Round Report 7:
"Half way to the finish...."
Game reports and discussion about the Odyssey participants
after the 7 rounds. A talk in a BALTIJOS LYGA club residence in Kaunas.
Participants: GM A.Kharlov, GM B.Annakov, IM O.Krivonosov,
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas and club president M. Kulvietis
Marijus Kulvietis: Odyssey has passed it's middle limit.
I guess we may see some results not as accident sign, but tendention.
Favorites and outsiders perhaps are already easy to guess. Lets look at round 7 battles pointing out
what is what from the participants.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: I'll try to comment the games telling my brave opinion who is weak,
who is strong. We are human players ,not programmers, thus our opinion was allways subjective.
Marijus Kulvietis: Let's see the round 7 results.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: GENIUS 6.5- SOCRATES. 1-0
Perhaps we all have expected GENIUS to show much better perfomance in this event.
Now we see this program loosing and winning. Of course it is a fighter.
GM A.Kharlov: I would say it is an active fighter by no means. Thus why it is loosing and winning after that sometimes very bravely. But the table position and those games indicate that-sorry of course:)-but this brave fighter is already
not solid enough in comparisson with those huge-world wide active programs
as JUNIOR, FRITZ which are very sound ,but their authors really are putting very rich databases to them. Just more invests in their industry I guess.
Experimenting with more different styles. GENIUS was very famous several years ago between chess amateurs.
And it was one of the first chess computer programs i have met in former USSR.
But today some bigger steps are needed in developing this program.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Perhaps we all can agree with Your opinion.
Now just several words about the GENIUS win in round 7 against SOCRATES.
The opening have come to a better position for GENIUS-for whites-i think.
Having in mind GENIUS style-i think the rather complicated opening have given good chances
for an active game-and we know GENIUS loves activity.
Also -what seems a little bit strange-GENIUS has overplayed SOCRATES in a middlegame.
From a point of view of a human master and his positional understanding.
I cant explain how:)-but GENIUS was understanding the positional fight better.
A sucessfull road to the endgame was a result of a comfortable opening, properly understood middlegame
and the win with a extra pawn in the endgame was then only a technical question .
GENIUS advantage was enough to realize the win endgame position and one pawn as a material trophy.
Computers know how to realize the clearly win positions.
Good game by GENIUS.
Marijus Kulvietis: WCHESS- HIARCS 1/2-1/2.
GM A.Kharlov: Poor draw by great program. I mean Hiarcs. We all know
HIARCS is loved by GREAT masters for analysis and professional preparing.
We cant say it officially-but talks go that such super GMs as Anand like HIARCS more then some other programs.
And perhaps any Grandmaster will explain why.
This program is considered as a "human thinkink" program. It shows more human decisions in it's analysis.
It plays more like a human nor as a computer.
Another question why HIARCS played so poor in ODYSSEY.
Maybe one of the reasons is that this program is more silent with it's human style and not prepared
for MACHINE WARS...?
GM B.Annakov: Sure. We know strong dogs who can save their owners well and are very strong-but they
are not prepared for a dog fights. I guess such formula can work here. Special preparations must be before the battle
with another computer program.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Agree. We see such programs as CENTURY and HIARCS have another task-to
imitate human's game. But they look not agressive enough in such tournaments as ODYSSEY.
Their games are very silent and not impressive here-but we cant say they are week-just prepared not for such event.
From the other hand I like to analize some ideas with HIARCS or CENTURY. As they can indicate interesting human ideas in some positions.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: My task is to remind the results as Marijus has asked me so.
But in this case i cant say many honest words. The game looked poor-very boring to watch for people.
Rather fast going to a rook endgame with a clear draw in some 30-35 moves.
The most boring is the fact that after such clear positions -programs continue fighting in a dead draw.
We remember sometimes it led to a fiasco of one side and mistakes.
This time- the game was boring, but exluding any bigger mistakes. And ended as a draw.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Such games remind me decided draws in a human tournaments-when both sides agree
to imitate some game-just playing many boring moves going to a boring draw endgame.We all know such happens.
Marijus Kulvietis: Thank You for a humour. BTW-nearly 90 moves were made in this drawish game:)
And now i announce result n3:
EUGEN 7.92- COMET B36. 1/2-1/2
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: I'll be short. The opening wasnt interesting for me.
