Series of draws




Marijus Kulvietis: Kenneth Frey was happy to see many interesting games.
But when i see many draws also made after some 130 moves...
i feel sorry for those people who want to analyze the games...

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Our friend Kenneth is a hardworking man.
Analyzing very carefully. I understand and see also many interesting moments
in many games. But sure if to see the picture from the point of view of simple people
who just want to see amazing battles -this round looks boring.

GM A.Kharlov : I see no big difference in this round from others.
We have rather clear picture about the programs. Also computers of a similar strengh
often play till the very end. Such was happening in previous rounds. But more rare.
Just accidentally this round had many draw results. Maybe one more factor is that after so many swiss system rounds more and more equal opponents are meeting who are well prepared against each other.

Marijus Kulvietis: Lets run through the games. As we are late with our reports and tournament is going
fast now. Lets see what had happened in a round 8.

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas:
ChessSystemTal2.03-Wchess2000 1/2-1/2.
Well-as You can say typicall example of a long draw:)
132 moves were made!
Game was rather solid. Good theory. Nevertheless the game
was a typicall computer's game.
White were slightly better.
But only human could win this for white as a positional understanding of human player was needed.
While repeating myself-this was typicall computers game and maybe this is a result of a draw.
I'm sure such endgame's master as Oleg would win easily against computer here for whites.

IM Oleg Krivonosov: Well thanks:) But i'm sure any master would win position with:
2 minor pieces +pawn against one bishop+pawn. While opponent's king is far.
White had to win endgame starting from a move nr. 65. Such was a position we had described.
Then we see only long game of mistaken moves showing again one of the main
weakness of computer chess-ENDGAMES. Sure white had to win the endgame.
Sure me or any master can do this in such a position. Sure missed point for Tal.
Good example for our articles series"Weakness of a computer's chess":)
Just now i had thought about it:)

Marijus Kulvietis: Thank You. Game n2-YACE LEIDEN-ZARKOV. 1-0
One of those rare not draw results:)

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Result is ok for people who want blood and somebody to be killed.
Nevertheless again it was very typicall computer chess with all weak sides.
Very many empty moves and as a result
we have again 100+moves made in a game.
Such openings as it was played are studied by me and played and i wonder if i can beat very easy a program
playing a theory, middlegame in such a way as it was done in Yace-Zarkov game.

GM A.Kharlov: Such game remind me a football game recently seen from last UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE CUP.
ROMA-LIVERPOOL. Both teams were running much, but no well played attacks.
Just running and waiting for some chance.
When the opponent will give some chance for contraattack or some other complication.
And that chess game-both sides were waiting long for each other mistakes or weak fields to use.
We have many such examples.
what to do-this is again some not the best side of a computer chess.

Marijus Kulvietis: We are going to continue our articles "Weakness of a computer chess".
please-keep Your killing sentences for that material:) So what happened that lead to a result 1-0?

IM Oleg Krivonosov: It happened as it happens in such games.
Opponents have come to rather sharp fight and then some tactic started.
This is already a field where programs know how to behave.
White were pressing more and looked as more strongly counting program.
While ZARKOV was not very accurate and jhad given much space for the opponent.
Programs like space. Black were too passive.
And here primitive russian saying fits-i translate in a more literally language.
Chessplayers use more sharp words:)
"If You allow Your opponent to come on You and sit on Your neck-Your opponent
will use this ocassion for sure."
White had come and pressed passive blacks till death. Finding finally wining lines.
Already moves 50-51-52 show us clearly win position for White-YACE.
Just programs are programs and they used the same 50 moves to realize the victory.
1-0.Clear win by YACE , where result was not in doubt at a half of a game.

GM B.Annakov: But dear Oleg, White had to win simply.
While they have gone several times into a real thriller!
One time coming into a doubtful endgame.Then both sides had promoted their queens.
The endgame was really amazing and really a thriller.

Marijus Kulvietis: Well. Thanks to a computer weakness this time we had got a nice thriller instead of a simple
positional win:) This is interesting:).Ok . Game n3:CHESSMASTER-DEEPFRITZ. 1/2-1/2.

GM B.Annakov: From a first glimpse we can say CHESSMASTER did good making a draw
against a such sound and world famous program like DEEPFRITZ.
From the other hand i wonder how CHESSMASTER had managed to survive playing so scaring moves. Maybe because of the fact that FRITZ was playing strangely week...really not like FRITZ in this game.
Following the annonations created by Kenneth Frey we can laugh. Really when Kenneth shows us the moment when CHESSMASTER runs out of book with such a move!
15.Qe2. Well as a pupil i remember i was taught to escape tied pieces.Not to put Your queen on an opponents rook file!

GM A.Kharlov: We must remember one important difference here between human chess and computer's chess discussing such episodes.
A human is building a position.
A computer is counting variations.
Maybe he makes scaring moves like Qe2. We see many dangers in such move by our experience. But program counts good. And it knows that nothing will happen bad to it's queen.

Marijus Kulvietis: That's is the point of our discussions -to pick up the main moments of a typicall computer chess.
It's weakness and strong sides.

GM B.Annakov: Returning to the game. I honestly can say-i cant give big advantage to any side.
Both sides had played middle quality. Both sides had some chances for more interesting complications-but simply nothing interesting was tried.
And the game ended as it may end in the programs "play itself" option.
Trading main pieces and going to a totall draw ending. Normal result for CHESSMASTER. And maybe more solid game
was expected from famous FRITZ.

Marijus Kulvietis: Thanks. Game n4: EUGEN 7.92-LittleGoliath2000 1/2-1/2.

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: One more draw:) But VERY strange opening.
Starting like sicilian-and transforming to something very unfamiliar:)
The result was very starnge irregular game.
Not interesting to watch and very difficult to analyze. Some empty game-where both sides
just push pieces-but nothing happens-no interesting plans,combinations.

GM B.Annakov:Helping Vaidas-really-nothing to say about such game.
No interesting lines, no interesting moments,also not the typicall game even to those programs.
Thay have better examples in their archives. I think the main reason is that already at some 20 move both sides
have run into a very closed position. Where it is no space to plan any attacks ...We all know programs dont like such positions-they like space.
In such closed situations they simply dont know what to do and start making many empty moves. So it happened in this game and both sides have agreed to a draw after empty walking some 40 moves...

Marijus Kulvietis: We have many examples already when programs can stop playing if running into some similar close positions.
Just to stop in some 15 move instead of making 60.OK game n5: REBEL-TIGER-PATZER 1/2-1/2.

GM A.Kharlov: Here we have at least tournament table intrigue. Famous and young program-REBEL-TIGER vs PATZER.
PATZER is more known to us as a silent, positional program. But showing itself very good in ODYSSEY.
REBEL-TIGER is met by me nearly in all tournaments. I see program sold and advertisements of it very sound and solid.
I expected REBEL-TIGER to attack PATZER at once and then "AS good as it gets".:)

IM Oleg Krivonosov: Again it was a strange game. Very early programs have run out of book.
Many doubtful moves after it. cant say- theory improvisation was good.

GM A.Kharlov: I agree such players like You who like traditional classic openings can be dissapointed with such a game and seeing only negative sides. but nevertheless-i think it was clear that REBEL-TIGER was really showing more initiative and trying to complicate the game.
I think it was only white which had a chance to win. Opening g line and making some ways to opponents king...
Both kings became naked. But after a very uncomfortable game for computers at the begining REBEL-TIGER
had managed to break the boring position and tried really sharp tactics. Another thing they didnt suceed.
But the game was open and interesting. many variations to count. If somebody wants to find where was some win-i'm sorry-it is very difficult to do:)
The game was extremely sharp,open and dangerous. Good for PATZER-it has shown it's good defensive features, not letting REBEL-TIGER to use open war.
Of course i mean middlegame-not the typicall computer manner of ending the game in a draw.

Marijus Kulvietis: Thanks. Game n6 : SHREDDER 4-GENIUS 6.5 . 1-0

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: One more painful strike to Genius. But as we know Shredder4 is also very similar
program by it's playing style. just i allways thought it must be more old and weaker then GENIUS 6.5 version.

GM B.Annakov: Even the program's using style, interface seem similar to me. Both programs are easy to rule. They have the same features as the possibility to divide the whole picture to several and separate windows. And regarding the playing style both programs are tactician counters. Allways looking where to attack.

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas:
Yes. But as I have noted- Shredder has newer versions and GENIUS6.5 is the newest program.
I thought GENIUS 6.5 must beat SHREDDER4 version. Again very doubtful and not the best opening decisions were made. Both programs really have showed their style. As the attacking tacticians
They tried to capture as many pieces on the board as possible. Finally it was all up to the endgame.
White had slightly better all the game and they have dominated principally all the time.
The endgame was difficult for GENIUS. Some moments they were able to seek for a draw positions.
But perhaps it would be a task for a human player. And as both players had similar understanding of a position-GENIUS has given up in a long computer's counting who will trick first.
White have dominated and they have won. Everything was according to some justice.
Of course Shredder has reached the victory after very many moves again. Very many manevres again.
And a result 1-0 was reached after 110 moves :-)
Marijus Kulvietis: Bad news and table position for GENIUS. Anyway it is a famous program.
Ok. Game n7: SOCRATES-CRAFTY 18.10 . 0-1

GM A.Kharlov: The game that ended ot as a draw. And it had taken only/:/54 moves for black to
Reach the victory. We all know Crafty mainly as an old ICC member:. It is good counter which can strike if to give such occasion. The game illustrated it. Cant say the game was very fine. But in this case we musnt see the positional understanding and criticize the opening, empty moves.
Crafty had played in it's style I guess. Playing good and bad moves. Both sides had made very doubtful decisions. As I have told-CRAFTY is not a GAMBIT-TIGER-but it can strike if to give an occasion.
SOCRATES was playing evidently weaker. It was making more mistakes. Till the main end.
And surely CRAFTY had taken the victory given by it's opponent.

GM B.Annakov: I'm sure some solid program would escape even in some ending moments. As CRAFTY also wasn't perfect. But Socrates simply missed not the one possibility to save the game and make a draw. Well. Crafty had deserved the victory. It was simply stronger. When Your opponent
Makes too many mistakes and gives You the oppurtunitty to win-why not to use it.

Marijus Kulvietis: So. I understand it this way-Not the best game by CRAFTY. But it played at least much better and Socrates has made more mistakes. OK.Game n8:COMET B36-VIRTUAL CHESS II .0-1

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: This game was short and interesting to view.
Bloody result.
Not many moves. If all the games would run in such a way the round would be very interesting
To view for simple fans. Both opponents have started very active. But white have started maybe more risky and wild.
Pushing early g-h pawns and leaving naked castled king.
As I have predicted from those first positions-BLACKS has used it later.
The time came and black have made an invasion to a white's king's residence.
23..-Qh2+.24.Kf1 Qxh3+25.Ke2 Qh5 26.f4 Rad8 27.Rf1 Ne5+ 28Ke3 Qh3+. 29.Ke2
As we see here at the main moment-white have got dead attack on a weak naked king and poor king walks to e2-e3 squares. But usually such walks for white king cant last long and ends as a death.

GM B.Annakov: I agree with Vaidas that the tournament will be as more interesting as more we have such games.
Short tactical battle. Typicall for computers. COMET started too brave. Left it's king naked.
Black has used it. Created a typicall attack on a weak king and won.
No boring maneuvres. White has resigned soon as computers are able to count such tactical attacks very far.

Marijus Kulvietis: Thank You. Game n9: MCHESS8-GANDALF 4.32h. 1/2-1/2.

IM Oleg Krivonosov : Now we will see a couple of draws after discussing some sharper games.
Result seems logical. Personally me- only now I see GANDALF to be a young program-which is more and more appearing in internet and some advertisements. Also people take it as a rather promising program.
From the other hand we can remember that MCHESS had shown it's strengh at this tournament-
Beating some strong programs and keeping good positions in a crosstable.

GM B.Annakov: And bth sides had come to a battle like a players who are well prepared.
Lets pay attention to a simple fact:
The game has ended 33 moves!
18 moves were the theory. It reminds me a game where two equal masters meet each other. Both well prepared and playing carefully long and proper theory.

IM Oleg Krivonosov: Yes. This time we haven't seen any wild improvisations at the opening.
Both sides were trying to follow theory book. Played very carefully. And principally after playing proper
Opening both sides could agree to a draw. The game was short-33 moves. But it could be even shorter.
As both sides avoided any wild complications and were to carefull. Result-very logical draw.

Marijus Kulvietis: Thanks. Game number 10: HIARCS-GROMIT. 1/2-1/2

GM A.Kharlov: Our poor HIARCS. We continue analyzing our games with this fine program and it continues perfoming bad in ODYSSEY tournament. I respect authors of GROMIT, but draw result
Is not a perfect achievement for such a program as HIARCS.

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: First of all if this famous program wants to take it's high place in a crosstable-it is time to recover and pick wins. Not draws. Also famous GMs will never understand
How their program with very nice chess understanding perfoms worse then programs they will never
Use in their preparings.

