On Apr 18, 3:35 am, Sanny wrote:

You need atleast 20-30 sec/ move to win against Beginner. I will never
sugest you to play Blitz against Beginner as Beginner may spoil your
Ratings.

My rating seems to be doing okay, as it
is higher than anyone else's. I think you
need to worry more over the poor folks out
there-- the ones with much lower ratings. :D

One Old Folk "Zebediah" has returned. He once snatched your Crown and
Made Master Level Rating down to 400. Yesterday he played with Master
Level and won in just 34 Moves. A thing that even Rybka cant do.


Nonsense. Rybka defeated the GetClub program
while giving it Knight odds; let's see Zebediah do
*that*, without any computer help.

Bobby Fischer once bragged that he could give
any woman in the world QN-odds, but when push
came to shove, he chickened out-- never once
backing up his idle boast!

Obviously, in a sharp game, Rybka -- or any of
the other top-rated programs, for that matter --
could win in under 34 moves. In duller games, it
will take longer, but the important thing is not
quickly you win, but just winning.

One aspect of play at GetClub is the fact that
the human opponents do not have any set time
limit. This is a huge disadvantage to the program,
which is "strictly" limited after all the hullabaloo
over it taking too long to move and not following
its own declared limits. Under these conditions,
you will find that humans play better than they
would under a strict time limit. It also gives a
computer operator plenty of leeway to eat
potato chips and watch TV, while relaying the
moves between programs-- a plan which works
best at the slower time controls, say... Master
level.


-- help bot

On Apr 17, 3:08*pm, help bot wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:53 am, Sanny wrote:

White -- Black
(easy) -- (chrisf)

1. e2-e4{0} e7-e5{2}
2. Ng1-f3{0} Nb8-c6{2}
3. Bf1-b5{0} a7-a6{2}
4. Bb5-a4{0} Ng8-f6{2}
5. Ke1-g1{48} Bf8-e7{4}
6. d2-d3{20} Ke8-g8{16}

Although 7. BxN dxB 8. Nxe5 snaffles a pawn it isn't such a massive
advantage. However, since it is a purely materialistic gain it is
surprising that Getclub did not grab it with both hands.

7. Nb1-c3{36} d7-d6{16}

It is in the big 2006 database upto this point allowing for
transpositions).
[snip]

15. e4-d5{30} c6-d5{12}

15. exd5 is probably a mistake as it allows black to regain a coherent
pawn structure.

Any of Ne2, Na4, Bg3, BxN look playable here with equality.

25. g2-g4{20} Qh5-h3{32}

Although the pawn forks Q+R and so looks materially very advantageous
the resulting damage to the Kings defensive position is so massive
that this move prepares the game for terminal decline. The only
continuations that appear to hold water here for white are 25. h4 and
25. Nd1 (and black still has a serious kingside attack on the go).

Black has been allowed to build up a considerable attack but defending
and waiting to see how he tries to break open the position would be my
preference.

26. g4-f5{34} Rf8-f5{2}

I can see why Getclub would play gxR but Qf1 would still be better
(game is still lost but by a pawn less).
[snip]

32. c2-c4{30} Qh2-f4{8}

This move 32. c4 is worthy of comment because it is just awful. Almost
half the moves available are better.

32. c3 and 32. Rc1 are about the best of a bad lot. a3, Kd3, a4, Qd1,
b4, Ra1, b1 are better than c4.

* Look at the opening; after White plays d3, he is
threatening to win the e-pawn for free by Nxe5-- a
simple fact which both players somehow missed.
This is about as simple as tactics can get.

Shredder doesn't think that grabbing the pawn is all that great.

* Funny thing is, after he allowed his Q and R
to get forked, he really had no choice but to
follow up-- or else he'd be a Rook down. * The

The fork may have been deliberate. Once the Q is into the kings
castled position it is no holds barred. It was predictable that
Getclub would take the knight making his king even more exposed. What
is more surprising is that it still occassionally makes completely
pointless pawn moves that are (or should be) way down the list of
pluasible moves. 32. c4 is indicative of a problem in the defence and
queiscence search logic.

GetClub program does not defend well, so if
you can get an attack on the King, as in this
game, you're set unless you run out of ammo.