Middlegame and endgame gives more material for analysis. I guess this draw wasnt boring .
But we must confess both programs are not rated in the highest positions among the computer chess products.
I think some chances were missed in this game for another result.
GM A. Kharlov: Agree. First of all Marijus is asking for some analysis. In my opinion both programs are rather week.
But... Eugen have showed many poor games and mistakes in this tournament. Comet looks more solid.
In this duel COMET-playing black was more interesting and had good chances even for some win ideas.
I vote for COMET to be taken as a stronger program.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Really Comet had to win this endgame. You know i'm the endgame's lover and i
would love to get such chances to play in a COMET position when it was coming to an endgame.
Of course difficult to win against computer program-but sure COMET had a strong position and no risks.
EUGEN was happy hear with a draw result.
Marijus Kulvietis: I try to finalize Your opinions. Both programs look week in this tournament-But You clearly say
EUGEN shows itself very poor in this tournament-yes-i remember our previous reports with it's mistaken games and badly lost games-and You consider COMET to be a program with some more interesting chances.
If You agree-i announce the result n4 in this round:
SCHREDDER 5-NIMZO 8. 1-0
GM B.Annakov: This is another case. Battle of two great favorites.!
Marijus Kulvietis: Yes. I'm just reading results in an order i have got them from our collegue-Mr. Kenneth Frey.
GM B.Annakov: Both programs are very famous and leading not only here-in ODYSSEY-but in many other computer chess tournaments! Also their game is very solid, solid databases, theory lines.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Of course both programs have shown strong game in Odyssey already.
But i doubt if this game was one of the best ones for both sides. Not the best variations and decisions taken from both sides.
Strange game in opening, slippy middlegame with not correct game from both sides and finally with fatal mistakes
from Schredder side. Typicall computer game were Nimzo-one side simply have counted better and more far and have played a long counted line which was leading to a pawn win and conquering the whole flang as a result and winning the endgame of course.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Odyssey had showed that both programs were rather similar. Solid tacticians, well counting, but this time simply NIMZO was counting better.
GM A.Kharlov: Week and strong sides of those programs are very similar. Both prefer tactical, sharp game.
Sometimes risky style. Both programs play at a good level. And their games are interesting to watch. I will try to describe them-lets say CENTURY, HIARCS-are solid programs imitating human game-having good databases-but playing more silent games.
Schredder and NIMZO-both are so called "counting programs", who like to count sharper variations and to play
attacking style. Which program will count better some risky line-that program will win-as both play solid but like to risk as some GENIUS. They attack like GENIUS-just doing it in a more solid level as we see from the games-sorry for GENIUS of course-but i think it is clear.
Marijus Kulvietis: I think You was very easy to understand-Thank you for Your honest opinion.
I announce result n5 in this round:
LITTLE GOLLIATH-CHESS SYSTEM TAL 1/2-1/2
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: One more draw. As we all know not very known programs for us and
difficult to analyse them and to understand. But clearly both programs are not very week and possible to fight good.
My short opinion about the game. The game was solid and interesting. Both programs had interesting chances and played well.
Also both have made some mistakes. Not big. Just i myself cant say some clear win plans in this game-but there were good moments for both sides to try something better then a draw.
GM A.Kharlov: Really very difficult to describe those programs shortly. They are not known to me well.
But the game really indicate they cant be taken as those week programs. I mean all tournament results-they show those programs can perform nice surprises.
B.Annakov: Sometimes they had shown themselves good, sometimes more shy. Maybe this is like in some any other industry.
Programmers have done interesting work-but the producing firms are not so powerful as FRITZ or JUNIOR and those programs has still spots. Some investment of programers work, of tournament practise needed...Just opinions and guessing.
Marijus Kulvietis: Somebody has done great job creating those programs. Thanks for interesting chess. Just maybe more powerful industry is needed to develop those products and ideas....
I announce result n6.:
ZARKOV-VIRTUAL CHESS 1-0.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: I hope people have read anotation written by Mr. Kenneth Frey.
Alas i must agree with anecdote style and good humour written by Kenneth. Game was terrible.
Nothing to annotate here. Just a level of my little pupils, whom i'm just starting to train.
GM A.Kharlov: I dont think Grandmasters word is needed here. Children's chess here.
