Having pretty much beaten the correspondence and engine horses to death in this Blog, I think it is time to move on to something else. I enjoy playing over games and this one between Kosteniuk and Kosintseva was fun to watch. I've also included it in a replayable form so it is easier to see what was going on.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Some Views on Correspondence Chess
The Endings in Modern Theory and Practice
I was recently browsing and came upon one site where CC was being discussed and some of the comments were interesting. One player, rated around 2100 OTB, stated he had given it up because he was not good enough to take advantage of any “weak” moves played by engines, adding that no matter how much time he spent on the game, even using his own engine, he simply could not tell a “good” engine move from a “bad” one. He added that an OTB master and 2400 rated CC player had the same problem. His opinion was that in order to successfully play CC you have to be strong enough to know when an engine generated move is not the best and for that you need to be rated at least 2300. That lets most of us out.
In response, one FM replied that endgames are still the engines Achilles Heel but you need to be a master of endgames to succeed against engines. That lets most of us out.
He also pointed out that in closed middlegames an experienced strong player can come up with a better plan than engines which often do nothing but shuffle pieces. That lets most of us out
Additionally he felt that in order to take advantage of an engine’s opening book, you need to be rated about 2300 OTB. That lets most of us out
This FM, and many other strong CC players think that to be successful in CC these days, it’s the openings where games are won or lost. You need to find a line with long term strategy or an endgame the engine can't understand or play an opening innovation where the advantage of the move is over the engine’s horizon. That lets most of us out.
I have to agree with this FM. In fact everything he said is in agreement with CCGM Robin Smith’s statements in his book, Modern Chess Analysis.
Another interesting observation of this player was that the rating difference between an 1800 rated and a 2000 rated CC player was practically zero and the difference between an 1800 and 2400 is quite small…probably the only difference was endgame knowledge. He went on to add that CC still remains a good way to improve because it requires a LOT of study, but if all you’re looking for is wins and a rating then you will find it very frustrating.
It’s quite clear to me after returning to CC in 2004 after an absence of about 12 years that with the proliferation of engines, legal or not, I am facing the same problems as the original poster. I’m simply not good enough to outsmart a chess engine in the opening, or force the game into a closed middlegame where I can plan a winning strategy 20 moves in advance while the engine twiddles its thumbs, aimlessly shifting pieces nor am I an endgame expert. Oh, I can play K and P and R and P endings pretty good because years ago Basic Chess Endings and Peter Griffith’s Modern Chess Endings were my best friends, but that’s not good enough because I still lack a 2300’s understanding of these things.
The short version is that if you aren’t 2300 OTB you are reduced to 1) playing only engine generated moves which is no fun or 2) trying to find another move that probably won’t work and likely will lead to losing the game which is no fun either. Since I am not good enough to play CC at the top level and am not looking to improve my game, only have fun, why bother with this form of chess at all? I don’t know why I do it.
I was recently browsing and came upon one site where CC was being discussed and some of the comments were interesting. One player, rated around 2100 OTB, stated he had given it up because he was not good enough to take advantage of any “weak” moves played by engines, adding that no matter how much time he spent on the game, even using his own engine, he simply could not tell a “good” engine move from a “bad” one. He added that an OTB master and 2400 rated CC player had the same problem. His opinion was that in order to successfully play CC you have to be strong enough to know when an engine generated move is not the best and for that you need to be rated at least 2300. That lets most of us out.
In response, one FM replied that endgames are still the engines Achilles Heel but you need to be a master of endgames to succeed against engines. That lets most of us out.
He also pointed out that in closed middlegames an experienced strong player can come up with a better plan than engines which often do nothing but shuffle pieces. That lets most of us out
Additionally he felt that in order to take advantage of an engine’s opening book, you need to be rated about 2300 OTB. That lets most of us out
This FM, and many other strong CC players think that to be successful in CC these days, it’s the openings where games are won or lost. You need to find a line with long term strategy or an endgame the engine can't understand or play an opening innovation where the advantage of the move is over the engine’s horizon. That lets most of us out.