Its idea of King security is pretty feeble. I had forgotten from my
analysis of last night. 20. Kh1 and then 22. Kg1 serve no useful
purpose other than to enable black to build up his attack on the
kingside unopposed. White would have been in much better shape had
these moves been replaced with either 20. b4 to start a Qside counter
attack or 20. Ne2 to prepare for the coming assault on the kingside.
Random king moves is an inherent Getclub weakness.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Apr 19, 9:54 am, Martin Brown
wrote:

White -- Black
(easy) -- (chrisf)

1. e2-e4{0} e7-e5{2}
2. Ng1-f3{0} Nb8-c6{2}
3. Bf1-b5{0} a7-a6{2}
4. Bb5-a4{0} Ng8-f6{2}
5. Ke1-g1{48} Bf8-e7{4}
6. d2-d3{20} Ke8-g8{16}

Although 7. BxN dxB 8. Nxe5 snaffles a pawn it isn't such a massive
advantage. However, since it is a purely materialistic gain it is
surprising that Getclub did not grab it with both hands.


After thinking about this a little more, I realized
that the Knight need not be snatched before
taking the pawn, since it is, after all, pinned to
the King. So, even 7. Nxe5 nets a free pawn. It
is a center pawn-- not some insignificant Rook-
pawn, ya know. (If there are any deeply-hidden
tactics here, just let me know and I'll fire up the
old 'puter to spot 'em.)


7. Nb1-c3{36} d7-d6{16}

It is in the big 2006 database upto this point allowing for
transpositions).


I hope that is not an endorsement of the hanging
of pawns. (A recent posting by Taylor Kingston
cited a game between two Class C players, as
taken from some random database.)


Look at the opening; after White plays d3, he is
threatening to win the e-pawn for free by Nxe5-- a
simple fact which both players somehow missed.
This is about as simple as tactics can get.

Shredder doesn't think that grabbing the pawn is all that great.


Hmmph. If I were not already analyzing another
game, I would easily refute this hypocrite by
booting up my vastly superior program! (As it is,
I don't even have a chess board to look at.) For
the record, the Rybka program *never* gives full
credit for winning a pawn, because the opponent
invariably gains a half-open file-- or whatever. But
....a pawn is a pawn, in any country in the world.
And center pawns are the best-of-breed winners.


Funny thing is, after he allowed his Q and R
to get forked, he really had no choice but to
follow up-- or else he'd be a Rook down. The

The fork may have been deliberate.


Deliberate? It was the GetClub program that
played the pawn-fork, not any "deliberating"
human chess player. As I recall, the first such
pawn-fork was not played by the GC program,
so for all we know its human opponent may
have figured it would be consistent (a huge
mistake with *this* program).


Once the Q is into the kings
castled position it is no holds barred. It was predictable that
Getclub would take the knight making his king even more exposed. What
is more surprising is that it still occassionally makes completely
pointless pawn moves that are (or should be) way down the list of
pluasible moves. 32. c4 is indicative of a problem in the defence and
queiscence search logic.


Um, you talk as though the GetClub program
actually ranked every legal move in order by merit,
then selected the best one to play. The REALITY
is that it can't even determine which moves are
legal! It's a wonder it can play as well as it does.


GetClub program does not defend well, so if
you can get an attack on the King, as in this
game, you're set unless you run out of ammo.

Its idea of King security is pretty feeble. I had forgotten from my
analysis of last night. 20. Kh1 and then 22. Kg1 serve no useful
purpose other than to enable black to build up his attack on the
kingside unopposed. White would have been in much better shape had
these moves been replaced with either 20. b4 to start a Qside counter
attack or 20. Ne2 to prepare for the coming assault on the kingside.
Random king moves is an inherent Getclub weakness.


Also consider the idiotic moves Re1, followed by
shifting wood back again with Rf1; such maneuvers
lose valuable time. I've had quite a few games in
which we are strolling along, I capture a pawn, and
then instead of recapturing -- like "normal" programs
and people do -- the GC program "develops" a
piece or attacks something. In sum, this is not
your everyday, run-of-the-mill chess program; there
is something rotten in Denmark.

