Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 12th 10, 07:33 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Rare example where weaker computer wins found here

I'm looking for games where two computers played each other but one
was rated 300 points or more than the other, and the weaker program
won. So far I've not found any, because apparently programmers try
and keep the opponents within 200 Elo points, for reasons I outlined
in my other thread: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...14c52eb?hl=en#

I am going through this collection: http://computerchess.org.uk

But I did find this game, which drew despite White being rated about
150 points lower. The critical position was this:
4k3/4pp2/p2pn3/3Q4/r7/2P3Pp/PP3P1q/5KR1 b - - 0 38

And nearly any king move by black would maintain a huge advantage for
black, but the drawing move 38...Nc5? was made.

Anybody else find such a game where the weaker program draws or wins?

Please post it.

RL

[Event "CCRL 40/40"]
[Site "CCRL"]
[Date "2010.01.21"]
[Round "210.2"]
[White "Slibo 0.4.8"]
[Black "Alex 1.96"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B90"]
[WhiteElo "1985"]
[BlackElo "2137"]
[PlyCount "124"]
[EventDate "2010.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bg5
h6 8. Bh4
g5 9. Bg3 Bg7 10. Be2 h5 11. h4 gxh4 12. Bxh4 Nc6 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14.
Na4 Qa5+
15. c3 Be6 16. Qc2 Bf6 17. Bxf6 Nxf6 18. Bf3 Rg8 19. Rg1 Bg4 20. Bd1
Qe5 21.
Nb6 Qh2 22. Kf1 Rb8 23. Na4 Rb5 24. Qd3 Ra5 25. Qc4 c5 26. Qb3 Rb5 27.
Qc2 c4
28. Bxg4 Rxg4 29. Re1 h4 30. Re3 Re5 31. Nb6 h3 32. g3 Nxe4 33. Nxc4
Re6 34.
Rf3 Ng5 35. Re3 Rxc4 36. Rxe6 Nxe6 37. Qd3 Ra4 38. Qd5 Nc5 39. b4 Nd3
40. Qa8+
Kd7 41. Qb7+ Ke6 42. Qc8+ Ke5 43. Qh8+ f6 44. Qh5+ Ke6 45. Qg4+ f5 46.
Qg6+ Kd5
47. Qg8+ e6 48. Qa8+ Ke5 49. Qh8+ Kd5 50. Qd4+ Kc6 51. Qxd3 Ra3 52.
Qd2 a5 53.
b5+ Kb7 54. Qxd6 Rxa2 55. Qe7+ Kb8 56. Qf8+ Kc7 57. Qc5+ Kd7 58. Qd4+
Ke7 59.
c4 Kf7 60. b6 e5 61. Qd7+ Kf6 62. Qd6+ Kf7 1/2-1/2
  #2   Report Post  
Old September 12th 10, 08:15 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2006
Posts: 470
Default Rare example where weaker computer wins found here

It's really not hard to find games with these results. Just looking
over the crosstable of the latest OpenWar (http://www.open-aurec.com/
chesswar/), I found this. Rotor is probably 250-300 points stronger
than Azrael.