Terrible mistakes. Famous opening. Italian game and 6.h3?? Kenneth is right with his irony.
What to say -just to take the chess book for beginners and see how to play chess.
Battle for centrum, tempo, development. Funny to talk.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: As i have told once about another game in my article-"this game reminds me a game
from 18century"-when no theory and main chess principles were written to one place as a book.
Cant believe computers can play italian game 6.h3 0-0 7.a4 Bd7 ...my wife can play so-as i havent taught her to play chess.
GM B.Annakov: Lets see the problem ,Dear colleagues, those programs are playing from the begining of the tournament,
2/They are week,but they have more then a zero/0/ points gathered. 3/Today any week program has databases and we know they can play week, but sure better. Simple question-WHY they had played so weak?
IM Oleg Krivonosov: We may be more strict critics:). Who knows WHY-maybe the organizators have switched off some databases off or electricity was bad in Germany that time. In that place were game was played.JJoke. Sure -both programs can play better-but this time it was terrible game. Anyway those programs are playing at a very average level. Easy to beat by good IM.
Zarkov makes better impression. From previous games. But... those are really not favorite programs.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Funny-but i must say some words about the game.
Sure-terrible opening. Many,many bad moves. Just no theory knowledge showed-what is very funny and strange in a computers battle. Of course such childish irregular game leads to a wilde game with a bad position from one side and many posibilities for a tactical and positional pressing. But as we have told-both sides have played very bad-so the game was permanent-both sides were making mistakes, not using simple situations for a clear win.
We cant say somebody had won this game. Simply blacks were the last to make final mistake and they have lost the game.
Really difficult to say-why...such poor game...maybe some machine's reaction in a specific situation-for example a man plays poor if he has some special enemy-or if he plays much weeker opponent- he also often starts playing much worse then he is able to do. The final word for the programmers i think.
Marijus Kulvietis: Thank you . I saw the game and of course after all jokes we must think why the programs
have played so. I also believe they are week programs-but not so week to play such a game. Really funny and maybe not nice question and situation for their programmers.
I announce game n.7:
YACE-SCHREDDER 4 1/2-1/2
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: In short i saw here good normal game played by average programs.
White had an extra pawn and didnt manage to realize .The endgame ended as a dead draw with different color's bishops.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Again i must confess my love to endgames. Yace had to play more trying to use it's pawn. From the other hand i cant say i would find a win in YACE's place. General impression. YACE is more solid program as i saw it's game here and in ODYSSEY in general. Mysticall, not sound program, capable to perform not bad against any enemy.
GM A.Kharlov: Concerning the game i see two interesting moments to analyze-the opening and the possibilities to realize the pawn in the endgame for whites. I hope GM A.Karpov or GM U.Andersson would find the win with such pawn.
But the task not easy. I think the game was not superior, but at a normal average level.
GM B.Annakov: Yace was good enough. And sound program Schredder...well-perhaps Schredder4 must be weaker then Schredder 5:):)
Marijus Kulvietis: I announce game result n.8:
IM Oleg Krivonosov: I remember it was a great sensation when MCHESS has reached it's first victory.
It was taken as an old week program not capable to fight for high places. Now we have long time passed.
Mchess has showed many good results and wins. Now we see it's victory against CRAFTY-popular program.
I think we must see the game as a game of two powerful programs. As no sensations cant be pointed out after MCHESS has proved it's strengh.
GM A.Kharlov: Of course. I'm not an expert of computer chess and i dont know it's history, but i see MCHESS as a normal program, playing just normal chess.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: As we also see CRAFTY plays not equal in this tournament. While MCHESS is just average correct program, but playing rather stabile. Perhaps standing at it's deserved table place. This average-traditional program shows no supertricks- but it plays silent chess using very well all enemie's mistakes!
I hope You remember previous wins of this program. This time itit was the same as it had happened before. MCHESS played as an ITALIAN FOOTBALL again-using contra attacks. Plying on opponent's mistakes. And here we have the secret of MCHESS success. And it's style -just average correct chess, rather patient style, but reacting fast and not forgiving enemie's mistakes. From the other hand MCHESS reaches good results in the tournament, but cant show interesting findings in the developing of the computer chess.
Marijus Kulvietis: I announce the result n.9:
IM Oleg Krivonosov: GROMIT is taken by us as one of those silent amateur programs- which are playing rather successfully. While REBEL-TIGER is an aggressive child, born in a powerful and famous REBEL company, which is producing professional and famous chess programs. Our club has fighted vs REBEL-CENTURY. Of course REBEL-TIGER is created for a more aggressive, tactical game /it's name indicates itJ/.
But as a newborn it has to fight for a good place among many strong concurents in a computer chess world. ODYSSEY shows that REBEL-TIGER is still in search of it's game, style. First ODYSSEY stages were a dissapointment for TIGER. But latest rounds show this program is recovering.
GM A.Kharlov: It is pretty clear: REBEL -TIGER is made in a style of GENIUS, SCHREDDER, NIMZO...At the moment personally I think it plays stronger then GENIUS-but still not possible to run after SCHREDDER or NIMZO. BUT....
SCHREDDER and NIMZO are old programs and their conception, style were created and developed for a years! While TIGER is a totally new product in REBEL company totally different from another REBEL products-we know/CENTURY, old REBEL versions/.
Sure our Holland collegues are making something new and interesting for a computer chess in a face of REBEL-TIGER. TIGER is a young program and we must wait a year minimum until it will show it's REAL RATING. Such is a rule in chess world.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: And Tiger's game went as a closed Sicilian variation with Nc3-instead of more open and popular Nf3 from white side....
Marijus Kulvietis: Ha. Very interesting for me as I use to play this theory in my live games if my white opponent plays c5 after e4. I answer Nc3....
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Then You must follow GROMIT's games. I don't remember computers choosing closed Sicilian. They like more aggressive and open lines/ Nf3 gives it/.This says perhaps that GROMIT is successfully prepared to play this theory.
In this game GROMIT really played opening without any troubles against dangerous REBEL-TIGER. More to say -GROMIT have got nearly win position after the theory.
At least very comfortable to play for white . I thought white had to win. They had impressive iniciative after seeing the picture in the board after theory was played.
But nor me ,nor my computer cant find fast win for whites. And maybe we must agree with Kenneth Frey. Have You read His annotation:
"The line between a win and a draw was never crossed"...-in this game according to Kenneth. I believe Kenneth was right. GROMIT musnt be accused of missing some better decisions. REBEL -TIGER had played well in a defence. Very important for such tacticians not to go to a mistaken bloody contragames.
Marijus Kulvietis: I announce game result n.10.:
GM B.Annakov: The last pairing in this round wherewe have aproblem with an objective analysis as we have again to talk about the programs which we haven't got at our homes. ODYSSEY cant still indicate very exact picture of those programs.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: ZCHESS achievements seemed similar to MCHESS, not because of a funny similar names. J Just similar strengh. Maybe ZCHESSis searching for a more novelties as a younger and more ambitious program. The same can be told about GANDALF.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: And the battle on the board was rather ambitious.
Both programs run off the theory rather early. Personally for me such positions are very unclear. From the computer's point of view white were better after some 15-20 moves.
First glance and impression may indicate such preferences as better space and simply more nice picture on the board and programs like such criterias as "space". I think it was a draw after a some period of a middlegame and both sides had to go to a such result.. But as it often happens in ODYSSEY-GANDALF continued not useful game till the final mistakes. Until lost pawn and lost flang for enemies pawn promotion. ZCHESS had used mistakes and won. My opinion after the 7 rounds- both those programs are at a similar level. At least we see from other games GANDALF can play not worse then ZCHESS and this result is not final indicator. Rather similar programs.
Marijus Kulvietis: Result n 11:
GM B.Annakov: We all love Chessmaster as a tutor program. Fine to play, to teach pupils.But difficult to realize this program as a tournament fighter.
GM A.Kharlov: Very nice and unique program for teaching and studying chess. I respect CHESSMASTER. PATZER was claimed by us in a round reportsas a surprisingly strong program among those "less known and sound programs". Table position and results indicated it can battle any sound enemy.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: But the game had disappointed me. No beautiful chess.
Perhaps PATZER wanted to trick the opponent with a not familiar opening decision.
The result was bad for PATZER and main mistake in that decision I can see very clear.