I was amazed to find that, after his snide attitude
about the inconsistencies of his ratings system,
"Sanny" has now done an about-face and rigged
the ratings. Log on to GC's Web site now and
you will find that Advance level is "given" a 2400
rating, while Master level has already taken a
shellacking by Zeb, the computer operator. I
somehow missed that Normal level was at 1800,
and am playing the Advance level, to cash in on
the new "ratings bonanza" (if I can somehow win).

Inflation: it's not just an economic term anymore!


-- help bot

On Apr 19, 10:53 am, help bot wrote:

1. e2-e4{0} e7-e5{2}
2. Ng1-f3{0} Nb8-c6{2}
3. Bf1-b5{0} a7-a6{2}
4. Bb5-a4{0} Ng8-f6{2}
5. Ke1-g1{48} Bf8-e7{4}
6. d2-d3{20} Ke8-g8{16}

Although 7. BxN dxB 8. Nxe5 snaffles a pawn it isn't such a massive
advantage. However, since it is a purely materialistic gain it is
surprising that Getclub did not grab it with both hands.

After thinking about this a little more, I realized
that the Knight need not be snatched before
taking the pawn, since it is, after all, pinned to
the King.


Whoa! Taking it just a tad slower, I now see that
5. Ke1-g1 *is* castling, so the a1-e8 pin is no more.

Believe it or not, my "blindfold analysis" was going
something like this: 1. Nxe5 Qd4! 2. Bxc6+ dxc6
3. Nf3, netting a pawn for White. Of course, not
only is this wrong because Black is in fact castled,
but the Black Queen can't get to d4. That's what
happens when you are on decongestant pills and
can't sleep, so your mind works through all the
important problems you are facing in your life... .

Now that I have the old 'puter freed up, I see that:

at zero seconds, it likes 6. Bxc6!
at one second, ditto
at two minutes, the same
at eleven minutes, it still prefers Bxc6!

Black has nothing for the pawn-- except what I
suppose could euphemistically be termed "open
lines"; the same open lines you get when you
hang a piece which was obstructing your other
pieces... .

If Black has any plans of getting some real
compensation for hanging a center pawn in the
Ruy Lopez, he's better off with the Marshall
Gambit, IMO.


-- help bot

On Apr 19, 4:47*pm, help bot wrote:
On Apr 19, 10:53 am, help bot wrote:

1. e2-e4{0} e7-e5{2}
2. Ng1-f3{0} Nb8-c6{2}
3. Bf1-b5{0} a7-a6{2}
4. Bb5-a4{0} Ng8-f6{2}
5. Ke1-g1{48} Bf8-e7{4}
6. d2-d3{20} Ke8-g8{16}

Although 7. BxN dxB 8. Nxe5 snaffles a pawn it isn't such a massive
advantage. However, since it is a purely materialistic gain it is
surprising that Getclub did not grab it with both hands.

I take that back. I had been assuming (incorrectly) that if it was a
significant advantage to white that blundercheck would have added the
relevant annotation. But since it didn't... I assumed there was
something about it that I couldn't quite see.

However, it seems looking more carefully at the opening book database
move order 7. BxN is the *only* continuation given at that point. The
game falls back into book territory further on by transposition.

A proper ab initio analysis of this position with Shredder quickly
concludes that BxN is 60cp better than the next best move Nc3, c4, h3,
Bd2 (all at 0 +/-3). Rybka is a bit more conservative and gives a 40cp
advantage with a preferred ordering of toher moves h3, Bd2, c4, Nc3,
Bb3a3, Bg5, Re1 (all at 6+/-2).

Rybka typically has a flatter evaluation function (like Fritz and
Crafty). Shredder has an exaggerated sense of some structural features
(which I think tends to guide it towards more human like play).

* After thinking about this a little more, I realized
that the Knight need not be snatched before
taking the pawn, since it is, after all, pinned to
the King.

* Whoa! *Taking it just a tad slower, I now see that
5. Ke1-g1 *is* castling, so the a1-e8 pin is no more.

Oops. I really wish he would fix the £$#^$&% useless game notation. I
find that the captures being shown as ordinary moves make life all but
impossible for following the games without a board or a computer.

