Links
ROUND REPORT 4
Annotators
Misc
Reports
"Baltijos Lyga" commentary at a round table
|
Marijus Kulvietis: Let`s start with general impression. IM Oleg Krivonosov: This round has brought us the least surprise. The score could be guessed by any fan.GM Andrei Kharlov: The programs considered to be stronger ones have won. Maybe such were the pairings of the round. Nearly each duel had it`s favorite. Crafty had won against little known program. Famous programs: NIMZO, HIARCS, DEEP FRITZ also won over their competitioners. As i had foreseen in my recent talk -those favorites had to recover. They are really solid programs and any fan could stake a dollar for them. Marijus Kulvietis: Ok.Nimzo,Hiarcs,Fritz. Have they won surely and deservedly? GM Andrei Kharlov: My earlier praised program HIARCS defeated EUGEN 7,92 really surely. The advantage of HIARCS was felt since the very begining. Playing white HIARCS had won position already in the 15-16-17 moves. The BLACK were weak playing an opening. They made a mistake in the 15 move. Immediately the white realized their strong D-line pawn and having won a minor piece by the 20 move ensured victory. So HIARCS won very easily. GM B.Annakov: CHESMASTER-NIMZO 0-1. This party was not so easy as that of HIARCS. NIMZO seemed to be more solid. The white played strangely and not carefully since the very beginning having pushed a pawn to g5 and having left a king dangerously naked. Consequently they lost a rook and had to flounder long from a worse situation while at last NIMZO found victory. It wasnt difficult to do with a rook. Quite another talk is about the duel between GAMBIT-TIGER and DEEP FRITZ. /0-1/.Everybody was waiting that Gambit-Tiger would resist to the famous FRITZ program. GM Andrei Kharlov: Well, according to the lots it was perhaps an exceptional duel when the competitioner of famous FRITZ wasnt easy. GM B.Annakov: The party itself was the most persistent of those three ones. An equal fight was going on for a long time. GAMBIT-TIGER, as it became, was active and looked for attacks itself. The game was of a good level. Maybe the reputation of a tactician made harm to GAMBIT-TIGER. It was necesssary to play more carefully with such an enemy as FRITZ. But it`s impossible to change such program as TIGER. GM Andrei Kharlov: I agree Gambit-Tiger made harm to itself. The draw was possible. However it was pleasant to see GAMBIT-TIGER playing efficiently not boringly. And FRITZ is a program that uses opponents mistakes and chances to win. Marijus Kulvietis: Well, 3 worldwide known programs-FRITZ, HIARCS, NIMZO won at last and entered the position of leaders. HIARCS is lower on the crosstable for a while, but is recovering. OK-the victories of those programs dont sound as sensations really. But most were dissapointed by the draw results of CHESSGENIUS and CHESSTIGER. More was expected out of them. Was their score probable this round? IM Oleg Krivonosov: : Of course. It was probable. CHESSGENIUS, CHESSTIGER and GAMBIT-TIGER -is a triplet considered as active forwards and tacticians. But GAMBIT-TIGER seems to be a head stronger among the three. It doesn`t matter that it lost to famous DEEP-FRITZ. CHESSGENIUS and CHESSTIGER games were evidently not of sufficiently solid level to compete with the leaders. In that round CHESSGENIUS couldn`t find a "hole" in a defence of GANDALF 4,32. It attacked, put efforts, but the rival had to be praised too. GANDALF havent made mistakes and a result was draw. Meanwhile CHESSTIGER gained a draw position against ZARKOV 4,5 rather soon. Even too soon to be able to expect victory. Trying to achieve victory something more cunning and clever had to be planned at the begining of the game,but not at the time of a draw endgame when nothing could already be done. Marijus Kulvietis: Prolonging the theme about expected and unexpected results. In the round 3- MCHESS8 won sensationally in the opinion of the organizators, because it is an old program and is not estimated seriously. But it has won in this round again! IM Oleg Krivonosov: I don`t want to depreciate MCHESS8 program-in a round3 the victory practically was presented to it by a bad playing competitor. Now the fight was more violent. LITTLE-GOLIATH may also be said to "have jumped" on a defeat. It is clearly seen that the white were eager to win, but MCHESS played efficiently and exactly. Used the mistakes of the white. I don`t know why MCHESS8 is not well estimated. This game has proved that it can play rather well, doesnt forgive mistakes and is rather strong. So it is not advisable to attack it blinfould. The impression of the game revealed that MCHESS cannot be written off and playing against it must be well thought and solid. Not estimating MCHESS seriously-maybe this main mistake. |
Marijus Kulvietis:
Well,finally-what we can say about first 3 boards in this round?
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: The same  Those programs have won that are considered to be stronger.
PATZER 3,11 looked better and had overplayed ZCHESS 2,2. As we have noted earlier-PATZER
really looks good from those "not sound" programs. Victory against ZCHESS was just a good
game. Solid. PATZER was making good decisions, good moves. Interesting to follow this program
in a future rounds.
JUNIOR-GROMIT 1-0. No surprises here as well. JUNIOR was playing white color, looked solid. Typicall computer chess was going. Long theory line. Boring game in the middle. Battle for space on the board. Computers especially like to have more space on the board. As we all know they dont love closed positions. The more space-the more advantage programs show in their analysis as a rule
Junior looked better. Newertheless it managed to find a win only about 60 move. When GROMIT
made not the best moves and missed JUNIOR`s rooks invasion into a GROMIT`s kingside.