Game was short and clear. After failing to play irregular opening -PATZER was reaching worse and worse position. After opening king's position in -g-line-PATZER had castled 0-0-0 and had made one more mistake-going to the dangerous flang under opponents pressing. Good lesson for program! Programs are strong for their databases. And weak in a positional understanding. I think they must play solid opening instead of playing avangard. This job must be left for human creative masters. PATZER has a solid database-we all know it and it would escape loosing if it would choose normal correct opening. I'm sure. All secret in this result here. PATZER's decision to play unknown theory.
Marijus Kulvietis: Game n.12:
DEEP FRITZ-CENTURY-MAASTRICHT .0-1
Please don't be confused. After a famous Maastricht computers tournament REBEL-CENTURY has taken it's name.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: And this new name was very lucky! Great success by CENTURY. Very important victory against old rival in black colors.
GM A.Kharlov: No need to talk about the opponents. FRITZ and REBEL CENTURY-world famous programs have met in a ambitious match. The only thing I want to point. BALTIJOS LYGA clubknows CENTURY older version and newer from ODYSSEY tournament. Oleg and Vaidas had played vs older CENTURY in an offical match. And we must remind ourselves-CENTURY is more patient, silent program imitating human's game. FRITZ plays more aggressive. Nevertheless in a battle of a such caliber both sides can change their style depending on a board position.
Enemies are very solid really and ready for sudden changes on the board.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Great battle and great intrigue. Of course a game with a perfect level. I was waiting honestly for a long game of about 80 moves with a draw in finish. But the game was short. As it was decided by one mistake made by FRITZ and perfectly used by REBEL_CENTURY. Opening had taken bigger part of the game. And going to the 30 move the position was drawish and equal. Material and positional.
Then white started fine pressing and pushed their dangerous pawn. But when it looked
That black were not dangerous-FRITZ had made a fatal mistake. Traded the only rook
And left with 2 knights vs REBEL's rook at the endgame. Position looked so good for FRITz that it seemed nothing bad. But important rook was much stronger in this rather classical endgame position vs 2 not strong knights. REBEL CENTURY had proved rook's advantage very decisive and fast. This fatal rook had decided the endgame very fast
And changed endgame position to a CENTURY's profit very fast.
One slight mistake by FRITZ and perfectly caught moment by CENTURY!
Using the chance very fast and without any mistakes! Really great level of chess and both
Programs showed good chess. Just CENTURY was stronger this time!
GM B.Annakov: Of course it is interesting how CENTURY has improved and changed last time. Had it changed it's style to more aggressive? I think so.
But more official games are needed to see this.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: I also feel REBEL is turning to a more aggressive style.
And even such program as CENTURY will be changed to more aggressive style.
Maybe it is needed for an important rival matches in a computer chess tournaments.
I think CENTUY will more sharp soon.
Marijus Kulvietis: Game result n13:
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Another great battle! One more victory by another young program-GAMBIT-TIGER. By the way we often mix those two new programs-
REBEL-TIGER and GAMBIT-TIGER.
GM A.Kharlov: Those programs are really similar for me. Both planned as a tactical fighters. This is clear and sure they have much in common. No surprise to mix them.
I guess the proper difference in their ideas ,conception can be told by their creators.
IM Oleg Krivonosov: Yes. Both programs are new, very aggressive ,playing aggressive and interesting to watch chess. Some day we had agreed to take GAMBIT-TIGER as a more perspective fighters in such machine wars as ODYSSEY.
But the situation can change.
IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Right. Lets leave the final explanation to programmersJ
Shortly about the game. GAMBIT-TIGER is expected by us as a most perspective program killer from thosenew programs created in a REBEL company/as I understand/.
Thus very interesting to see how it can deal with such world famous programs as JUNIOR. This time the battle was long-really about 80 moves.J GAMBIT-TIGER was black.BUT the theory was more comfortable for blacks and Gambit-Tiger has got a nice game with all great chances. White had sacked a pawn. It is very dangerous in a computer chess!!!! After a perfect defence-computers respect material very high. As a live master I never play gambits and lines where material must be sacked at the opening against a program. As such compensation as tempo in development, iniciative are important in a 2 humans match,but may be not reached in a match against a program.
I think the greatest and main mistake was made by JUNIOR as I described!
Not to hurry giving material for far seen compensation in a computer chess.