* Now that I have the old 'puter freed up, I see that:

at zero seconds, it likes 6. Bxc6!
at one second, ditto
at two minutes, the same
at eleven minutes, it still prefers Bxc6!

And after an overnight analysis to ply 23 it is still the same only a
slightly larger advantage crystallises.

* Black has nothing for the pawn-- except what I
suppose could euphemistically be termed "open
lines"; the same open lines you get when you
hang a piece which was obstructing your other
pieces... .

* If Black has any plans of getting some real
compensation for hanging a center pawn in the
Ruy Lopez, he's better off with the Marshall
Gambit, IMO.

The problem is that I used blundercheck and trusted it to annotate any
dumb moves. Since it didn't annotate this I assumed incorrectly that
it was sound (and inside the usually robust book horizon). I confess I
didn't lok very hard at first.

The flaw is that when a move that is out of book is played (ie but the
wrong order) blundercheck should run the engine and see if the
sequence order alters the outcome significantly. Hitting a position
that is in the opening book repertoire is not a sufficient test -
there should be an option to cross check all the opening moves too
(especially any where the move played is not on the approved book list
for that ply - played out of order).

I have noticed blundercheck sometimes misses clearly winning lines
when used to annotate certain types of game. I presume it stems from
having the cache polluted with moves from the suboptimal line actually
played when the decsisive move is encountered in the backwards search
down the tree.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Apr 20, 2:36*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:47*pm, help bot wrote:

On Apr 19, 10:53 am, help bot wrote:

1. e2-e4{0} e7-e5{2}
2. Ng1-f3{0} Nb8-c6{2}
3. Bf1-b5{0} a7-a6{2}
4. Bb5-a4{0} Ng8-f6{2}
5. Ke1-g1{48} Bf8-e7{4}
6. d2-d3{20} Ke8-g8{16}

Although 7. BxN dxB 8. Nxe5 snaffles a pawn it isn't such a massive
advantage. However, since it is a purely materialistic gain it is
surprising thatGetclubdid not grab it with both hands.

I take that back. I had been assuming (incorrectly) that if it was a
significant advantage to white that blundercheck would have added the
relevant annotation. But since it didn't... I assumed there was
something about it that I couldn't quite see.

However, it seems looking more carefully at the opening book database
move order 7. BxN is the *only* continuation given at that point. The
game falls back into book territory further on by transposition.

A proper ab initio analysis of this position with Shredder quickly
concludes that BxN is 60cp better than the next best move Nc3, c4, h3,
Bd2 (all at 0 +/-3). Rybka is a bit more conservative and gives a 40cp
advantage with a preferred ordering of toher moves h3, Bd2, c4, Nc3,
Bb3a3, Bg5, Re1 (all at 6+/-2).

Rybka typically has a flatter evaluation function (like Fritz and
Crafty). Shredder has an exaggerated sense of some structural features
(which I think tends to guide it towards more human like play).



* After thinking about this a little more, I realized
that the Knight need not be snatched before
taking the pawn, since it is, after all, pinned to
the King.

* Whoa! *Taking it just a tad slower, I now see that
5. Ke1-g1 *is* castling, so the a1-e8 pin is no more.

Oops. I really wish he would fix the £$#^$&% useless game notation. I
find that the captures being shown as ordinary moves make life all but
impossible for following the games without a board or a computer.

* Now that I have the old 'puter freed up, I see that:

at zero seconds, it likes 6. Bxc6!
at one second, ditto
at two minutes, the same
at eleven minutes, it still prefers Bxc6!

And after an overnight analysis to ply 23 it is still the same only a
slightly larger advantage crystallises.



* Black has nothing for the pawn-- except what I
suppose could euphemistically be termed "open
lines"; the same open lines you get when you
hang a piece which was obstructing your other
pieces... .

* If Black has any plans of getting some real
compensation for hanging a center pawn in the
Ruy Lopez, he's better off with the Marshall
Gambit, IMO.

The problem is that I used blundercheck and trusted it to annotate any
dumb moves. Since it didn't annotate this I assumed incorrectly that
it was sound (and inside the usually robust book horizon). I confess I
didn't lok very hard at first.