From one side-mistakes were the main factor in this game-from the other side-no surprises means- that famous JUNIOR program had counted better. The game wasnt interesting to view. But JUNIOR has proved it`s strengh-playing just correctly and the only uncorrect moment fromGROMIT side was immediately noticed and used by JUNIOR. Thus no surprise in this game. REBEL-CENTURY-SCHREDDER 0-1. Oh-this game was funny and the only where the victory was difficult to excpect. More silent style of CENTURY against sharp tactical SCHREDDER attacks. But the screenplay was a little bit funny. At 20 move SCHREDDER started strange combination-giving it`s rook and going also to a doubtful endgame. SCHREDDER has showed it`s typicall face. Liking risky,tactical variations. But those variations looked very doubtful for me. SCHREDDER was brave enough to leave against CENTURY with 3 minor pieces versus 2 rooks! Century had minimum a draw in this situation. But it didnt manage to rule 2 rooks and after long game managed to loose. Short conclusion after very long game-SCHREDDER is simply better and faster counting?! I hope our annotator will explain something to me and programers as well. I remember my own victory against CENTURY-1. And now can say that it still have spots in it`s countings. GM Andrei Kharlov: By no means the game could end in other way. SCHREDDER was brave-but the begining seemed to me as a way to a draw or even to a lost game against calm REBEL-CENTURY program. Another surprise was really bad endgame with those rooks against 3 minor pieces. This game is the only exception in this round-when the result was surprising after the possition that was on the board longer time. Marijus Kulvietis: The round was interesting anyway as it had only few draws and many wins. Famous programs had won and nearly all the results were logical. IM Oleg Krivonosov: I hope the next round to be more surprising with its results. We see interesting pairings. DEEP FRITZ-SCHREDDER-must be a war. MCHESS-ZCHESS sounds like a poetry
But interesting to see if MCHESS will continue its sucess. HIARCS must overplay CHESSMASTER
in order to continue its recovering. Tacticians-GAMBIT-TIGER, CHESSGENIUS, REBEL-TIGER
finally must show if they are able to win a game.
Marijus Kulvietis: Dear Programmers, Please understand-nearly all our masters have such programs as HIARCS,GENIUS,FRITZ.... None of us here has such programs as GROMIT, PATZER, ZCHESS..... Very difficult to understand the game of unknown player. We dont ask for many gifts But the example of a program would let us
to analyze this program more deep. We are ready to cooperate and grateful for any program, you
can send to our club.
Good Luck in the next rounds! |
ROUND-4 1. REBEL-CENTURY3, SHREDDER5, 0:1 2. JUNIOR6A, GROMIT 3.8.1, 1:0 3. ZCHESS 2.2, PATZER311B, 0:1 4. GAMBIT-TIGER2.0, DEEP FRITZ, 0:1 5. CHESSMASTER8000 1.0.1 NIMZO8, 0:1 6. CHESS SYSTEM TAL2.03, CRAFTY 18.3, 0:1 7. LITTLE-GOLIATH2000V3, MCHESS8, 0:1 8. YACE 0.99.09, COMET B32, 1:0 9. SHREDDER4 CHESSBITS, WCHESS2000, ˝:˝ 10. GANDALF432H, GENIUS6.5 CZUB-STYLE, ˝:˝ 11. HIARCS7.01, EUGEN7.92, 1:0 12. REBEL-TIGER14, ZARKOV4.5R, ˝:˝ 13. SOCRATES X, VIRTUAL-CHESS2, 0:1Download games of round-4 in PGN format. |
RANKING after ROUND-4
Tournament: Odyssey-2001
Place Name Sco MBch Buch Ws
-------------------------------------------------------------
1-2 JUNIOR6A, (9) 3.5 5˝ 9˝ 3
SHREDDER5, (1) 3.5 4 9 3
3-5 PATZER311B, (17) 3.0 4˝ 9 2
NIMZO8, (20) 3.0 3˝ 8 3
DEEP FRITZ, (8) 3.0 3 6 2
6-11 REBEL-CENTURY3, (10) 2.5 5˝ 11˝ 2
ZCHESS 2.2, (12) 2.5 5 8˝ 2
CRAFTY 18.7, (19) 2.5 4˝ 8˝ 2
MCHESS8, (23) 2.5 3˝ 7 2
GROMIT 3.8.1, (26) 2.5 3 7˝ 2
YACE 0.99.09, (24) 2.5 3 7 2
12-14 GAMBIT-TIGER2.0, (2) 2.0 4˝ 9 1
CHESSMASTER8000 1.0.2., (6) 2.0 4 7˝ 2
HIARCS7.01, (4) 2.0 4 7˝ 1
15-22 LITTLE-GOLIATH2000V3, (16) 1.5 5 8˝ 1
CHESS SYSTEM TAL2.03, (14) 1.5 4 9 1
COMET B32, (18) 1.5 4 9 1
GENIUS6.5 CZUB-STYLE, (21) 1.5 4 8˝ 0
WCHESS2000, (15) 1.5 4 8 0
GANDALF432H, (11) 1.5 4 7˝ 1
VIRTUAL-CHESS2, (7) 1.5 3 6˝ 1
SHREDDER4 CHESSBITS, (5) 1.5 3 5˝ 0
23-24 REBEL-TIGER14, (3) 1.0 4 8 0
ZARKOV4.5R, (13) 1.0 4 8 0
25-26 EUGEN7.92, (25) 0.5 4 7 0
SOCRATES X, (22) 0.5 3 7 0
|