I have to agree with this FM. In fact everything he said is in agreement with CCGM Robin Smith’s statements in his book, Modern Chess Analysis.
Another interesting observation of this player was that the rating difference between an 1800 rated and a 2000 rated CC player was practically zero and the difference between an 1800 and 2400 is quite small…probably the only difference was endgame knowledge. He went on to add that CC still remains a good way to improve because it requires a LOT of study, but if all you’re looking for is wins and a rating then you will find it very frustrating.
It’s quite clear to me after returning to CC in 2004 after an absence of about 12 years that with the proliferation of engines, legal or not, I am facing the same problems as the original poster. I’m simply not good enough to outsmart a chess engine in the opening, or force the game into a closed middlegame where I can plan a winning strategy 20 moves in advance while the engine twiddles its thumbs, aimlessly shifting pieces nor am I an endgame expert. Oh, I can play K and P and R and P endings pretty good because years ago Basic Chess Endings and Peter Griffith’s Modern Chess Endings were my best friends, but that’s not good enough because I still lack a 2300’s understanding of these things.
The short version is that if you aren’t 2300 OTB you are reduced to 1) playing only engine generated moves which is no fun or 2) trying to find another move that probably won’t work and likely will lead to losing the game which is no fun either. Since I am not good enough to play CC at the top level and am not looking to improve my game, only have fun, why bother with this form of chess at all? I don’t know why I do it.
More on Analyzing with an Engine
I’ve mentioned in previous posts the necessity of using more than one engine to analyze a position AND the necessity of, after completing the analysis, skipping to the end of the variation and backtracking through the analysis in order to see if the engine missed anything in its calculations. This post will show how the technique works.
In the following position taken from one of my old correspondence games, Black overlooked a mate threat and lost immediately. I tested three engines, Houdini, Stockfish and FireBird just to see what they came up with. In most of my analysis the engines were allowed one to three minutes per move to examine the positions.
After they reached what seemed like a reasonably reliable conclusion on the best move, I pasted the analysis into the game then went to the end of the line and started backing up. You will notice that the engine’s evaluation of the final position often changed, sometimes significantly, and in the process of backtracking through the line, other improvements were occasionally suggested. Each of those had to be checked out. This takes a lot of time and patience to do it thoroughly…something I don’t have. Well, I have the time but not the patience which may explain why my success at Lechinicher SchachServer has been modest at best. I’m in too big a hurry to see who wins to spend days and days to properly analyze my games with an engine. But, that’s what the big boys do and as you will see if you go through the game, it’s why they say you should not simply trust what the engine is telling you.
Beyond all that though, it also serves as a reminder that when letting an engine analyze your own games, you should not just plug in the game and let it analyze at some give time per move and then believe you have the absolute best analysis. Everything has to be checked out!
In this piece of analysis, all three engines immediately saw that Black had to play 23…Rg8 All three were allowed to ponder the position three minutes. Houdini wanted to play 24.Rxd4 and thought White was better by 0.65 and when skipping to the end of its main line it still considered White’s advantage to be only 0.54. Backing up a move at a time from the end of the line though showed something quite different.
When it was Black’s 35th move, instead of 35…f6 in the main line, Houdini suggested 35…Rxh4 instead with the position about equal. Skipping to the end of that line and backtracking through the moves did not reveal any significant changes in the evaluation, so it could be assumed that by playing 23...Rg8 24.Rxd4 Rg5 25.Qf3 Be7 26.Rxd7 Qxd7 27.Re1 Kg8 28.h4 Rb5 29.Re3 Kf8 30.Qf4 Rh5 31.Kg1 Kg7 32.Rg3+ Kf8 33.Qe4 Bd8 34.Rf3 f5 35.Qe5 Rxh4 36.g3 f6 37.Qxf5 Rd4 38.Qxd7 Rxd7 39.Kg2 Kg7 40.Nf4 Kf7 41.Re3 Bc7 42.Rd3 Rxd3 43.Nxd3 a5 44.Kf3 Ke6 45.Ke4 f5+ 46.Kf3 b5 47.Ke3 Bb6+ 48.Ke2 a4 49.Nf4+ Ke5 Black likely would have been able to hold the game.