The flaw is that when a move that is out of book is played (ie but the
wrong order) blundercheck should run the engine and see if the
sequence order alters the outcome significantly. Hitting a position
that is in the opening book repertoire is not a sufficient test -
there should be an option to cross check all the opening moves too
(especially any where the move played is not on the approved book list
for that ply - played out of order).

I have noticed blundercheck sometimes misses clearly winning lines
when used to annotate certain types of game. I presume it stems from
having the cache polluted with moves from the suboptimal line actually
played when the decsisive move is encountered in the backwards search
down the tree.

Regards,
Martin Brown

GetClub Chess was further improved today So you are going to see much
stronger games now on.

Tell me if the improvements are seen your recent games or not. Help
Bot is playing with Advance Level, I think it will take a week for him
to complete the game. Later play with beginner Level and let me know
if you find any improvement in Beginners game.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On Apr 20, 5:36 am, Martin Brown
wrote:

1. e2-e4{0} e7-e5{2}
2. Ng1-f3{0} Nb8-c6{2}
3. Bf1-b5{0} a7-a6{2}
4. Bb5-a4{0} Ng8-f6{2}
5. Ke1-g1{48} Bf8-e7{4}
6. d2-d3{20} Ke8-g8{16}

Although 7. BxN dxB 8. Nxe5 snaffles a pawn it isn't such a massive
advantage. However, since it is a purely materialistic gain it is
surprising that Getclub did not grab it with both hands.

I take that back. I had been assuming (incorrectly) that if it was a
significant advantage to white that blundercheck would have added the
relevant annotation. But since it didn't... I assumed there was
something about it that I couldn't quite see.

However, it seems looking more carefully at the opening book database
move order 7. BxN is the *only* continuation given at that point. The
game falls back into book territory further on by transposition.


When I try to utilize the online databases, they
only rarely give *quality* information. Sometimes
the problem is that losing moves are show with a
high winning percentage, and sometimes the
number of games reaching a particular position
are few, and of low standard. I expect the
commercial databases are much better, but I
neither wish to pay for something I rarely use,
nor do I like buying an older version to save
money, because I /know/ it's out-of-date!


A proper ab initio analysis of this position with Shredder quickly
concludes that BxN is 60cp better than the next best move Nc3, c4, h3,
Bd2 (all at 0 +/-3). Rybka is a bit more conservative and gives a 40cp
advantage with a preferred ordering of toher moves h3, Bd2, c4, Nc3,
Bb3a3, Bg5, Re1 (all at 6+/-2).

Rybka typically has a flatter evaluation function (like Fritz and
Crafty). Shredder has an exaggerated sense of some structural features
(which I think tends to guide it towards more human like play).


The very latest version of Shredder has toned
this down and they are breathing down Rybka's
neck on the ratings chart. But since Rybka is
not well-honed in the endgame and Shredder
(or Deep Shredder) has the fastest table-base
search around, perhaps both programs are
worth buying?


After thinking about this a little more, I realized
that the Knight need not be snatched before
taking the pawn, since it is, after all, pinned to
the King.

Whoa! Taking it just a tad slower, I now see that
5. Ke1-g1 *is* castling, so the a1-e8 pin is no more.

Oops. I really wish he would fix the £$#^$&% useless game notation. I
find that the captures being shown as ordinary moves make life all but
impossible for following the games without a board or a computer.


Only for us weak players. I hear (but I would
have no way of knowing) that strong players
can do all this stuff blindfolded, in their heads!


If Black has any plans of getting some real
compensation for hanging a center pawn in the
Ruy Lopez, he's better off with the Marshall
Gambit, IMO.

The problem is that I used blundercheck and trusted it to annotate any
dumb moves. Since it didn't annotate this I assumed incorrectly that
it was sound (and inside the usually robust book horizon). I confess I
didn't lok very hard at first.


Maybe "blundercheck" has a set limit, which
was just barely too high? Some of these
pesky programs refuse to admit when I have
won a pawn-- though they are not slow to
announce every $%&*(!@& mate-in-ten they
have in those rare (ahem) cases where I am
losing. You may be able to adjust the setting
so that -0.5 pawns shows up as a "blunder".


