Sorry I posted this in another newsgroup earlier, but on reflection
that was not the best choice.

I played a game as white in which I made a real mess of things. The
PGN file can be found at

http://www.g8wrb.org/chess/paupau.pgn

I've analysed the game using the free open-source chess engine
'crafty'. The results of the analysis can be found at:

http://www.g8wrb.org/chess/paupau.pgn.html

In case it's not obvious, a couple of lines from 'crafty' such as

({12:-0.20} 5. Be3 Na5 6. Na3 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8....
({12:+0.72} 5. Ng5 d5 6. exd5 Na5 7. O-O Nxc4 8....

Indicates to an analysis depth of 12, the 5th move Be3 gave white a
disadvantage (-0.20 pawns) compared to Ng5 which would have been an
advantage of 0.72 pawns. Since I played Be3, I clearly did not choose
the best move.

Would anyone with 'chessbase' (preferably a few different versions
from a few different people) be kind enough to analyse the game and
give their results? I hope this analysis would useful to not just
myself, but others too, since a comparision of different programs for
analysis can only be in everyone's best interest.

The analysis was done at 120 s per move (i.e. 60 s for white, 60 s for
black). The machine was rather an odd-ball, being a Sun Ultra 80
running 4 x 450 MHz CPUs each with 4 MB of cache ram. My guess is that
the performance would be similar to a Pentium running at 1.5 GHz or
so, although I've never compared resuls with this machine to a
Pentium. Neither have I optimised the code in any way.

You can see the analysis by 'crafty' thinks I played the wrong move at
5, when I played Be3 (which put me 0.21 pawns down) rather than the
Ng5, which would have given me an advantage of 0.72 pawns. It also
thinks I played move 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 .. wrong, but by this point I
was in a real mess anyway.

En/na Dr. David Kirkby ha escrit:
Sorry I posted this in another newsgroup earlier, but on reflection
that was not the best choice.

I played a game as white in which I made a real mess of things. The
PGN file can be found at

http://www.g8wrb.org/chess/paupau.pgn

I've analysed the game using the free open-source chess engine
'crafty'. The results of the analysis can be found at:

http://www.g8wrb.org/chess/paupau.pgn.html
(...)
Would anyone with 'chessbase' (preferably a few different versions
from a few different people) be kind enough to analyse the game and
give their results? I hope this analysis would useful to not just
myself, but others too, since a comparision of different programs for
analysis can only be in everyone's best interest.

The analysis was done at 120 s per move (i.e. 60 s for white, 60 s for
black). The machine was rather an odd-ball, being a Sun Ultra 80
running 4 x 450 MHz CPUs each with 4 MB of cache ram. My guess is that
the performance would be similar to a Pentium running at 1.5 GHz or
so, although I've never compared resuls with this machine to a
Pentium. Neither have I optimised the code in any way.

You can see the analysis by 'crafty' thinks I played the wrong move at
5, when I played Be3 (which put me 0.21 pawns down) rather than the
Ng5, which would have given me an advantage of 0.72 pawns. It also
thinks I played move 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 .. wrong, but by this point I
was in a real mess anyway.

In that case, I think human analisis can be much more interesting!!
In RGCA it is possible to discuss ideas, plans and little tactics.

And also in this case, a simple computer analisis 5 seconds per move is
enough to find the big mistakes.

AT

Antonio Torrecillas wrote in message ...
En/na Dr. David Kirkby ha escrit:
Sorry I posted this in another newsgroup earlier, but on reflection
that was not the best choice.

I played a game as white in which I made a real mess of things. The
PGN file can be found at

http://www.g8wrb.org/chess/paupau.pgn

I've analysed the game using the free open-source chess engine
'crafty'. The results of the analysis can be found at:

http://www.g8wrb.org/chess/paupau.pgn.html
(...)
Would anyone with 'chessbase' (preferably a few different versions
from a few different people) be kind enough to analyse the game and
give their results?

snip

In that case, I think human analisis can be much more interesting!!
In RGCA it is possible to discuss ideas, plans and little tactics.

I'd welcome human analysis, especially of the first 10 or so moves,
although my reason for requesting an analysis by 'chessbase' was that
I was contemplating buying the program, so wanted to see how it
compared with 'crafty'.