FireBird 1.0 x64 followed Houdini’s analysis up to move 27 when it wanted to play 27.Nf4 instead of Houdini’s 27.Re1. Checking out 27.Nf4 with Houdini revealed it wanted Black to meet the move with 27…Qc7 and Firebird’s reply for Black didn’t even make Houdini’s top three recommendations although its numerical evaluation was pretty close to Firebird’s.
Stockfish 2.0.1 JA 64bit also quickly played 23...Rg8 but wanted to play 24.Rh4 instead of 24.Rxd4 as suggested by the other two engines. Checking Stockfish’s play with the Houdini engine didn’t reveal anything significant but I did notice that Houdini’s evaluations were not quite as optimistic as Stockfish’s.
SO, the question is, after 23…Rg8, can Black hold the game? Apparently he can if he follows Houdini’s analysis.
In the following position taken from one of my old correspondence games, Black overlooked a mate threat and lost immediately. I tested three engines, Houdini, Stockfish and FireBird just to see what they came up with. In most of my analysis the engines were allowed one to three minutes per move to examine the positions.
After they reached what seemed like a reasonably reliable conclusion on the best move, I pasted the analysis into the game then went to the end of the line and started backing up. You will notice that the engine’s evaluation of the final position often changed, sometimes significantly, and in the process of backtracking through the line, other improvements were occasionally suggested. Each of those had to be checked out. This takes a lot of time and patience to do it thoroughly…something I don’t have. Well, I have the time but not the patience which may explain why my success at Lechinicher SchachServer has been modest at best. I’m in too big a hurry to see who wins to spend days and days to properly analyze my games with an engine. But, that’s what the big boys do and as you will see if you go through the game, it’s why they say you should not simply trust what the engine is telling you.
Beyond all that though, it also serves as a reminder that when letting an engine analyze your own games, you should not just plug in the game and let it analyze at some give time per move and then believe you have the absolute best analysis. Everything has to be checked out!
In this piece of analysis, all three engines immediately saw that Black had to play 23…Rg8 All three were allowed to ponder the position three minutes. Houdini wanted to play 24.Rxd4 and thought White was better by 0.65 and when skipping to the end of its main line it still considered White’s advantage to be only 0.54. Backing up a move at a time from the end of the line though showed something quite different.
When it was Black’s 35th move, instead of 35…f6 in the main line, Houdini suggested 35…Rxh4 instead with the position about equal. Skipping to the end of that line and backtracking through the moves did not reveal any significant changes in the evaluation, so it could be assumed that by playing 23...Rg8 24.Rxd4 Rg5 25.Qf3 Be7 26.Rxd7 Qxd7 27.Re1 Kg8 28.h4 Rb5 29.Re3 Kf8 30.Qf4 Rh5 31.Kg1 Kg7 32.Rg3+ Kf8 33.Qe4 Bd8 34.Rf3 f5 35.Qe5 Rxh4 36.g3 f6 37.Qxf5 Rd4 38.Qxd7 Rxd7 39.Kg2 Kg7 40.Nf4 Kf7 41.Re3 Bc7 42.Rd3 Rxd3 43.Nxd3 a5 44.Kf3 Ke6 45.Ke4 f5+ 46.Kf3 b5 47.Ke3 Bb6+ 48.Ke2 a4 49.Nf4+ Ke5 Black likely would have been able to hold the game.
FireBird 1.0 x64 followed Houdini’s analysis up to move 27 when it wanted to play 27.Nf4 instead of Houdini’s 27.Re1. Checking out 27.Nf4 with Houdini revealed it wanted Black to meet the move with 27…Qc7 and Firebird’s reply for Black didn’t even make Houdini’s top three recommendations although its numerical evaluation was pretty close to Firebird’s.