The flaw is that when a move that is out of book is played (ie but the
wrong order) blundercheck should run the engine and see if the
sequence order alters the outcome significantly. Hitting a position
that is in the opening book repertoire is not a sufficient test -
there should be an option to cross check all the opening moves too
(especially any where the move played is not on the approved book list
for that ply - played out of order).


Thus far, I have managed to avoid any of
those kinds of problems by simply not
bothering to install an openings book. The
programs are all out-of-book, all the time.

The problem is that every game analysis
wastes time looking at oh, 1. e4 versus
1. d4 versus 1. Na3.


I have noticed blundercheck sometimes misses clearly winning lines
when used to annotate certain types of game. I presume it stems from
having the cache polluted with moves from the suboptimal line actually
played when the decsisive move is encountered in the backwards search
down the tree.

I have been using "Arena" (instead of the
Fritz GUI), and it seems to help if I analyze
the game backwards, so the stupid program
can see how a true genius handled the
position.


-- help bot

On Apr 20, 11:29*am, help bot wrote:
On Apr 20, 5:36 am, Martin Brown
wrote:

6. d2-d3{20} Ke8-g8{16}

Although 7. BxN dxB 8. Nxe5 snaffles a pawn it isn't such a massive
advantage. However, since it is a purely materialistic gain it is
surprising that Getclub did not grab it with both hands.

I take that back. I had been assuming (incorrectly) that if it was a
significant advantage to white that blundercheck would have added the
relevant annotation. But since it didn't... I assumed there was
something about it that I couldn't quite see.

However, it seems looking more carefully at the opening book database
move order 7. BxN is the *only* continuation given at that point. The
game falls back into book territory further on by transposition.

* When I try to utilize the online databases, they
only rarely give *quality* information. *Sometimes
the problem is that losing moves are show with a
high winning percentage, and sometimes the
number of games reaching a particular position
are few, and of low standard. *I expect the
commercial databases are much better, but I
neither wish to pay for something I rarely use,
nor do I like buying an older version to save
money, because I /know/ it's out-of-date!

An out of date one is still interesting. My database is from 2006 (and
I don't really feel compelled to update it). However, the 2006
bigopening book still contains quite a few dodgy "winning" moves in
the leaves of the tree. It would be interesting to check one for all
logical inconsistencies with an engine set to 20s/move and thereby
winnow out all the chaff. I suspect some of it is there for proof of
copyright reasons as watermarks.

A proper ab initio analysis of this position with Shredder quickly
concludes that BxN is 60cp better than the next best move Nc3, c4, h3,
Bd2 (all at 0 +/-3). Rybka is a bit more conservative and gives a 40cp
advantage with a preferred ordering of toher moves h3, Bd2, c4, Nc3,
Bb3a3, Bg5, Re1 (all at 6+/-2).

Rybka typically has a flatter evaluation function (like Fritz and
Crafty). Shredder has an exaggerated sense of some structural features
(which I think tends to guide it towards more human like play).

* The very latest version of Shredder has toned
this down and they are breathing down Rybka's
neck on the ratings chart. *But since Rybka is
not well-honed in the endgame and Shredder
(or Deep Shredder) has the fastest table-base
search around, perhaps both programs are
worth buying?

I have both. I prefer to spar against Shredder10. It feels mouch more
like playing against a human and it occassionally leaves things on
that someone playing at the nominal playing level might make. Rybka is
a bit too much like playing against a brick wall - although I have
once beaten it on time control (the only engine I have ever managed to
beat that way).

* After thinking about this a little more, I realized
that the Knight need not be snatched before
taking the pawn, since it is, after all, pinned to
the King.

* Whoa! *Taking it just a tad slower, I now see that
5. Ke1-g1 *is* castling, so the a1-e8 pin is no more.

Oops. I really wish he would fix the £$#^$&% useless game notation. I
find that the captures being shown as ordinary moves make life all but
impossible for following the games without a board or a computer.

* Only for us weak players. *I hear (but I would
have no way of knowing) that strong players
can do all this stuff blindfolded, in their heads!

I expect the blindfold might help provided someone reads you the
moves.

The problem is that I used blundercheck and trusted it to annotate any
dumb moves. Since it didn't annotate this I assumed incorrectly that
it was sound (and inside the usually robust book horizon). I confess I
didn't lok very hard at first.

* Maybe "blundercheck" has a set limit, which
was just barely too high? *Some of these

No. Blundercheck effectively assumes that the book is correct and
stops when it encounters an in book position.
I have the blundercheck window set fairly narrow 8cp to analyse my own
games and don't alter it for Getclub. I do find that it sometimes
misses fairly obvious improvements that are found by full annotation.
I am not sure why. No-one from CM has ever bothered to explain why
blundercheck sometimes blunders.

The flaw is that when a move that is out of book is played (ie but the
wrong order) blundercheck should run the engine and see if the
sequence order alters the outcome significantly. Hitting a position
that is in the opening book repertoire is not a sufficient test -
there should be an option to cross check all the opening moves too
(especially any where the move played is not on the approved book list
for that ply - played out of order).

* Thus far, I have managed to avoid any of
those kinds of problems by simply not
bothering to install an openings book. *The
programs are all out-of-book, all the time.

I generally play against engines using a deep opening book to try
ideas out in the opening. Most engines would take ages and not
necessarily find the right sorts of moves without a book (something I
actually agree with Phil Innes on).

* The problem is that every game analysis
wastes time looking at oh, 1. e4 versus
1. d4 versus 1. Na3.

You could always build a custom shallow opening book from a trivial
set of games... I do have a null opening book somewhere. I think the
free version CB lite can be used to generate them.

I have noticed blundercheck sometimes misses clearly winning lines
when used to annotate certain types of game. I presume it stems from
having the cache polluted with moves from the suboptimal line actually
played when the decsisive move is encountered in the backwards search
down the tree.

* I have been using "Arena" (instead of the
Fritz GUI), and it seems to help if I analyze
the game backwards, so the stupid program
can see how a true genius handled the position.

Populating the cache with moves seen from deeper plies works very well
provided that the moves played were close to optimal. It sometimes
gives odd results when a bad move has been played. I suspect thtat is
the root cause of my annoyances with blundercheck intermittently
failing to spot critical move in real games.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Please analyze the Best game between Zebediah & Advance Level.

Advance level was ahead of a Rook but later Zebediah took back the
Rook and was able to win the Game in just 23 moves.


Advance is the Highest Level. So it is the Best GetClub Chess can
ever
play.


Can you spot any weakness in this Game?


Game Played between zebediah and advance at GetClub.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----
zebediah: (White)
advance: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...498&game=Chess
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----


White -- Black
(zebediah) -- (advance)


1. e2-e4{4} e7-e6{0}
2. d2-d4{4} c7-c5{2418}
3. Ng1-f3{25518} c5-d4{0}
4. Nf3-d4{6} Ng8-f6{1652}
5. Nb1-c3{236} Bf8-b4{2128}
6. e4-e5{18} Bb4-c3{3308}
7. b2-c3{420} Qd8-c7{1298}
8. e5-f6{138} Qc7-c3{2516}
9. Qd1-d2{3878} Qc3-a1{0}
10. f6-g7{6} Rh8-g8{1390}
11. c2-c3{68} Qa1-b1{1802}
12. Bf1-d3{396} Qb1-b6{1644}
13. Qd2-h6{8} Qb6-c5{1642}
14. Ke1-g1{14} Qc5-e5{1556}
15. Bd3-h7{2614} Rg8-g7{1506}
16. f2-f4{414} Rg7-h7{1658}
17. Qh6-h7{2948} Qe5-c5{3162}
18. f4-f5{654} f7-f6{2306}
19. f5-e6{388} d7-e6{1876}
20. Rf1-f6{16} Ke8-d8{1578}
21. Bc1-g5{64} Bc8-d7{1568}
22. Rf6-f5{1042} Kd8-c7{2780}
23. Rf5-c5{4790} Kc7-b6{0}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----
zebediah: (White)
advance: (Black)
Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?...498&game=Chess


Was the Sacrifice of Took Correct by Zebediah?


Is there any move wrongly played by Advance Level?


Advance level thinks 20-40 min / Move. So the games are usually the
best that GetClub Chess can ever play. Still Zebediah the best player
at GetClub Managed to win the game.


