very high end. I need to marry a rich woman who can support my hobbies. If anybody can assist me with this, P.M. me!!
I think I have decent Hardware - I7-920 6 Gig or Ram. Unfortunately, with the hot summer weather in my area (consistently >85f, often in the high 90s and sometimes >100) I was forced to boot into non overclocked mode @2.67 GHZ. I need to get some liquid cooling, to put my overclock back. I was running at 4.1 GHZ for a few months. I can't wait to get that back. Zappa working better with faster chips and more cores will influence my decision to get better hardware though. I wonder if Mr Cozzie, and Vas hold a lot of Intel stock, hoping people keep upgrading which will drive the price up!
I like Zappa a lot. There is something very pretty about the way it plays. My own elostat currently has it 214 elo less than Rybka 4. I think this is pretty close to the official rating lists. I just noticed that Aquarium allows time handicap games. I just played a 2 game no book match between Rybka 4 and Zappa Mexico II, Rybka with 1 minute per game and Zappa with 2 minutes per game. Rybka won the match 1.5 - 1. I find that given enough time, Zappa will find the truth in a position. I wonder if there are some difficult moves that Rybka will find, that given time, Zappa will never find. I also wonder in a long match (not sure how to define this, maybe >G180 +30 sec increments for the engine with less time) how much % of a time handicap would Zappa need to score 50% against Rybka, given a long enough series of games to be statistically relevant.
I need 4 pc's:
One for my correspondence games, one for 24x7 engine matches, one for playing with "test positions," and 1 for general Internet browsing and word processing. The first 3 need to be very high end. I need to marry a rich woman who can support my hobbies. If anybody can assist me with this, P.M. me!!
dragon49 wrote:
"I need 4 pc's:
One for my correspondence games, one for 24x7 engine matches, one for playing with "test positions," and 1 for general Internet browsing and word processing. The first 3 need to be very high end. I need to marry a rich woman who can support my hobbies."
You mean before they become an obsession? :-D
.
"I need 4 pc's:
One for my correspondence games, one for 24x7 engine matches, one for playing with "test positions," and 1 for general Internet browsing and word processing. The first 3 need to be very high end. I need to marry a rich woman who can support my hobbies."
You mean before they become an obsession? :-D
.
I was going to post again, before your reply.
I really need 5 pc's. 2 would be for the matches. One of them would run gauntlets, testing my new engines, against my existing collection at time controls such as G7 and G8. This pc would also play several hundred game matches, pitting the Latest Rybka against new strong engines. The 2nd pc for matches would run long engine engine matches (G12 or > with increments) such as the one that I started this thread with.
I enjoy "obsessing." I am very good at "obsessing!" I can accomplish goals by "obsessing." The only downside, is that I don't multi-task very well, and other goals and activities can suffer. But, If I wouldn't have to worry about money, love (and all of the perks that come with love
) food and shelter, life would be really cool!!!
I really need 5 pc's. 2 would be for the matches. One of them would run gauntlets, testing my new engines, against my existing collection at time controls such as G7 and G8. This pc would also play several hundred game matches, pitting the Latest Rybka against new strong engines. The 2nd pc for matches would run long engine engine matches (G12 or > with increments) such as the one that I started this thread with.
I enjoy "obsessing." I am very good at "obsessing!" I can accomplish goals by "obsessing." The only downside, is that I don't multi-task very well, and other goals and activities can suffer. But, If I wouldn't have to worry about money, love (and all of the perks that come with love
) food and shelter, life would be really cool!!!
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill