Marijus Kulvietis: The second round didn`t strew us many qualitative parties.

IM Oleg Krivonosov: I think we couldn`t see more interesting creative discoveries in programme games and perhaps everybody will agree that a great number of parties were simply boring. On the other hand I want to remind that the tournament is going on according to the swiss system and there may exist the same law as in the human game:

Namely in the subsequent tournaments there meet the programmes having collected the same number of points according to this system, the programmes, similar to their strengh, level and even style. Thus it`s natural that similar rivals play "drawish games"or simply a cautious one. The programmes neutralize each other very soon because of having similar databases and not having secret weapon.

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Yes, that`s true, the second round was the meeting of the programmes of similar styles. It fell to my lot analyzing the duel between " Gambit-Tiger 1.0" and "ChessGenius6.5".

Both programmes are like twins. I must apologize to the authors but for me, as a chessplayer, these programmes are not the ones I use. They don`t fit for analysis. They are programmes –killers. More usable for a sharp fight, bloody attacks. As they are created by the authors as tactical soldiers. I can state firmly that

They both have possibility to claim the prize-winning places in such a tournament as this one, because their blockading style can bring a lot of victories. However they looked differently than I had imagined when I saw them meet between themselves. They were so much alike, that in my mind they had to end in a draw. I preferred watching them fight against the programmes of quite different style.

Marijus Kulvietis: But Your expectations haven`t come true. As we see "Gambit-Tiger" won the game and a very important point among the similar rivals while "ChessGenius" has fallen into a deep pit.

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Unfortunately, I must agree. That may occure between twins. For picturesqueness I`d like to compare for instance Rebel-Century3 and GM P.Leko . "Gambit –Tiger"

And "ChessGenius" duel is the fight between two sharp tacticians. Fancy GM A.Shirov against GM A.Fedorov . What`s following? Compromiseless fight of two tacticians only for a victory, but the style is similar. In many places one programme neutralizes the other`s ideas.. The circumstances took a dramatical turn in the game. Game was full of blunders. I will not repeat my analysis-both sides have made many mistakes.

"ChessGenius" had a better position in the middle of the game. Live master would win in such a situation.

But because of the terrible mistakes in the endgame "Chessgenius" has lost it`s advantage and lost the game.

Just as in football. If you don`t kick a goal, your rival does! Result-"Gambit Tiger" found itself among leaders while "Chessgenius is in a temporary pit.

Marijus Kulvietis: I understand, Vaidas, You have seen both programmes and You oversee that their appearance at the final should be similar, because You consider these programmes being of the same level…

Well, it`s really interesting. I think that the authors of these programmes are watching the play of their "creatures" very vigilantly. Let`s have a look what`s going on the crosstable. There are two clear leaders having won 2 points out of 2 possible ones: "Schredder5" and "Junior6".

GM A. Kharlov: No wonder. All grandmasters mark out "Junior" programme as one of the strongest. It imposes them as being able to count well, simply a serious, reliable programme. Besides it has won a lot of tournaments and is worth having precedence. It would be any sensation if it won this tournament too.

Marijus Kulvietis: This programme has already had a meeting with one of the most dangerous competitors the programme " Nimzo8" . Nimzo is also very strong and known to be a favourite. It was a duel of principle. Who will comment it?

IM Oleg Krivonosov: A computer theory ended in that game after the black had played 22….-Bb4!

It proves that the databases of both programmes are much alike. A very equal fight was going on for rather long time after that and it once more shows their similarity. I won`t repeat all the game as it was annotated perfectly by IM Kenneth Frey. But both Nimzo and Junior played in a similar serious way, the game seemed to be like that of grandmasters. I don`t think the black having got advantage. If I had been "Junior" -I would have fixed a draw, because namely the white were trying to look for a chance in that drawish game. In the 47 move there was an evident draw with a better position of the Nimzo! But let`s return to the 47<sup>th</sup> move again. Is it possible to win such an endgame? I hesitate. That`s right according to IM Kenneth Frey –if Nimzo had played 47.Rxa6, the endgame would have been draw. At least there were no problems for whites.

I approve, I would have played in the same way too if I would have played in the master`s tournament.

But again one more imperfection on finishing the game! The long, complicated and spotless game, played on high level is spoiled by a single error in the end. The author is right showing that instead of a calm "eating of the pawn 47.Rxa6" Nimzo began to play very strangely and was able to roll down to a loss from quite a simple situation. It`s unbelievable that Nimzo let Junior push h-file pawn its way to Queen. I would say that it was Nimzo which lost more and Junior which won less or in other words Nimzo loss was greater than Junior victory! In the endgame so well understandable to all people. I consider that no live master would never have done such mistakes as Nimzo had. It`s a remark to the Nimzo authors.