However, I think chessbase won't run under Windoze 2000, which means I
won't be able to use it anyway.

Also, is it copy protected in some way - I get the feeling a CD may be
needed in the drive in order to run it? I simply refuse to buy copy
protected software, since in general it causes so many hassles. I'd
like 10 pounds for every hour I have wasted over the years trying to
overcome licensing problems encoutered when trying to use software
legitamitely.

My 'PC' is not a convential PC anyway. It is a card with a 733 MHz
Celeron processor that plugs into a Sun workstation. It uses the CD
drive of the Sun, but I suspect any sofware relying on a CD present
may well have problems as this is not a normal CD drive. In any case,
I don't want to tie up a CD drive.

And also in this case, a simple computer analisis 5 seconds per move is
enough to find the big mistakes.

Thanks for that tip. I was going out, so time was not an issue, but I
guess it is useful to know the big mistakes, rather than worry about
moves so far ahead that I've no hope of comprehending them.

Feel free to email me if you wish, by getting my email address from:
http://atlc.sourceforge.net/contact.html

Hi,

HIARCS9, PIII 1 GHZ suggests:

4. NG5 (0.73)

8. Bd2 (0.60)

9. hxg4 (2.80)

11. f4 (1.10)

12. Nc3 (0.90)

13. f4 (0.04)

14. Qf3 (-1.80)

15. Nxh5 (-4.20)

17. c3 (-4.66)

20. Qg2 (-6.41)

23. Rh1 (-8.08)

25. Kg3 (-6.40)

27. Bxe7 (-9.15)

30. c3 (-8.56)

32. c3 (-8.50)

36. a4 (-9.70)

38 a4 (-10.40)

39. Kd2 (-10.77)

41. Tc4 (-15.21)

44. Td7 (-12.50)

41. Tc4 (-15.21)

44. Td7 (-12.50)

Sorry, Rc4, Rc7 for english annotation ...

Michael

"Dr. David Kirkby" m wrote
in message om...

Sorry I posted this in another newsgroup earlier, but on reflection
that was not the best choice.

I've replied to both r.g.c.a and r.g.c.c. I don't think many people will
mind the x-posting.

Indicates to an analysis depth of 12, the 5th move Be3 gave white a
disadvantage (-0.20 pawns) compared to Ng5 which would have been an
advantage of 0.72 pawns. Since I played Be3, I clearly did not choose
the best move.

A depth of 12 is shallow for analysis, 16 is, imho, the minimum required to
uncover strategic subtleties and differences in move choices by the various
myopic proggies.

Also, opening guides can provide more useful information at move 5 than most
computer programs. Programs that get out of book early, tend to make the
same moves and are somewhat predictable, leading to weaker play. No computer
has ever lost a game in book.

Would anyone with 'chessbase' (preferably a few different versions
from a few different people) be kind enough to analyse the game and
give their results? I hope this analysis would useful to not just
myself, but others too, since a comparision of different programs for
analysis can only be in everyone's best interest.

I am not using chessbase, but instead experience and a few other programs to
explore complex lines. [Ruffian is great for open games, Rebel for closed,
Fritz for smashing other programs.] One of the problems with using chess
programs for analysis is that the principal variation assumes that the
opponent will play the strongest reply. At the ratings of the players,
neither will benefit much from those main-lines without a person explaining
why this is a better choce than that and why this move, which looks safe and
secure, ten moves down the road, is a loser. Who ever plays the best move?
Not I. Nor these programs apparantly!


[Event "ICC 45 15"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2003.12.28"]
[Round "-"]
[White "g8wrb"]
[Black "paupau"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White resigns"]
[WhiteElo "1179"]
[BlackElo "1123"]
[Opening "King's pawn game"]
[ECO "C50"]
[NIC "IG.03"]
[Time "08:56:16"]
[TimeControl "2700+15"]

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 d6

White has opted for the Giuoco Piano, a traditional KP opening that has
oodles of theory and options characterized by the bishop on c4. Aggressively
placed, the bishop eyes f7, and attempts to bolster the center (d5) while
readying for a lightning fast castle.

The giuoco piano is called 'the quiet game', but tactics abound, and Black
has already failed to meet 3. Bc4 with a meaningful response. 3. ... d6 is
not fatal, it's just not as active as it could be. Better choices are to
meet the aggression head on with 3. ... Bc5. After the text move, the dark
black bishop is trapped and can not claim space on the Queenside, but must
languish at e7. 3. ... Nf6 is an improvement over the text move as well.

Other options include the Hungarian Defence and Giuoco Pianissimo, but black
has imprisoned his king bishop, so those are just options for another game.

4. d3 Nf6

Book for white is 4. c3 which may look odd, but really isn't. It's a lot
better than 4. d3 which not only is passive but blocks the light white
bishop from realistic retreat if Black gets antsy and plays 4. ... Na5. Like
this: 4. ... Na5 5. Bd5 Nf6 6. O-O Be7 and Black has equalized.

4. c3 prevents such nonesense from happening: 4. ... Na5 5. Qa4+ c6 6. Be2
and white continues his opening edge. Look at the difference: white can play
d4 with the support of the c3 pawn, and the Queen on a4 if Black let's it
stay put. Also, the light bishop is intact, unlike in 4. d3 when it's
Black's option to take it or not.

Not to mention, that Knight on a5 is mighty weak and under attack.

5. Be3 h6

This is where you mentioned your Crafty analysis, and I'll mention Ruffian's
analysis at this point...let's give it a sec to generate some moves in the
principle variation. Ruffian believes that 5. Ng5 is the move with a score
of +0.86/16.

What does 5. Ng5 do that 5. Be3 doesn't? It threatens an annoying
capture/check/fork on f7 that needs immediate attention, 5. Be3 doesn't do
anything immediate. It helps develop a piece, to a passive square however,
and cedes initiative to black. Since black doesn't have to respond to a
threat, he can start making some of his own.

Ruff sayz: 5. Ng5 d5 6. exd5 Na5 (see how d3 is coming back to haunt?) 7.
Bb5+ c6 8. dxc6 bxc6 9. Ba4 and the board, while tactical, is completely
playable for white, not to mention a pawn up! 5. Be3 was merely a weak move,
nothing more! Notice how black responded ... h6, knowing the danger Ng5
presented to him.

6. Nc3 a6
7. O-O Ng4

Already 5. Be3 is a headache, there is not much white can do to hold on to
this bishop if he really wants it for later. However, this middlegame move
by black is premature..unless he has decided full-on kingside attack!
Aiieee!

8. h3 h5

Lo, Black is betting the farm on the kingside! Pity it doesn't work. 8. ...
h5? 9. hxg4 hxg4? 10. Ng5! f5 11. Bf7+ Kd7 (11. ... Ke7? 12. Nd5+) 12. exf5
Nd4 13. Be6+ and Black's game implodes: 13. ... Nxe6 14. fxe6+ Ke8 15. Qxg4
1-0

How about taking on g4 with the slav bishop instead of the h-pawn? To wit:
9. ... Bxg4 10. Qd2 Bxf3 11. gxf3 Qf6 12. Kg2 h4 13. Nd5 h3+ 14. Kh2 Qxf3
15. Rg1 Rc8 and white survives that long ago sacrifice with 16. Rg5, there
is no way Black can forcibly mate as long as white stays awake! A veyr

9. Nh2 Nxh2
10. Kxh2 Qf6

That exchange took most of the fun out of that variation...blah. So what are
we left with? Looking at the board, we have an emerging middle game with all
the pawns still left, and a set of knights traded. Black has suggested that
he is hell bent on unsound attacks and has an advanced h-pwn to prove it,
not to mention that he has queen side castling available to him. Further
giving him attacking options by giving him an exit strategy.

White's pieces are not co-operating well at all, they are close to home and
do not reinforce each other. White needs a plan desperately before Black
gets any ideas about ... Bxh3! It's not like he is shy about moves like
that.

A few options exist in the center such as Qd2, Ne2, c3, d4 or even the
Kingside, since it's mashed up anyway: Qd2, f4, Nd5.. see how easy it is
when Black doesn't move! d5 is a reasonably strong square for white's
knight. If you can find a way to keep it there, you have a solid plan.
Combine that with doubling the rooks on the f-file, and you have a
potentially winning plan.

Interestingly enough, there seems to be potential for queenside play for
white, and it would be improper for me not to mention it. Firstly, white has
access to the queenside, second, white's pawn structure is not yet committed
and therefore flexible enough to adopt QS play. Lastly, white's control of
d5, allows for that to be his base of operations, here's a line:

11. Nd5 Qd8 12. a4 Be6 13. b4 Bh4 14. f4 Be6 15. b5 Na5 16. b6 Nxc4
Certainly not the easiest of lines to navigate, but look at the space
advantage white currently enjoys.

11. Ne2 g5
12. Ng3 g4

I hope that knight is where you want him! f4 is/was desperately called for.
Anything to stop those pawns.

13. f4 Qh4 14. Nf5 Bxf5 15. Bf2 Qd8 and it's still trouble, but not
breathing down your neck trouble.

13. Kg1 gxh3

14. Qf3 puts up a fight.

14. gxh3 Bxh3
15. Re1 Qg6

15. ... h4 and white is finished for 2003. Do the math...

16. Qf3 h4

Speak of the devil, white's finished. Here's a way to go out with style!

17. Qxf7+ Qxf7 18. Bxf7+ Kxf7 19. Ne2 and you will never take me alive,
white bellows.


17. Qh1 hxg3
18. Qf3 gxf2+
19. Kxf2 Bg4

Ok, ok, ok. I get the point. Why did this game continue for so long after
this point? I'm done, fun game!

Thanks for sharing.


20. Bxf7+ Qxf7
21. Qxf7+ Kxf7
22. Rf1 Ke7
23. Bg5+ Kd7
24. Rg1 Rh2+ 25. Rg2 Rxg2+ 26.
Kxg2 Be7 27. Kg3 Bh5 28. Rh1 Bxg5 29. Rxh5 Be7 30. Rh7 Rg8+ 31. Kf3 Rg1 32.
Kf2 Ra1 33. a3 Rb1 34. b4 Rc1 35. c4 Nd4 36. c5 Rc3 37. cxd6 cxd6 38. Ke3
Rxa3 39. Rh1 Kc6 40. Rc1+ Kb5 41. Rc7 Bg5+ 42. Kf2 b6 43. Rg7 Bf4 44. Kf1
Rb3 45. Kf2 {White resigns} 0-1

On 29 Dec 2003 11:15:07 -0800,

However, I think chessbase won't run under Windoze 2000, which means I
won't be able to use it anyway.

Where did you get that idea? It's nonsense, anyway - runs just fine
on my copy of Windows 2000 and that's a fact.

Also, is it copy protected in some way - I get the feeling a CD may be
needed in the drive in order to run it?

Where do you get these "feelings" from? As a matter of fact it needs
no such thing.

Ed

in the opening , there is not always a best move , most of the time
several choices are possible

and don't use chess programs to analyse openings , they tend to mess
up lol , that is why they use opening books , to avoid programs from
losing the game in the opening , even fritz can't do it without
opening book

the midgame is usually much more important then the opening

and in tourneys and such , the best move is not always the best
possible move , several of the best players ever have done lesser
moves on purpose to win the game , just cause they knew that their
opponent isn't familiar with or doesn't like that move

only advice i can give is play the move that makes you feel good , i
mean as long as it isn't a bad move lol , but in the opening there are
usually like 5 or more possible moves , just pick the one you feel
comfy with , cause analyses might tell you that there is a better one
, but what does it help you if 5 moves later you get a position that
is very good but you have no clue what to do next

like for example with Nc3 or Nd2 , i mean if Nd2 is better but Nc3 is
still ok to play then i will play Nc3 , just cause i like that move
more and feel better with it

Hi David:

5. Be3 was weak but not the losing move, c3 or Nc3 would be better. 5. c3
prepares an eventual d4 for a Ruy Lopez type position. It is too early to
decide where the bishop belongs.
After 5. Ng5 d5 6. ed5 Na5 7. Bb5+ c6 8. dc6 bc6 9. Ba4 Bg4 we have a
line in the 2 Knights defense where black has some compensation for his
pawn. Given the way you
played the rest of the game, 5. Ng5 is not the move for you!
9. Nh2?? was a real lemon, 9. hg4 Bg4 is much better.
11. Nd2 was also very bad, Nd5 drives his Q back.
13. Kg1??, the losing move, 13. f4 was necessary. After that, there is not
much point in looking farther. In fact, black should have won more quickly.
You allowed Black to sieze the initiative and disrupt your K-side because
you did not play "in the spirt of the opening" as they say. If you want to
play slowly/more positionally, try the Ruy Lopez or 1. d4 or 1. c4. While
one should not try to memorize lots of opening moves, you do need to
understand the general plan associated with any opening you play.
Also, ChessBase is a games database, not an "engine" that plays chess
although it does include an engine (Crafty I think). Fritz8 from ChessBase
is very strong playing program and has more database functions than most
amateur players need. The program gets loaded from a CD onto your hard disk
but you do need to re-insert the CD once in a while. Check with ChessBase or
ChessBaseUSA to be sure that it will run on your setup.

Geoff


"Dr. David Kirkby" m wrote
in message om...
Sorry I posted this in another newsgroup earlier, but on reflection
that was not the best choice.

I played a game as white in which I made a real mess of things. The
PGN file can be found at

http://www.g8wrb.org/chess/paupau.pgn

I've analysed the game using the free open-source chess engine
'crafty'. The results of the analysis can be found at:

http://www.g8wrb.org/chess/paupau.pgn.html

In case it's not obvious, a couple of lines from 'crafty' such as

({12:-0.20} 5. Be3 Na5 6. Na3 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8....
({12:+0.72} 5. Ng5 d5 6. exd5 Na5 7. O-O Nxc4 8....

Indicates to an analysis depth of 12, the 5th move Be3 gave white a
disadvantage (-0.20 pawns) compared to Ng5 which would have been an
advantage of 0.72 pawns. Since I played Be3, I clearly did not choose
the best move.

Would anyone with 'chessbase' (preferably a few different versions
from a few different people) be kind enough to analyse the game and
give their results? I hope this analysis would useful to not just
myself, but others too, since a comparision of different programs for
analysis can only be in everyone's best interest.

The analysis was done at 120 s per move (i.e. 60 s for white, 60 s for
black). The machine was rather an odd-ball, being a Sun Ultra 80
running 4 x 450 MHz CPUs each with 4 MB of cache ram. My guess is that
the performance would be similar to a Pentium running at 1.5 GHz or
so, although I've never compared resuls with this machine to a
Pentium. Neither have I optimised the code in any way.

You can see the analysis by 'crafty' thinks I played the wrong move at
5, when I played Be3 (which put me 0.21 pawns down) rather than the
Ng5, which would have given me an advantage of 0.72 pawns. It also
thinks I played move 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 .. wrong, but by this point I
was in a real mess anyway.

HELLO,

En/na Geoff ha escrit:

Hi David:

5. Be3 was weak but not the losing move, c3 or Nc3 would be better. 5. c3
prepares an eventual d4 for a Ruy Lopez type position. It is too early to
decide where the bishop belongs.
After 5. Ng5 d5 6. ed5 Na5 7. Bb5+ c6 8. dc6 bc6 9. Ba4 Bg4 we have a
line in the 2 Knights defense where black has some compensation for his
pawn. Given the way you
played the rest of the game, 5. Ng5 is not the move for you!

5.Ng5 can be good.
5.Ng5 d5 6.ed5 Na5 is a known line fom Bronstein a tempo up.
(7... h6 8.Nf3 e4 9.dxe4 Nxc4)

9. Nh2?? was a real lemon, 9. hg4 Bg4 is much better.

I suppose human analisis would be focused in 9.hxg4 hxg4 (with the idea
of Qh4) but there exists 10.Ng5 and white is winning.

11. Nd2 was also very bad, Nd5 drives his Q back.

11.Ne2 is not as bad, ... but ok, Nd5 is better.

13. Kg1??, the losing move, 13. f4 was necessary. After that, there is not
much point in looking farther. In fact, black should have won more quickly.

13.Kg1 is a losing move, ok

but white has many options here, your f4 seems reasonable. But black
menaces nothing concrete (after ...gxh3, gxh3 Qh4, white has Nf5 with
defence.

(...)

Geoff