IM Oleg Krivonosov: Seems we have talked already that good analyzing program can be not the best tournament fighter in a computers event. This is such a case. HIARCS didn't use it's white color for more active and creative game. Gromit played contragame well. And I should say BLACK were better and it was possible for black to search for win. Maybe very difficult win. But one is clear HIARCS was not showing any signs of reaching victory here. And Gromit was more interesting. We were close to one more dissapointment for HIARCS. But Gromit didn't use the advantage in the middlegame and after the programs went to a rooks ending it was clear draw. As programs are weak in playing such endgames.
Lets say-the middlegame was interested and promising for GROMIT. After it had ended and went to the drawish endgame at a moves-40-45.-The game has ended.
The rest of the game was not interesting. Programs played much more boring position till 115 move. But I suggest people to stop analyzing after a middlegame.
The draw was decided and nothing changed.

Marijus Kulvietis: Lets keep our breath. We are looking at the fights of a top leaders of the tournament. Game n11:
NIMZO8-ZCHESS2.2 . 1/2-1/2

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Now we will dissapoint people as all 3 top duels has ended as a draw.
Another thing it is bad or good:

GM B.Annakov: Speaking about NIMZO-we can say it really can be a dissapointment as NIMZO playing white was clear favorite in this pairing against a less sound ZCHESS. Many fans would bet on Nimzo win.

GM A. Kharlov: Difficult to accuse NIMZO. I think the theory was picked not comfortable.
Black has received not worse position. Something else had to be played in order to find a sharper game more comfortable for NIMZO attacking style.

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: I also agree much was decided in an opening. Further of course ZCHESS was just escaping any terrible mistakes. NIMZO tried it's best I think. It had an extra pawn.
But ZCHESS was fighting well and managed to hold the draw. Deserved draw by ZCHESS.
Nimzo was strong as always. But ZCHESS managed to hold till the end . This is also an achievement.
As any bigger mistake or not correct playing would lead to fast lost.
Thus we musnt criticize the result. The game was rather interesting and solid.

Marijus Kulvietis: Game number12-REBEL MAASTRICHT/newest version of CENTURY/-JUNIOR 7. 1/2-1/2

GM A.Kharlov: One more battle of titans. Both sides well known here, very solid and maybe similar at some moments. For example REBEL M- GAMBIT-TIGER is more promising something surprising.
Here both programs are known for very good database, practise. Also solid enough not to dance a crazy bloody game with some risky and doubtful lines…

IM Oleg Krivonosov: And thus the final result-fast draw is very logical.
Good programs, but little to say about this game. Both of them knew the theory-played it in the best way and after finishing it Black-JUNIOR had ended the game with a perpetual check.
Perhaps Junior had counted all possibilities and decided that nothing new can be created except old database.
And perhaps it was right. Any dangerous experiments would end bad with REBEL-which also knew this theory line. As we see from the game. Thus we have a draw in 32 moves. Again-good knowledge and then fast agreement about result-no mistakes .And empty moves were not possible in that position.

Marijus Kulvietis: We can see in REBEL advertisements- this company is offering huge databases and no wonder it's child REBEL-MAASTRICHT was supported perfectly by a theory knowledge.
OK. And the last game: GAMBIT -TIGER 14.6-SHREDDER5. 1/2-1/2

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: One more draw. But the pairing VERY interesting.
Super "beast" GAMBIT-TIGER-vs famous SHREDDER5 which is also known for loving sharper game.
We remember when Gambit -Tiger was not at the top of the Odyssey crosstable.
We were trying to compare several similar tactical programs-GAMBIT-TIGER, REBEL-TIGER,and CHESS-GENIUS. WE were predicting the best chances for GAMBIT-TIGER. I'm wrong?

IM Oleg Krivonosov: You are not. The only dissapointment is the game of CHESSGENIUS.
But I is the oldest program. And it is perfoming bad from the start of ODYSSEY. Seems some problems appear for GENIUS authors. While REBEL-TIGER and GAMBIT-TIGER are perfoming good chess.
I also see other chess tournaments, not only ODYSSEY.

GM B.Annakov: GAMBIT-TIGER has really high ambitions. No wonder it's game vs famous SHREDDER has lasted 190 moves!!!!The longest game of the round:

Marijus Kulvietis: All those moves were needed?

IM Vaidas Sakalauskas: Of course not. First interest was when both sides have run out of book after first moves already! And then it was a real improvisation and creature by two authors-GAMBIT-TIGER and SHREDDER. Rather interesting middlegame and of course the great number of not needed moves
Has begun when programs have run into a endgame.

IM Oleg Krivonosov: Endgames are still something terrible for programs. But I will not repeat myself. Just one interesting moment. After programs have a rook+bishop versus rook-it means already draw. So it happened- that GAMBIT TIGER has left with a rook+bishop vs SHREDDER's rook.
Perhaps we all have had a situations in our practise when we had such positions.
If it is ceitnot or blitz game-it is possible to win. As the side with the only rook has very difficult defence, having to look not to get in any traps. While the side that has a rook+minor piece has many traps to offer and often it works in live games if opponent has not much time to think.
Now I see computers/nearly all of them/ clearly know the way of defence in such positions and it means draw.