Stockfish 2.0.1 JA 64bit also quickly played 23...Rg8 but wanted to play 24.Rh4 instead of 24.Rxd4 as suggested by the other two engines. Checking Stockfish’s play with the Houdini engine didn’t reveal anything significant but I did notice that Houdini’s evaluations were not quite as optimistic as Stockfish’s.
SO, the question is, after 23…Rg8, can Black hold the game? Apparently he can if he follows Houdini’s analysis.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Dunce
In my last two correspondence tournament sections I’ve managed to get one losing position through carelessness in both of them. After thoroughly analyzing both games where I had equal positions, I went on the site and played my move then confirmed it. When I got my opponent’s reply is when I realized I had played a move from a sideline and not the main line…the result in both cases were blunders; one lost my Queen and the other took me from equality in a position on the Black side of a Ruy Lopez, Marshall Counterattack to a position where I have little, if any, chances. I will hang in there and hope he misplays the Q-R and P ending…anything can happen (I hope). I am thoroughly disgusted with myself...feel free to hurl insults at my stupidity!
Elmārs Zemgalis
In 1951, he emigrated to the United States, where he became a mathematics professor. By 1952, Zemgalis had settled in Seattle, Washington. He was the top player in the Pacific Northwest for the next fifteen years. In 1952, he won (3:1) a match against Olaf Ulvestad in Seattle. In 1953 and 1959, he won the Washington State championships. In 1962, he won (4.5: 3.5) a match against Viktors Pupols.
Zemgalis was a teenager when the war began and by 1940 had also won “the championship of Riga’sprestigious First High School four years running.” Zemgalis had
opportunities to play quick chess with Vladimir Petrov, another exceptionally talented Latvian player, who shared first place with Flohr and Reshevsky at the very strong Kemeri 1937 tournament.
Later, in 1944, the Soviets returned to Latvia where Mikhai Tal, at age eight,would eventually be absorbed in the Soviet system, nurtured in his growth as a player, and allowed the opportunity to develop his talent under the auspices of a state supported system. Zemgalis, older, along with other Latvian chess players, saw the return of the Soviets as reason enough to flee West. In 1946 “the West,” for Zemgalis and many others like him, displaced persons, was Germany. There during the second half of the 1940s he met the likes of Bogoljubow, Ortvin Sarapu, and Fritz Saemisch.
Oldenburg 1949 was his greatest achievement. In a seventeen round event, he finished tied for first with Bogoljubow at 12-5 ahead of such stars as Rossolimo, Sarapu, Unzicker, and O’Kelly. In this game he demolishes a another player who also ended up in the US.
Morphy Trivia
Dr. Daaim Shabazz’s site, The Chess Drum, is an interesting site with current chess news and is primarily devoted to information on Black chess players that is not available anywhere else. One essay I discovered on the site was written by a player of the 1800’s named James Smith in which he discusses subjects pertaining to the 19th century chess era including Paul Morphy and his battle with Howard Staunton. It’s interesting reading and I suggest you check it out. Read Article
Sunday, July 3, 2011
More on Rybka’s Disqualification
Extreme Tech "If Rajlich did plagiarize Crafty and Fruit, the reasons are probably financial: Rybka is a commercial piece of software, and its accolade as the best chess program in the world must surely bring in a few dollars. It’s a tricky situation, though: with Rybka now outlawed from the WCCC, and with the ICGA asking other tournaments to block its entry, the only real way Rajlich and the rest of the Rybka team can clear their names is to show their source code — a financially untenable move. In short, Rybka is stuck between a rock and a hard place."
Chess Vibes "The news is obviously a huge blow for the Rybka team. The impact in the computer chess world must be comparable to arguably the most famous example of doping in athletics: the positive drug testing of Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson in 1988."
Saturday, July 2, 2011
More Advice on Analyzing with an Engine
Robin Smith examined this position in his book, Modern Chess Analysis and made some interesting observations.