Was the game won because of any weakness in GetClub engine?


Bye
Sanny


Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On Apr 21, 9:21*am, Sanny wrote:
Please analyze the Best game between Zebediah & Advance Level.

Advance level was ahead of a Rook but later Zebediah took back the
Rook and was able to win the Game in just 23 moves.

Advance level was never ahead. It was already in a bit of trouble
after 6. ... BxN
Grabbing the rook later isn't sufficient compensation for the damage
done to blacks kingside and the total lack of development queenside.

Advance is the Highest Level. So it is the Best GetClub Chess can
ever play.

Can you spot any weakness in this Game?

Yes at least in GetClubs play...

White -- Black
(zebediah) -- (advance)

1. e2-e4{4} e7-e6{0}
2. d2-d4{4} c7-c5{2418}
3. Ng1-f3{25518} c5-d4{0}
4. Nf3-d4{6} Ng8-f6{1652}
5. Nb1-c3{236} Bf8-b4{2128}
6. e4-e5{18} Bb4-c3{3308}

This is already giving white the advantage of more than a pawn. This
position was in the database 15 times and white won 12 of these. There
then follows an almost forced sequence of moves (the PV is clearly
defined at 200cp). And at move 10. white has a choice of winning
moves (fxg7 and c3 equally good).

7. b2-c3{420} Qd8-c7{1298}

Shredder reckons 7. ... Nd5 is the only move here that would just
about hold things together.
Something along the lines of 8. Bd3 Qc7 9. O-O or 8. Qg4 g6 9. Nb5 O-
O

8. e5-f6{138} Qc7-c3{2516}

The chess engines here prefer 8. Nb5 but I think that lets black off
the hook with Qxe5 9. Qe2 QxQ
The move as played leaves black struggling just to stay alive -
although that isn't obvious to an engine with a limited search
horizon. Blacks kings rook is not long for this world so there is a
virtual material balance.

9. Qd1-d2{3878} Qc3-a1{0}
10. f6-g7{6} Rh8-g8{1390}

11. c2-c3{68} Qa1-b1{1802}
12. Bf1-d3{396} Qb1-b6{1644}
13. Qd2-h6{8} Qb6-c5{1642}
14. Ke1-g1{14} Qc5-e5{1556}

Amazingly this position has previously occurred in 4 serious matches
arising out of odd Sicilian patterns. The moves are transposed and all
of them were hopelessly lost at this point. It must have arisen in
something I have played or played through since it was already in my
customised database.

15. Bd3-h7{2614} Rg8-g7{1506}

Humans preferred QxB in the games I found (although Rybka & Shredder
both think RxB is better). By this stage the position is already
hopelessly lost. Getclub doesn't defend optimally though.

16. f2-f4{414} Rg7-h7{1658}

16. .... Rxg2+ would at least give a sporting chance. More by delaying
the inevitable than anything else.

17. Qh6-h7{2948} Qe5-c5{3162}
18. f4-f5{654} f7-f6{2306}

18. ... d5 would cling onto life for a little bit longer but the
decline is still terminal.

19. f5-e6{388} d7-e6{1876}
20. Rf1-f6{16} Ke8-d8{1578}
21. Bc1-g5{64} Bc8-d7{1568}
22. Rf6-f5{1042} Kd8-c7{2780}
23. Rf5-c5{4790} Kc7-b6{0}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------**-----
*zebediah: (White)

Was the Sacrifice of Took Correct by Zebediah?

Yes. It wasn't a sacrfice. The attack he gets is worth it. Yes he is
the exchange down for a while but his pieces are all out and he has a
defendable pawn on the 7th rank with a nuclear threat level against h7
and your rook.

Is there any move wrongly played by Advance Level?

Was the game won because of any weakness in GetClub engine?

Yes. It doesn't have sufficient selective look ahead down partially
forced lines (situations where one move is significantly better than
all the others). To be fair even the top engines struggled to see that
Qc7 doesn't really work at sensible match play time allocations and it
required a bit of human guidance to annotate correctly.
(at least I think I have got it about right - quick lunchtime attempt)

Regards,
Martin Brown