Marijus Kulvietis: Nevertheless GAMBIT-TIGER and SHREDDER5 looked
Ambitious and seems they would love to pretend to first places in the biggest computers event 2001-2002-ODYSSEY. REBEL-MAASTRICHT/CENTURY/,
NIMZO are going to fight for their leadership as well.
This round was unique as it had many draws and games with a record number of moves: But as I have understood from Your discussion-it was just accident statistics bringing nothing surprisingly new in our knowledge of Odyssey participants.
Thanks for the talk. I hope other rounds will be more bloody and those who love blood will have fun :-)

2001.12.1 Kaunas

Chessclub "Baltijos Lyga" Lithuania.
1. GAMBIT-TIGER14.6,          (2) - (1)  SHREDDER5,                 ½:½ 
2. REBEL-MAASTRICHT,         (10) - (9)  JUNIOR7,                   ½:½ 
3. NIMZO8,                   (20) - (12) ZCHESS 2.2,                ½:½ 
4. CHESSMASTER8000 1.0.4.,    (6) - (8)  DEEP FRITZ,                ½:½ 
5. MCHESS8,                  (23) - (11) GANDALF432H,               ½:½ 
6. REBEL-TIGER14.6,           (3) - (17) PATZER311B,                ½:½ 
7. HIARCS7.01,                (4) - (26) GROMIT 3.8.1,              ½:½ 
8. YACE LEIDEN,              (24) - (13) ZARKOV4.5T,                1:0 
9. SHREDDER4 CHESSBITS,       (5) - (21) GENIUS6.5 CZUB-STYLE,      1:0 
10. CHESS SYSTEM TAL2.03,     (14) - (15) WCHESS2000,               ½:½ 
11. COMET B36,                (18) - (7)  VIRTUAL-CHESS2,           0:1 
12. SOCRATES X,               (22) - (19) CRAFTY 18.10,             0:1 
13. EUGEN7.92,                (25) - (16) LITTLE-GOLIATH2000V3,     ½:½ 
Download the games of round-8 in PGN format.
                       Tournament: Odyssey-2001
Place    Name                          Sco      MBch Buch Ws
  1   SHREDDER5, (1)                   6.5       27½  35   5 
2-3   REBEL-MAASTRICHT, (10)           5.5       27½  38   4 
      GAMBIT-TIGER14.6, (2)            5.5       25½  35   4 
4-7   JUNIOR7, (9)                     5.0       28½  36½  3 
      NIMZO8, (20)                     5.0       28   38   4 
      ZCHESS 2.2, (12)                 5.0       26   32½  3 
      CHESSMASTER8000 1.0.4., (6)      5.0       25   31½  4 
8-10  DEEP FRITZ, (8)                  4.5       29   38½  2 
      MCHESS8, (23)                    4.5       26½  35   3 
      YACE LEIDEN, (24)                4.5       23½  31   3 
11-17 PATZER311B, (17)                 4.0       30   40½  2 
      CRAFTY 18.10, (19)               4.0       27½  34½  3 
      GROMIT 3.8.1, (26)               4.0       24   32½  2 
      GANDALF432H, (11)                4.0       22   28½  3 
      HIARCS7.01, (4)                  4.0       22   28½  2 
      REBEL-TIGER14.6, (3)             4.0       22   28   2 
      SHREDDER4 CHESSBITS, (5)         4.0       20½  27   1 
18-21 WCHESS2000, (15)                 3.5       24½  33½  1 
      ZARKOV4.5T, (13)                 3.5       23½  30   2 
      CHESS SYSTEM TAL2.03, (14)       3.5       20½  29   1 
      VIRTUAL-CHESS2, (7)              3.5       18   24½  3 
22-23 GENIUS6.5 CZUB-STYLE, (21)       3.0       24   31   1 
      LITTLE-GOLIATH2000V3, (16)       3.0       24   30   1 
  24  COMET B36, (18)                  2.0       21   29   1 
25-26 EUGEN7.92, (25)                  1.5       21½  28   0 
      SOCRATES X, (22)                 1.5       20   26½  1 

updates: century maastricht will be updated into century4. 
crafty 18.10 into latest version crafty 18.12. 
Download all games of Odyssey 2001 in PGN format.

The Rebel Home Page has been visited times.
Since November 23, 1995