[Event "OpenWar 7th Edition 20 + 5"]
[Site "QUAD"]
[Date "2010.06.09"]
[Round "21.18"]
[White "Rotor 0.5"]
[Black "Azrael 1.0x_x64"]
[Result "0-1"]
[TimeControl "1200+5"]
[Annotator "10. +0.20 12... -0.22"]
[Number "778"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. Nc3 Bb7 5. a3 d5 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. e3
Be7 8.
Bb5+ c6 9. Bd3 Nxc3 10. bxc3 {+0.20/16 0.1} c5 11. O-O {+0.19/13 0.1}
Nc6
12. Qc2 {+0.30/13 55} cxd4 {-0.22/10 23} 13. exd4 {+0.40/13 53} h6
{-0.22/8 31} 14. Bf4 {+0.48/14 34} Bd6 {-0.23/9 26} 15. Bxd6 {+0.46/14
42}
Qxd6 {-0.16/9 24} 16. Rfe1 {+0.41/13 39} Rc8 {-0.13/9 42} 17. Red1
{+0.34/13 40} O-O {-0.07/10 40} 18. Bh7+ {+0.13/14 27} Kh8 {-0.10/10
19}
19. Be4 {+0.13/15 29} Rfd8 {-0.12/10 23} 20. Re1 {+0.23/12 26} Kg8
{-0.04/9 21} 21. Bd3 {+0.21/12 31} Ne7 {+0.29/9 19} 22. Bh7+ {-0.14/14
33}
Kf8 {+0.34/10 22} 23. Be4 {-0.30/15 35} Bxe4 {+0.52/11 20} 24. Rxe4
{-0.63/15 34} b5 {+0.39/10 30} 25. Re3 {-0.19/14 33} Nd5 {+0.37/10 18}
26.
Rd3 {-0.25/15 28} Qc7 {+0.50/10 25} 27. Rc1 {-0.21/15 27} Rd6 {+0.50/9
18}
28. Ne5 {-0.58/13 24} f6 {+1.17/10 20} 29. Ng6+ {-1.32/13 26} Kg8
{+1.22/8 16} 30. Rg3 {-1.15/12 23} Rc6 {+1.30/9 23} 31. Qe4 {-1.21/13
23}
Qd6 {+1.59/10 20} 32. Qe1 {-1.37/13 22} a6 {+1.67/10 18} 33. Rc2
{-1.46/12 22} Qxa3 {+1.70/10 15} 34. c4 {-2.09/12 18} Qb4 {+2.90/11
33} 35.
Qxb4 {-2.89/15 21} Nxb4 {+3.04/12 17} 36. Re2 {-2.94/15 21} Rxc4
{+3.64/11 20} 37. f4 {-3.07/15 20} Kf7 {+3.91/12 19} 38. f5 {-3.11/15
15}
exf5 {+3.95/11 19} 39. Re7+ {-2.67/15 20} Kg8 {+3.95/9 14} 40. h3
{-2.64/15 19} R4c7 {+3.88/10 24} 41. Rf3 {-2.80/15 19} Nc6 {+3.97/12
23}
42. Rxc7 {-2.99/18 14} Rxc7 {+3.66/11 24} 43. d5 {-3.05/18 18} Nb4
{+3.95/11 15} 44. Rxf5 {-2.95/15 18} Kf7 {+3.94/10 18} 45. Ne5+
{-3.59/15 18} Ke7 {+3.94/9 12} 46. Ng4 {-3.59/16 13} Rd7 {+4.75/9 13}
47.
Ne3 {-3.63/16 17} g6 {+4.68/10 30} 48. Rf4 {-3.66/17 17} Nxd5
{+4.71/11 25}
49. Re4+ {-3.76/17 16} Kd6 {+4.62/10 28} 50. Nxd5 {-3.81/17 18} Kxd5
{+4.69/11 27} 51. Rf4 {-3.93/16 17} Ke5 {+4.77/11 23} 52. Rf3
{-4.00/16 12}
Rd1+ {+4.80/10 12} 53. Kf2 {-3.98/16 17} Rd2+ {+4.74/10 11} 54. Kg3
{-4.01/17 12} b4 {+4.73/10 9} 55. Re3+ {-4.00/16 16} Kf5 {+4.75/10 23}
56.
Rf3+ {-4.00/16 16} Ke6 {+4.81/11 34} 57. Re3+ {-3.99/16 17} Kd7
{+4.80/11 8} 58. Rb3 {-4.02/16 12} a5 {+4.83/10 10} 59. Rb1 {-4.20/15
15}
Kc6 {+4.76/10 9} 60. h4 {-4.38/15 15} Rd3+ {+4.90/10 9} 61. Kf4
{-4.40/16 15} Rd4+ {+4.98/10 11} 62. Kg3 {-4.77/16 13} a4 {+4.93/10 9}
63.
h5 {-5.10/15 13} gxh5 {+5.03/10 9} 64. Kf2 {-5.34/16 13} a3 {+5.80/10
12}
65. Ke3 {-6.87/15 13} Kd5 {+5.78/10 8} 66. Ra1 {-6.98/17 12} f5
{+5.81/10 8} 67. g3 {-5.32/14 12} h4 {+6.30/10 22} 68. gxh4 {-6.45/16
12}
Rxh4 {+6.36/10 9} 69. Kf3 {-7.08/15 12} Rc4 {+6.59/10 8} 70. Ke2
{-7.44/16 12} f4 {+6.71/10 8} 71. Kd2 {-6.56/16 11} f3 {+6.83/10 10}
72.
Ke3 {-10.00/15 8} Kc5 {+8.61/10 8} 73. Kxf3 {-10.00/16 11} b3
{+8.75/11 7}
74. Rxa3 {-7.06/17 10} b2 {+8.83/11 28} 75. Rb3 {-14.48/17 11} Rb4
{+8.86/11 26} 76. Rxb4 {-18.29/14 11} Kxb4 {+13.87/12 5}
{White resigns} 0-1

jm
  #3   Report Post  
Old September 12th 10, 08:20 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2006
Posts: 470
Default Rare example where weaker computer wins found here

On Sep 11, 11:44*pm, Sanny wrote:
3 yrs back when GetClub was 1000 elo below Jester.


Really? So when you were saying that Beginner level was 2000+ it was
really only about 1000? Finally you've said something that isn't a big
lie. Congratulations....

Beginner Level Drew a game with Jester despite being 1000 elo down.

Even now, GetClub find it hard to beat/ draw Jester. But 3 yrs back it
was able to get a draw with Jester.

This was the first and last draw by GetClub against Jester. May be in
future it beat Jester again.


So, wait, it has never beaten Jester and has only drawn it once, but
you hope it will beat Jester "again"??? Do you even think when you
type??

Also, for your information, if your crappy engine has only drawn
Jester once (and never won), then it is NO STRONGER than 1600. That is
simple elo calculation, assuming Jester is about 2000.

I'll repeat it, just so it will be obvious when you lie again about
GetCrap's rating....

Beginner Level is no stronger than 1600. But it's probably more like
1400.

jm
  #4   Report Post  
Old September 12th 10, 08:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Rare example where weaker computer wins found here

On Sep 12, 10:15*am, wrote:
It's really not hard to find games with these results. Just looking
over the crosstable of the latest OpenWar (http://www.open-aurec.com/
chesswar/), I found this. Rotor is probably 250-300 points stronger


Rotor played much better than Azrael in this game. Are you sure Rotor
is 250 to 300 points lower? Let me Google this...no answers.

Do you have other such games?

Thanks in advance,

RL
  #5   Report Post  
Old September 13th 10, 12:38 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2006
Posts: 470
Default Rare example where weaker computer wins found here

On Sep 12, 12:19*pm, raylopez99 wrote:
On Sep 12, 10:15*am, wrote:

It's really not hard to find games with these results. Just looking
over the crosstable of the latest OpenWar (http://www.open-aurec.com/
chesswar/), I found this. Rotor is probably 250-300 points stronger


Rotor played much better than Azrael in this game. *Are you sure Rotor
is 250 to 300 points lower? *Let me Google this...no answers.

Do you have other such games?

Thanks in advance,

RL


Actually, Azrael was the winner. And, yes, I can guarantee that Rotor
is that much stronger than Azrael. I have access to a very trustworthy
(and private) rating list comprised of hundreds of thousands of games
and containing almost 500 engines. This version of Azrael is rated
2052 on this list, and Rotor is rated 2336.

If you want other games, you can simply go to that site and look
through the archives. Find an obvious upset win in the crosstables and
then download the PGN for the game. Many of these kinds of wins will
be due to huge blunders or crashes by the stronger program, but every
once in a while you will see a win like Azrael v Rotor.

jm


  #6   Report Post  
Old September 14th 10, 08:41 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Rare example where weaker computer wins found here

On Sep 13, 2:38*am, wrote:

If you want other games, you can simply go to that site and look
through the archives. Find an obvious upset win in the crosstables and
then download the PGN for the game. Many of these kinds of wins will
be due to huge blunders or crashes by the stronger program, but every
once in a while you will see a win like Azrael v Rotor.


Well that's interesting. What is the difference between a "huge
blunder" and a 'crash'?

And I could not find out any crosstable in the site you mentioned. Is
it this site: I am going through this collection: http://computerchess.org.uk
?

I could not find any crosstable there.

Can you please (if it's easy) post here some more upsets, but not
program crashes or huge blunders?

RL
  #7   Report Post  
Old September 15th 10, 05:21 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2006
Posts: 470
Default Rare example where weaker computer wins found here

On Sep 14, 12:41*pm, raylopez99 wrote:
On Sep 13, 2:38*am, wrote:

If you want other games, you can simply go to that site and look
through the archives. Find an obvious upset win in the crosstables and
then download the PGN for the game. Many of these kinds of wins will
be due to huge blunders or crashes by the stronger program, but every
once in a while you will see a win like Azrael v Rotor.


Well that's interesting. *What is the difference between a "huge
blunder" and a 'crash'?

Can you please (if it's easy) post here some more upsets, but not
program crashes or huge blunders?


This is the site:

http://www.open-aurec.com/chesswar/archive.html

This site has an archive of several large round-robin tournaments
(called OpenWar -- don't bother with ChessWar) with engines that can
have a huge difference in rating (sometimes as much as 2000 or more!).
If you click on any of those links, you'll see another page with a
link to the crosstable for that tournament.

Determining if an "upset" is the result of a crash or a blunder or
simply better play by the weaker opponent takes careful analysis of
the game, which I assume you can do for yourself. A "crash" would be
the engine simply stopping due to a bug, which results in a loss (or a
draw if the other side does not have sufficient mating material). A
huge blunder would be just what it sounds like -- a terrible move that
loses either a half-point or a full point -- again, due to a bug.
Here's one example of each.

In this match, DanaSah (rated about 800-900 points stronger than that
version of Myrddin) had a clear win, but made the terrible move
59...c3???, which resulted in a draw.

[Event "OpenWar 6th Edition 15 + 5"]
[Site "QUAD"]
[Date "2009.08.08"]
[Round "39.7"]
[White "Myrddin 0.81m"]
[Black "DanaSah 4.24"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[TimeControl "900+5"]
[Annotator "20. -1.30 20... +1.44"]
[Number "1755"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. e5 Qe7 7.
Qe2
Nd5 8. c4 Ba6 9. g3 g6 10. b3 Bg7 11. Bb2 O-O-O 12. Bg2 Rhe8 13. O-O
Bxe5
14. Qxe5 Qxe5 15. Bxe5 Rxe5 16. cxd5 Bxf1 17. Kxf1 cxd5 18. Nc3 c6 19.
Rc1
Kb8 20. f4 {-1.30/10 29} Re7 {+1.44/17 38} 21. Ne2 {-1.23/11 29} Kb7
{+1.64/18 37} 22. Nd4 {-1.16/11 28} a5 {+1.77/18 36} 23. f5 {-1.07/10
28}
f6 {+2.07/17 35} 24. g4 {-1.17/10 27} Kb6 {+2.36/17 34} 25. h4
{-1.25/10 38} Rg7 {+2.07/16 33} 26. fxg6 {-1.16/11 26} hxg6 {+2.00/17
32}
27. h5 {-1.23/12 38} gxh5 {+2.48/16 31} 28. gxh5 {-2.14/12 1:37} Rdg8
{+2.50/18 30} 29. Rc2 {-2.28/14 22} Rg4 {+2.87/18 29} 30. Nf3
{-2.23/13 21}
Rf4 {+2.78/19 29} 31. Kf2 {-1.89/11 21} Rh8 {+3.08/17 28} 32. Kg3
{-1.76/13 21} Rb4 {+3.03/17 27} 33. Bh3 {-1.76/10 20} Kc7 {+3.26/16
26} 34.
Re2 {-2.31/11 20} Re4 {+3.40/16 26} 35. Rg2 {-2.60/10 20} Rxh5
{+3.60/17 25} 36. Bg4 {-2.58/12 19} Rh8 {+3.71/18 24} 37. Nd2
{-2.65/10 19}
Rb4 {+3.67/17 24} 38. Be2 {-2.74/9 18} a4 {+4.08/16 23} 39. Bg4
{-2.93/10 24} Rg8 {+4.73/17 22} 40. Kh3 {-3.04/11 18} Rd4 {+5.36/18
22} 41.
Nf1 {-3.91/12 42} axb3 {+5.34/19 21} 42. axb3 {-3.79/13 16} Rh8+
{+5.34/18 21} 43. Kg3 {-3.79/12 16} Rd3+ {+5.30/17 20} 44. Kf4
{-3.82/13 16} Rxb3 {+5.40/17 20} 45. Rh2 {-4.08/11 17} Rxh2 {+5.89/17
19}
46. Nxh2 {-4.50/13 15} Rb4+ {+6.13/19 19} 47. Kg3 {-4.33/12 15} d4
{+6.22/19 18} 48. Bf5 {-4.55/13 15} c5 {+6.31/18 18} 49. Ng4 {-4.36/12
14}
Rb6 {+6.65/17 17} 50. Kf4 {-4.72/13 29} d5 {+6.90/19 17} 51. Bg6
{-4.88/13 14} c4 {+6.97/19 17} 52. Bh7 {-4.97/12 20} Kd6 {+7.52/18 16}
53.
Nxf6 {-4.84/12 13} Rb8 {+8.31/18 16} 54. Bf5 {-5.14/12 18} Rf8
{+15.99/18 15} 55. Ng4 {-5.58/15 13} d3 {+20.05/18 15} 56. Nf2
{-5.87/15 12} d2 {+98.35/26 15} 57. Nd1 {-6.19/15 33} Rxf5+ {+98.40/20
14}
58. Kxf5 {-2.13/19 11} Kc5 {+98.42/20 14} 59. Ke5 {-2.17/20 11} c3
{+98.44/31 14} 60. Nxc3 {+0.00/21 11} d4 {+0.00/64 0.6} 61. Ne4+
{+0.00/20 11} Kc4 {+0.00/50 14} 62. Nxd2+ {+0.00/28 11} Kc5 {+0.00/64
4}
63. Ke4 {+1.46/17 11} d3 {+0.00/64 0.4} 64. Kf3 {+0.00/20 11} Kb5
{+0.00/46 14} 65. Kf2 {+0.97/16 10} Ka5 {+0.00/52 13} 66. Ke1
{+0.96/16 10}
Ka6 {+0.00/58 13} 67. Kd1 {+0.98/17 10} Kb6 {+0.00/51 13} 68. Kc1
{+0.98/22 10} Ka6 {+0.00/47 12} 69. Kb2 {+1.45/23 10} Kb6 {+0.00/49
12} 70.
Kc3 {+0.97/21 10} Ka6 {+0.00/64 1.9} 71. Kb4 {+0.95/17 10} Kb6
{+0.00/47 12} 72. Kc4 {+1.27/23 10} Ka6 {+0.00/64 1.1} 73. Kc3
{+0.95/15 9}
Ka5 {+0.00/64 0.1} 74. Nc4+ {+0.95/16 9} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 75. Kd2
{+1.43/24 9} Kb5 {+0.00/64 0.5} 76. Ne5 {+1.43/22 9} Ka5 {+0.00/64
0.2} 77.
Ng4 {+1.43/23 9} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.7} 78. Nf6 {+1.43/25 9} Kb6 {+0.00/64
0.3}
79. Nd5+ {+1.43/22 9} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.5} 80. Nc3 {+1.44/22 9} Kb6
{+0.00/64 0.6} 81. Ne4 {+1.43/27 9} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 82. Nd6
{+1.43/23 8}
Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 83. Nf5 {+1.43/20 8} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 84. Nd4
{+1.43/24 8} Kb6 {+0.00/64 1.4} 85. Nf3 {+1.43/24 8} Ka6 {+0.00/64
0.5} 86.
Ng5 {+1.43/27 8} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.5} 87. Ne6 {+1.43/23 8} Ka6 {+0.00/64
0.3}
88. Nf4 {+1.40/20 8} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 89. Ng6 {+1.14/22 8} Ka6
{+0.00/64 0.3} 90. Nh4 {+1.40/26 8} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 91. Ng2
{+1.43/27 8}
Ka6 {+0.00/64 1.1} 92. Ne3 {+1.43/27 8} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.3} 93. Nf1
{+1.01/21 8} Ka6 {+0.00/64 1.8} 94. Ng3 {+0.97/17 8} Kb6 {+0.00/64
0.7} 95.
Nh5 {+1.07/24 7} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 96. Kd1 {+0.94/22 6} d2 {+0.00/64
3}
97. Ng3 {+0.94/24 6} Kb6 {+0.00/63 15} 98. Ne4 {+0.93/27 6} Ka6
{+0.00/64 1.9} 99. Nd6 {+0.94/22 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64 2.3} 100. Ne8
{+0.94/26 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.6} 101. Ng7 {+0.94/23 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64 8}
102.
Ne6 {+0.95/23 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64 5} 103. Nd4 {+0.95/20 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64
0.2}
104. Nf3 {+0.95/25 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 105. Nh4 {+0.94/25 6} Kb6
{+0.00/64 0.2} 106. Ng2 {+0.94/25 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 107. Ne3
{+0.95/26 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.5} 108. Nc4+ {+0.96/21 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64
0.2}
109. Ne5 {+0.93/23 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64 14} 110. Nd3 {+0.94/25 6} Ka6
{+0.00/64 0.2} 111. Nc5+ {+0.95/22 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.4} 112. Nd7+
{+0.95/24 6} Kc6 {+0.00/64 0.5} 113. Nf6 {+0.94/23 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64
0.2}
114. Nh7 {+0.94/22 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 115. Ng5 {+0.94/20 6} Kb6
{+0.00/64 0.2} 116. Nh3 {+0.53/22 10} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 117. Nf4
{+0.91/22 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 118. Nd5+ {+0.93/23 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64
0.3}
119. Nf6 {+0.00/22 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 120. Ng8 {+0.00/28 6} Ka6
{+0.00/64 0.2} 121. Nh6 {+0.86/32 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 122. Nf5
{+0.00/29 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 123. Ne7 {+0.00/23 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64
0.8}
124. Ng6 {+0.00/26 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.3} 125. Ne5 {+0.00/28 6} Kb6
{+0.00/64 0.2} 126. Ng4 {+0.00/25 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.3} 127. Nf2
{+0.00/22 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 128. Nh1 {+0.00/28 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64
0.2}
129. Nf2 {+0.00/31 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 130. Ne4 {+0.00/19 6} Ka6
{+0.00/64 0.2} 131. Nc3 {+0.00/28 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 132. Na4+
{+0.00/21 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.3} 133. Nc5+ {+0.00/26 6} Kb6 {+0.00/64
0.2}
134. Nb3 {+0.00/23 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 135. Na1 {+0.00/29 6} Kb6
{+0.00/64 0.2} 136. Nb3 {+0.00/25 6} Ka6 {+0.00/64 0.2} 137. Ke2
{+0.00/25 6} d1=Q+ {+0.00/61 20} 138. Kxd1 {+0.00/38 6}
{Xboard adjudication: Insufficient mating material} 1/2-1/2