White have got nothing for their lost pawn. More to say: black have started changing material advantage into positional very fast. And very fast they have started very strong pressing. We musnt forgot-GAMBIT-TIGER is created as an aggressive program and giving material to it is very dangerous. It was proved in practise. Just in a previous discussed game-CENTURY has realized FRITZ mistake very fast.
While GAMBIT-TIGER realized it's advantage step by step. And the final result was decided after a slippy endgame where white were still able to change something.
Anyway after such great programs as FRITZ and JUNIOR have lost-the ODYSSEY
Keeps holding greater intrigue and we must remember Agatha Christie -the final result
Is VERY difficult to guess. The winner of the ODYSSEY will be decided at the very end I think.
Thank You very much for a longer talk! We are after 7 rounds in Odyssey event.
Thus after half a way to finish we decided to have longer discussion about all the participants. Thanks to all participants in our discussion.
Thanks to our collegues in Holland and Germany for interesting event.
We are waiting for new interesting games.
Back to the Odyssey main page
1. SHREDDER5, (1) - (20) NIMZO8, 1:0
2. JUNIOR7, (9) - (2) GAMBIT-TIGER2.0, 0:1
3. DEEP FRITZ, (8) - (10) REBEL-MAASTRICHT, 0:1
4. PATZER311B, (17) - (6) CHESSMASTER8000 1.0.4., 0:1
5. ZCHESS 2.2, (12) - (11) GANDALF432H, 1:0
6. GROMIT 3.8.1, (26) - (3) REBEL-TIGER14, ½:½
7. CRAFTY 18.10, (19) - (23) MCHESS8, 0:1
8. YACE LEIDEN, (24) - (5) SHREDDER4 CHESSBITS, ½:½
9. WCHESS2000, (15) - (4) HIARCS7.01, ½:½
10. ZARKOV4.5R, (13) - (7) VIRTUAL-CHESS2, 1:0
11. LITTLE-GOLIATH2000V3, (16) - (14) CHESS SYSTEM TAL2.03, ½:½
12. GENIUS6.5 CZUB-STYLE, (21) - (22) SOCRATES X, 1:0
13. EUGEN7.92, (25) - (18) COMET B36, ½:½
Download the games of round-7 in PGN format.
RANKING after ROUND-7
Place Name Sco MBch Buch Ws
1 SHREDDER5, (1) 6.0 19½ 26½ 5
2-3 REBEL-MAASTRICHT, (10) 5.0 19½ 28½ 4
GAMBIT-TIGER2.0, (2) 5.0 18 25½ 4
4-7 NIMZO8, (20) 4.5 20½ 29 4
JUNIOR7, (9) 4.5 20½ 28 3
CHESSMASTER8000 1.0.4., (6) 4.5 17½ 23 4
ZCHESS 2.2, (12) 4.5 17½ 23 3
8-9 DEEP FRITZ, (8) 4.0 21½ 30½ 2
MCHESS8, (23) 4.0 19½ 27 3
10-16 PATZER311B, (17) 3.5 23½ 33 2
GROMIT 3.8.1, (26) 3.5 17½ 25 2
YACE LEIDEN, (24) 3.5 16½ 23½ 2
REBEL-TIGER14, (3) 3.5 16½ 21½ 2
HIARCS7.01, (4) 3.5 16 21½ 2
GANDALF432H, (11) 3.5 15½ 21½ 3
ZARKOV4.5R, (13) 3.5 15½ 21½ 2
17-21 CRAFTY 18.10, (19) 3.0 21 29 2
WCHESS2000, (15) 3.0 18 25½ 1
GENIUS6.5 CZUB-STYLE, (21) 3.0 17½ 24 1
SHREDDER4 CHESSBITS, (5) 3.0 15 20½ 0
CHESS SYSTEM TAL2.03, (14) 3.0 14½ 22½ 1
22-23 LITTLE-GOLIATH2000V3, (16) 2.5 17 24 1
VIRTUAL-CHESS2, (7) 2.5 14 19½ 2
24 COMET B36, (18) 2.0 14½ 21½ 1
25 SOCRATES X, (22) 1.5 14½ 20 1
26 EUGEN7.92, (25) 1.0 16 22 0
Download all games of Odyssey 2001 in PGN format.