tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post3869571794136738111..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: Position : white to play and calculateTom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-51006551327080085422007-02-04T11:53:00.000+00:002007-02-04T11:53:00.000+00:00I decided to repeat the analysis with default rybk...I decided to repeat the analysis with default rybka2.2n for 68 hours and 50 minutes<br /><br />This time default rybka could find it at depth 24 in less than 20 hours and did not change it's mind<br />at depth 25 or depth 26 <br /><br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Nc5 4.Bb2 Nd7 5.Qd4 f6 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.Qxf6 Rhe5 <br /> ² (0.66) Depth: 24 07:01:26 1080437kN<br />1.e5 Nxe1 2.Bxb7 Qxb7 3.Rxe1 Rxe5 4.Rxe5 dxe5 5.Ng4 Qb5 6.Bxe5 f5 7.Nf6+ Kf7 <br /> ± (0.80) Depth: 24 19:47:21 3026210kN<br />1.e5 Nxe1 2.Bxb7 Qxb7 3.Rxe1 Rxe5 4.Rxe5 dxe5 5.Ng4 Qe4 6.Bxe5 Qe1+ <br /> ± (0.79) Depth: 25 32:18:56 567428kN<br />1.e5 Nxe1 2.Bxb7 Qxb7 3.Rxe1 Rxe5 4.Rxe5 dxe5 5.Ng4 Qe4 6.Bxe5 Qe1+ <br /> ± (0.72) Depth: 26 57:57:17 72585kN<br /><br />(Uri, MyTown 04.02.2007)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-27064290193959912872007-01-27T14:44:00.000+00:002007-01-27T14:44:00.000+00:00Thanks for all of these: I will comment in due cou...Thanks for all of these: I will comment in due course!ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-21308820986993340802007-01-26T12:26:00.000+00:002007-01-26T12:26:00.000+00:00Note that John Jerz explained in the chess compute...Note that John Jerz explained in the chess computer club that he <br />used Rybka in "Ultra slow" and Ultra optimistic settings and that this setting tries harder for the side to move<br /><br />Default rybka(that John Jerz did not use) does not find a different move than Ng4 at depth 23 but when I stopped it after 16 hours of analysis on slow PIV3.19 ghz it considered e5 at depth 24 so it is possible that it could change it mind to e5 at this depth and serious correspondce players may use it for more time than 16 hours.<br /><br />Note that the question is also if Ng4 does not win.<br /><br />Here is rybka default analysis on that hardware:<br /><br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Qxb4 Qa8 5.Qd2 Nc5 6.Qc3 Ne6 7.Bh4 g5 <br />² (0.60) Depth: 21 00:58:06 142382kN <br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Qxb4 Qa8 5.Qd2 Qa6 6.a4 Qb6 7.b4 Ra8 <br />² (0.59) Depth: 22 01:38:20 246336kN <br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Nc5 4.Bb2 Nd7 5.Qd4 f6 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.Qxf6 Rhe5 <br />² (0.61) Depth: 23 03:24:10 522571kN <br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Nc5 4.Bb2 Nd7 5.Qd4 f6 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.Qxf6 Rhe5 <br />² (0.66) Depth: 24 07:01:22 1080437kN <br /><br /><br />UriAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704770177255046100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-25531508157549097562007-01-26T04:12:00.000+00:002007-01-26T04:12:00.000+00:00Angus, to answer your previous question, here is R...Angus, to answer your previous question, here is Rybka depth and time, read MM:SS or HH:MM:SS<br /><br /> 14 00:27 <br /> 15 01:06 <br /> 16 01:50 <br /> 17 03:03 <br /> 18 07:25 <br /> 19 15:20 <br /> 20 38:15 <br /> 21 59:16 <br /> 21 1:58:07 <br /> 22 4:57:43 <br /> 23 7:39:08 <br /> 24 13:07:15<br /> 25 23:51:41<br /><br />JLJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-27103268074909901822007-01-25T21:18:00.000+00:002007-01-25T21:18:00.000+00:00Horton-NN, IECG
2q1r1k1/1bp2p1p/3pnBpQ/r7/1p2P3/1P...Horton-NN, IECG<br />2q1r1k1/1bp2p1p/3pnBpQ/r7/1p2P3/1P1n2PP/P4PBN/2R1R1K1 w - - 0 1<br /><br />Analysis by Rybka WinFinder 2.2 32-bit:<br /><br />1.Nf3 <br /> µ (-1.03) Depth: 2 00:00:00<br />1.Nf3 <br /> µ (-1.03) Depth: 2 00:00:00<br />1.Ng4 <br /> = (-0.13) Depth: 4 00:00:00<br />1.Ng4 <br /> ³ (-0.27) Depth: 5 00:00:00<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 <br /> ³ (-0.27) Depth: 6 00:00:00 10kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 <br /> = (-0.06) Depth: 7 00:00:00 22kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxc1 <br /> = (-0.06) Depth: 8 00:00:00 41kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxc1 3.Rxc1 Nc5 <br /> = (0.00) Depth: 9 00:00:01 88kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxc1 3.Rxc1 Nc5 4.f3 <br /> = (0.00) Depth: 10 00:00:02 175kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Qxb4 Qa8 <br /> = (0.00) Depth: 11 00:00:04 347kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Bh4 Nc5 5.Nf6 <br /> = (0.13) Depth: 12 00:00:09 693kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Bh4 Nc5 5.Nf6 Rxh4 <br /> = (0.06) Depth: 13 00:00:14 1144kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Bh4 Nc5 5.Nf6 Rxh4 6.gxh4 Re5 <br /> = (0.06) Depth: 14 00:00:29 2377kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Qxb4 Qa8 5.Qd2 Nc5 6.Bc3 Nxe4 <br /> ² (0.27) Depth: 15 00:01:12 5908kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Qxb4 Qa8 5.Qd2 Qa6 6.Bc3 Ng5 7.Qd4 <br /> ² (0.34) Depth: 16 00:02:24 11721kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Qxb4 Qa8 5.Qd2 Qa6 6.Bc3 Ng5 7.Qd4 Nxh3+ <br /> ² (0.48) Depth: 17 00:05:10 25149kN<br />1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Qxb4 Qa8 5.Qd2 Bc6 6.Bb2 Ng5 7.Qc3 Nxh3+ <br /> ² (0.41) Depth: 18 00:09:46 47594kN<br />1.e5 <br /> ² (0.44) Depth: 18 00:17:44 47594kN<br />1.e5 <br /> ² (0.41) Depth: 18 00:18:51 47594kN<br />1.e5 <br /> ² (0.61) Depth: 18 00:31:34 47594kN<br /><br />Rybka WinFinder on an AMD Athlon 4000+ finds e5 after nearly eighteen minutes. Presumably 64-bit multi-processor systems will find the move in well under ten.<br /><br />Marek SoszynskiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-52632854123218469672007-01-25T18:20:00.000+00:002007-01-25T18:20:00.000+00:00Angus, I am at work now and the machine in questio...Angus, I am at work now and the machine in question is at home, but I will get you the times. The machine is a dual core Pentium D and I am running another computer analysis at the same time as this one, so that should make the times a little bit suspect. Using Nodes/sec I can calculate how long it would have taken running with full use of both processors. The machine has now reached 25-ply with the exact same analysis line as for 24-ply. JLJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-44761776977497779142007-01-25T16:39:00.000+00:002007-01-25T16:39:00.000+00:00Just wondered: How long did it take your machine t...Just wondered: How long did it take your machine to get to 24 play with Rybka, JLJ? If you have the figures I'd be also interested in the times for the lower ply counts.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Angus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-83213224606239286292007-01-25T15:25:00.000+00:002007-01-25T15:25:00.000+00:00JLJ is John Jerz.JLJ is John Jerz.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-25818294098663526422007-01-25T15:12:00.000+00:002007-01-25T15:12:00.000+00:0024 +0.74 1.e5 Nxe1 2.Bxb7 Qxb7 3.Rxe1 Rxe5 4.Rxe5 ...24 +0.74 1.e5 Nxe1 2.Bxb7 Qxb7 3.Rxe1 Rxe5 4.Rxe5 dxe5 5.Ng4 Qe4 6.Bxe5 Qe1+<br /><br />The Rybka lines above were posted by JLJ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-91299687747773156332007-01-25T14:54:00.000+00:002007-01-25T14:54:00.000+00:00It'd be useful if the anonymous user could append ...It'd be useful if the anonymous user could append their name...ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-76776695064918718432007-01-25T00:48:00.000+00:002007-01-25T00:48:00.000+00:0023 +0.74 1.e5 Nxe1 2.Bxb7 Qxb7 3.Rxe1 Rxe5 4.Rxe5 ...23 +0.74 1.e5 Nxe1 2.Bxb7 Qxb7 3.Rxe1 Rxe5 4.Rxe5 dxe5 5.Ng4 Qe4 6.Bxe5 Qe1+Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-91797077236976390102007-01-24T23:28:00.000+00:002007-01-24T23:28:00.000+00:0021 +0.54 1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Qxb4 Qa...21 +0.54 1.Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3.Rxe1 Kf8 4.Qxb4 Qa8 5.Qd2 Bc6 6.Bc3 Ng5 7.Qd4 Ne6<br /><br /> 21 +0.56 1.e5 Bxg2 2.Rc4 g5 3.Rg4 Rxe5 4.Rxe5 Nxe5 5.Rxg5+ Ng6 6.Ng4 Qa6<br /><br /> 22 +0.73 1.e5 Nxe1 2.Bxb7 Qxb7 3.Rxe1 Rxe5 4.Rxe5 dxe5 5.Ng4 Qe4 6.Be7 Qxg4 7.hxg4 Rxe7Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-39767010039057623962007-01-24T23:11:00.000+00:002007-01-24T23:11:00.000+00:00At 21-ply Rybka sees e5!At 21-ply Rybka sees e5!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-47641512347127192192007-01-23T09:49:00.000+00:002007-01-23T09:49:00.000+00:00Well, 18-ply isn't so poor for depth, is it?
I lo...Well, 18-ply isn't so poor for depth, is it?<br /><br />I looked at it again yesterday - <i>my</i> Rybka only got to 14-ply, recommending 1.Ng4. After further twenty minutes, on 15-ply, it still hadn't finished considering that move as its first option, so I decided to pack it in.<br /><br />Interestingly, while it was going through the options on 14-ply, it suddenly slowed down and spent a lot of time considering what had been, up to then, only its twelfth choice. It didn't supplant 1.Ng4, though, and according to Angus it would not have done so.<br /><br />1.Ng4 looks like the choice of all programs at all speeds, doesn't it?<br /><br />But I think there's a winning move in the position, the move I played. And it's not 1.Ng4.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-74260966118650442562007-01-22T23:10:00.000+00:002007-01-22T23:10:00.000+00:00Well, Rybka 1.2f started off with 1 Ng4 and negati...Well, Rybka 1.2f started off with 1 Ng4 and negative score for White. Slowly the score for White increased and turned positive. I think at 14 ply it was about +0.2, still with 1 Ng4. Then at 15 ply (a little more than five minutes on my PC) it switched to 1 Bf3 followed by 1 Ng4… Then at 17 ply it was 1 Bf3 closely followed by 1 Ba1 closely followed by 1 Ng4… Then at 18 ply (about 25 minutes) 1 Ng4 (0.24) was favourite again… I note that there are 49 possible first moves for White and I think my version of Rybka is struggling to consider the position in depth.<br /><br />Angus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-80520541751681836182007-01-22T17:35:00.000+00:002007-01-22T17:35:00.000+00:00Thanks for replies - any more unaided-computer ans...Thanks for replies - any more <i>unaided-computer</i> answers, please?ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-30053085429807288122007-01-22T16:52:00.000+00:002007-01-22T16:52:00.000+00:00I haven't got a machine, but I'm trying to make 1 ...I haven't got a machine, but I'm trying to make 1 e5 work, with the idea of playing a rook to h4. If 1..ne1<br />2 rc4 re5<br />3 be5 and 4ng4<br />but I think it is a phantasy...<br />(Martin)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-77977673215285675552007-01-22T11:22:00.000+00:002007-01-22T11:22:00.000+00:00Fritz initially thinks black has a clear advantage...Fritz initially thinks black has a clear advantage, but then soon switches to around =, after a matter of seconds.<br /><br />It gives 1. Ng4 Rh5 2. Qd2 then changed its mind from 2. ... Nxc1 to 2. ... Nxe1 after a minute or two. The lines seem to indicate white gets a lot of activity with his queen plus threats on the long diaganol under his control - enough for = but 0.22, ie very marginally in white's favour.<br /><br />However, the more time it thinks (5 minutes in now) the less it likes black's position, and the more options it sees for white.<br /><br />It's now gone back to analysing the position after 1. Ng4 Rh5, so might think it's found something better than 2. Qd2. Presumably 2. Qe3.<br /><br />Btw, as I wait, for those who prefer to c&p FENs, here's the FEN for this positon: 2q1r1k1/1bp2p1p/3pnBpQ/r7/1p2P3/1P1n2PP/P4PBN/2R1R1K1 w - - 0 1 Also note the second line Fritz gives it gives as dead = ie 1. Ba1 since this allows 1. ... Rg5, ready to meet 2. Ng4 with 2. ... Rxg4 ('Kingdom for a horse' and all that.)<br /><br />My human hunch, btw, is that after 1. Ba1 Rg5, 2. h4 - gaining a tempo for a later Bh3 and still allowing Ng4 after - might be a better way for white to preserve the inititiave.<br /><br />It's quite interesting that Crafy & Shredder disagree over who is better - I thought they were both meant to be very strong calculators...Tom Chivershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-25980613625931577602007-01-21T16:17:00.000+00:002007-01-21T16:17:00.000+00:00Here are the moves the chess engines I have on my ...Here are the moves the chess engines I have on my computer suggested:<br /><br />Shredder9 (Linux):<br />1. Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3. Rxe1 (+0.25)<br /><br />Spike1.2 (in ChessAssistant 7 Lite, Linux Crossover Office):<br />1. Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3. Rxe1 (-0.06)<br /><br />GambitFruit 4bx (in ChessAssistant 7 Lite, Linux Crossover Office):<br />1. Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxe1 3. Rxe1 (+0.25)<br /><br />Crafty 20.0 (Linux)<br />1. Ng4 Rh5 2.Qd2 Nxc1 3. Rxc1 (-0.29)<br /><br />All engines I tested decided quickly on 1. Ng4. The only deviation I have found is the different choice for Black's second move by Crafty (I looked only at the first 5ply, though.<br /><br />I enjoy correspondence chess very much, but play only on Servers that do not allow the use of computer engines. For myself as a beginner I see not much of a point to use a computer - pure computer matches can be done automatically and if I would play something else than the computer wants I would probably lose the game because I don't know much about strategy (yet).<br /><br />I am very curious about your opinion on the human influence here, looking forward to the next post!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com