This game is simply the result of a crash. It may say that White won
on time, but that's the effect of an engine simply not responding.
Cippolino was probably 900-1000 points stronger than Myrddin.

[Event "OpenWar 6th Edition 15 + 5"]
[Site "QUAD"]
[Date "2009.08.25"]
[Round "49.2"]
[White "Myrddin 0.81m"]
[Black "Cipollino 3.24b_2CPU_x64"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "900+5"]
[Annotator "7. -0.05 3... -0.08"]
[Number "2210"]

1. c4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. b3 Nf6 {-0.08/16 1:02} 4. g3 dxc4 {-0.01/15 30}
5.
bxc4 e5 {-0.09/15 30} 6. Bg2 Bd6 {-0.04/16 43} 7. Bb2 {-0.05/10 28}
Qe7
{+0.03/16 46} 8. d3 {-0.10/9 27} O-O {+0.18/16 35} 9. Nbd2 {-0.10/9
27} Na6
{+0.06/16 28} 10. h3 {-0.08/9 26} Bf5 {+0.13/16 1:01} 11. g4 {-0.08/9
26}
Bg6 {+0.31/16 32} 12. Nh4 {+0.50/9 25} Ba3 {+0.33/16 28} 13. Nxg6
{+0.47/10 25} fxg6 {+0.32/16 29} 14. Bxa3 {+0.43/10 24} Qxa3 {+0.42/15
10}
15. g5 {+0.40/9 23} Nh5 {+0.70/16 23} 16. Bf3 {+0.30/9 23} Nf4
{+1.21/15 26} 17. Qb3 {+0.34/9 23} Qe7 {+1.16/15 26} 18. a4 {+0.28/9
22}
Nc5 {+1.55/16 39} 19. Qa3 {+0.31/9 22} Rad8 {+1.75/16 3} 20. Be4
{+0.20/9 21} Nfe6 {+1.74/16 13} 21. h4 {+0.25/8 21} Qf7 {+1.80/14 23}
22.
f3 {+0.25/8 21} Qf4 {+1.75/15 27} 23. Kd1 {+0.17/8 20} Qe3 {+2.27/15
30}
24. Qc3 {-0.34/8 1:19} Nd4 {+3.80/16 21} 25. Re1 {-0.40/9 18} Nxe4
{+4.11/17 0.9} 26. fxe4 {-1.48/10 42} Rf2 {+4.53/14 20} 27. Ra3
{-2.64/10 1:05}
{White wins on time} 1-0

jm
  #8   Report Post  
Old September 15th 10, 07:24 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Rare example where weaker computer wins found here

On Sep 15, 7:21*pm, wrote:


jm,

I thank you for taking the time to answer this post. Unfortunately, I
have had no luck in three cross-table searches finding any clear
program wins by the weaker side--or even draws--just two program
crashes. See my search below.

I have a question though: in the game you posted, in this position on
the 70th move: 8/8/1k6/8/8/2Kp4/3N4/8 b - - 0 70

Why did not the king take the pawn? It would have been an automatic
draw. Does the program not know about how a lone K + N cannot
checkmate a bare K?

Pretty weak programming if that's the case.

Please feel free to post other genuine "weaker program wins or draws
but not due to a program crash" games--I've not found any.

Ray

8/8/1k6/8/8/2Kp4/3N4/8 b - - 0 70

Why did the pawn not get taken, resulting in an automatic draw?

http://www.open-aurec.com/chesswar/O...crosstable.htm -
no clear upsets

http://www.open-aurec.com/chesswar/O...05/openwar.htm - I
see an upset: Smirf MS-175i beat Alaric 707 -- but this was a program
crash "White wins on time" see position: 7R/p2r4/P7/3p4/3PRPk1/8/1p4PK/
2r5 b - - 0 52 where black is winning by -+10.3 centipawns.

http://www.open-aurec.com/chesswar/O...crosstable.htm -
one upset: Mainsworthy 64.01.7 beat Equinox 0.30l_2CPU_x64 - but this
was a program crash "black wins on time" though White is way ahead:
6.7 centipawns: r1b2k1r/pppp1ppp/2n5/6q1/1bB1R2N/2N5/PPPP1PPP/R1BQ2K1
w - - 0 12


  #9   Report Post  
Old September 15th 10, 08:38 PM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2006
Posts: 470
Default Rare example where weaker computer wins found here

On Sep 15, 11:24*am, raylopez99 wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:21*pm, wrote:
I thank you for taking the time to answer this post. *Unfortunately, I
have had no luck in three cross-table searches finding any clear
program wins by the weaker side--or even draws--just two program
crashes. *See my search below.

I have a question though: *in the game you posted, in this position on
the 70th move: 8/8/1k6/8/8/2Kp4/3N4/8 b - - 0 70

Why did not the king take the pawn? *It would have been an automatic
draw. *Does the program not know about how a lone K + N cannot
checkmate a bare K?


My engine at the time did not have any knowledge about material draws.
If you look at the game you can see that, up until move 114, it
thought that it was winning because of the material difference.

http://www.open-aurec.com/chesswar/O...rosstable.htm-
no clear upsets


Not true. Twisted Logic was probably about 400 points stronger in this
game. I these kinds of cases, though, you never know if this was an
experimental (i.e. not an officially released) version of the program.