Marijus Kulvietis: Drawing a conclusion we may say that NIMZO playing was not bad ,but mistakes done in the endgame led JUNIOR to victory. The similar thoughts were expressed by Vaidas Sakalauskas when speaking about the GAMBIT-TIGER and CHESSGENIUS game. Doesn`t this allow the masters to make a conclusion that the programmes are still weak in playing endgames?

GM A.Kharlov: In fact any grandmaster would laugh at such mistakes in the endgame as we saw in this illustration. The essence was not in counting but in apprehension of a position and namely the positional apprehension of endgame is what the programmes lack! NIMZO was counting variants while alive master would`ve given a piece instead already after any mistakes done in this game in order to achieve a draw.

Well, very often happens that a game theoretically ends in draw even if there is material superiouty. It`s strange that the programmes still avoid "far sighted" sacrifices and choose them only in short tactical combinations.

Marijus Kulvietis: So it is a great pity that the fight of two titans was predetermined again by a mistake.

GM A.Kharlov: The authors of NIMZO must get anxious because their programme played not exactly. They would have to explain why NIMZO played so strangely in the endgame, what it was looking for.

If I were JUNIOR player I would be calm. Instead of a draw the enemy made a mistake while JUNIOR counted versions well and used the situation exactly. Thus JUNIOR is a real deserved leader.

Marijus Kulvietis: The other leader is SCHREDDER5 having won against COMET B27 in the second round. I have got SCHREDDER4 programme, for me-it resembles GAMBIT-TIGER and CHESSGENIUS-the programmes of tactical style.

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: I have watched the game COMET B27-SCHREDDER 5 for a short time and noticed it being the game of quite a different type than that of NIMZO-JUNIOR where there was a long calmness and a mistake in the end. In SCHREDDER game there was much tactics, many variants which are difficult to estimate properly and suddenly. The game was sharp, interesting to watch, with bold attacks from both sides. SCHREDDER5 seemed to be one of the tactical wolves. It is, of course, difficult to escape mistakes in such a bloody fight. The white left with weak king which at last was caught in mate trap of SCHREDDER5. The fight of two leaders "JUNIOR6-SHREDDER5’, as the duel of two different styles is of a special interest for me.

Marijus Kulvietis: I`m deeply interested in it too. How splendid must the 3round be with it`s expected great intrigue! What else can we mark as possible leaders?

GM B.Annakov: CRAFTY-CHESSMASTER 8000 1-0. ZCHESS-CRAFTY1/2-1/2.

I know CRAFTY well for it`s the programme that I use in the internet chess club ICC.

CRAFTY is a permanent member of the club as well as the author dr.Robert Hyatt. When the broadcasting of famous tournaments is occurring in the internet both CRAFTY programme and the author help us with their quick analysis. Mr.Hyatt comments what the programme thinks about some not clear game and so on. In general "Crafty" communicates constantly with a wide audience of chessplayers and play with the professionals, fans,with other chess programmes as well. I myself am fond of playing with CRAFTY,because it is a good partner. In this tournament it stands among the leaders now!

Marijus Kulvietis: I consider that Mr. Robert Hyatt`s permanent participation in chess activity of ICC permits him not to lag behind but operatively react to the newest ideas and by the same to improve his own programme. I wonder what will be the success of the CRAFTY in future. When it faces REBEL-CENTURY-3.

The duel must be interesting ,because all the possibilities of REBEL-CENTURY-3 have not been revealed up to now.

IM Oleg Krivonosov: The group of the participants having 1,5 point each is rather big and the styles of the programmes are very different, from very famous to the unknown for me. Time will show when the number reduces.

Marijus Kulvietis: Well, but HIARCS and FRITZ are still in the group of outsiders for a while. Aren`t they?

GM A.Kharlov: In my mind the situation may surprise any grandmaster, because the named programmes are serious helpers in every analysis for us. Their parts may be different in analysis and in a computer fight. They may not be applied to "Gladiators fight" between themselves. But it can also be a temporary sensation of the first rounds. They may be waiting for their turn to come.

Marijus Kulvietis: Thus, we are waiting for th third round promising us a lot of interesting games, rich with complicated combinations I hope and unexpected endings. The main intrigue is going between the leading programmes, but I expect surprises from any participant. It will be interesting to analyse SCHEREDDER-JUNIOR game and after 3 round we may also talk about those programs which are not very known to wide audience, but doing well in this tournament.

Let`s watch!