[Event "OpenWar 4th Edition 30+5"]
[Site "DELL-E6600"]
[Date "2008.06.10"]
[Round "41.25"]
[White "Neurosis 2.4"]
[Black "Twisted Logic 20080530"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "1800+5"]
[Annotator "5. -0.13 6... +0.28"]
[Number "1425"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 O-O 5. Bg5 {-0.13/10} c5 6.
e3 {-0.07/10} h6 {+0.28/19} 7. Bh4 {+0.09/11} cxd4 {+0.35/16} 8.
exd4 {+0.05/11} Qa5 {+0.26/17} 9. Bxf6 {+0.69/11} gxf6 {+0.26/17} 10.
Bd3 {+0.67/10} b6 {+0.30/16} 11. Ne2 {+0.79/11} Nc6 {+0.16/17} 12.
O-O {+0.79/9} Bb7 {+0.02/16} 13. d5 {+0.83/10} Ne5 {+0.38/16} 14.
a3 {+0.78/10} Bxc3 {-0.29/17} 15. Nxc3 {+0.84/9} Rfc8 {-0.44/17} 16.
Ne4 {+1.00/9} f5 {-0.44/15} 17. Nf6+ {+1.18/10} Kf8 {-0.90/16} 18.
Rfe1 {+1.21/10} d6 {-2.47/19} 19. b4 {+1.17/10} Qa6 {-3.54/19} 20.
b5 {+1.50/10} Qa5 {-2.89/19} 21. f4 {+1.80/10} Bxd5 {-2.95/18} 22.
fxe5 {+2.76/11} Bxc4 {-3.02/18} 23. Bxc4 {+3.13/11} d5 {-5.19/19} 24.
Qc1 {+3.18/11} Kg7 {-3.30/16} 25. Re3 {+3.22/11} f4 {-7.76/18} 26.
Rc3 {+3.43/10} a6 {-5.47/17} 27. Bxd5 {+5.36/11} Qxc3 {-5.76/18} 28.
Qxc3 {+5.57/12} Rxc3 {-6.06/22} 29. Bxa8 {+5.44/11} axb5 {-6.08/21}
30.
Kf2 {+5.78/12} Rc5 {-6.12/20} 31. Nd7 {+5.85/12} Rc7 {-6.38/20} 32.
Nxb6 {+5.91/12} Kg6 {-6.49/19} 33. Be4+ {+6.14/11} Kg5 {-6.80/20} 34.
a4 {+6.14/11} bxa4 {-7.04/18} 35. Rxa4 {+6.26/10} Rc5 {-7.14/19} 36.
Nd7 {+6.55/11} Rb5 {-8.27/20} 37. Ra8 {+7.14/11} Rb2+ {-8.33/20} 38.
Ke1 {+7.33/10} f3 {-8.33/18} 39. Bxf3 {+8.01/11} Kf4 {-8.55/17} 40.
Ra4+ {+8.12/11} Kf5 {-9.82/19} 41. g3 {+8.32/11} h5 {-10.32/19} 42.
Rf4+ {+9.44/12} Kg6 {-9.94/19}
{Black resigns} 1-0

jm
  #10   Report Post  
Old September 16th 10, 09:32 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Rare example where weaker computer wins found here

On Sep 15, 10:38*pm, wrote:

Not true. Twisted Logic was probably about 400 points stronger in this
game. I these kinds of cases, though, you never know if this was an
experimental (i.e. not an officially released) version of the program.

[Event "OpenWar 4th Edition 30+5"]
[Site "DELL-E6600"]
[Date "2008.06.10"]
[Round "41.25"]
[White "Neurosis 2.4"]
[Black "Twisted Logic 20080530"]
[Result "1-0"]
jm


A well played game. White destroyed Black's K-side cover and the game
played itself.

RL
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any tips for computer chess? Patrick rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 14 October 2nd 06 10:26 AM
theoretical N found by computer in an tournament game? [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 4 August 11th 06 03:51 PM
Looking for comments Adam Maloney rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 7 November 4th 05 04:44 PM
A good computer game with a rare EP capture!!! Chuck in Minot alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 December 8th 03 10:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017