Believing this analysis without further investigation leads to a whole different conclusion. One needs to jump ahead to position at the end of the line:
What’s the point? Besides (1) Smith’s interesting observation about why the initial position is strategically won for White even though engines, even today, think the advantage is only minimal, (2) it shows that evaluations by very strong engines can be misleading, (3) it shows why the backward-stepping analysis is essential, (4) it shows that correspondence play at high levels is beyond most of us simply because we would look at the engine evaluation and believe it. Even if we didn’t believe it, how many of us would look at the initial position and evaluate it as strategically won for White? I guess that’s why we are such bad players…lack of understanding. (5) Finally, the real danger is you can easily get lead down a false path by following moves that the engine says lead to an OK position, but eventually you see its evaluation jump from your having a relatively meaningless half P deficit to it showing your position is so bad you can resign.
Back in Smith’s day he observed that many engines saw the position as roughly equal or as White having a slight advantage while the more popular ones, Shredder, Hiarcs and Crafty evaluated it as a slight advantage for Black and none saw the position as White having a winning advantage even though White has a strategically won position.
According to Smith the problem the programs have is that the weakness of the P’s on e6 and h7 are difficult to write into the program because they aren’t doubled, isolated, backward or on an open file. As a result the engines did not regard them as particularly weak. Additionally, the P’s are well defended and will remain so for a long time. Only in the ending will the engine realize their weakness.
I ran my own test using the Fire 1.5 xTreme x64 engine and after 10 minutes evaluation it determined White had a slight advantage (0.37) and gave the following line as best:1.Rd3 Rfc8 2.Nd4 Na5 3.Nce2 Nc6 4.Nxc6 Bxc6 5.Nd4 Kf7 6.b3 a5 7.Rhh3 b5 8.Rc3 Bd7 9.Rxc5 Rxc5 10.Kb2 b4 11.Nf3 Kg8 12.Ng5 a4 13.c3 axb3 14.cxb4 Rc2+
The engine immediately shows an evaluation of 4.75 in White’s favor. What happened? As Smith points out, never believe analysis all the way to the end. When the engine has generated what it thinks is the best move, it is absolutely essential that you go to the end of the variation and step backwards. When the engine sees a large advantage for one side, back up a move and often you will find it will vary from the main analysis and then you must do the same thing with side variations. Following this technique in the above position we see a drastic change at move 7 where the engine thinks if Black plays either 7…Be8 or 7…Bb5 White’s advantage is only a half P. So, you would look for an improvement for Black at this point, checking both moves.
Going back to the initial position, Smith gives the following analysis which initself is instructive: 1.Rd3 (keeping the N from going to e3 and then g4 from where it would tie White to the defense of his h-Pawn.) Rfc8 2.g3 (Inching towards an ending. This move clears the 2nd rank so the weak square c2 can be guarded by placing the R on h2. This is an interesting note because it shows a part of the game most of us are oblivious to but plays a very important role in high level chess…weak squares. Of its top choices the Fire engine only places this move at about 5 or 6 with an almost completely equal position. Fire recommends as better 2.Nd4 and 12 moves later shows an evaluation of 0.33. Going to the end of the analysis reveals it thinks White’s advantage is not 1/3 of a P, but nearly 4 P’s! So much for 2.Nd4 being better than 2.g3!) 2…a5 3.Rh2 b5 4.Ne2 (The two ideal squares for the N’s are d4 and g5, so White prepares to occupy both.) b4 5.Ned4 (Even at this stage, the engine fails to recognize that Black is totally lost, evaluating the position at 0.54 in White’s favor.) e8 (Smith calls this a mistake because the passive nature of the R here will be permanent. He recommends 5…Rb8 and …Rb6 from where the R guards e6 from a more active square. Fire wants to play 5…a4 but then meets 6.Ng5 with …Re8 and still believes White is only a half-P better.) 6.Ng5 Rcc8 7.c3 Re7 8.Rc2 Ra8 9.cxb4 axb4 10.b3 Na5 11.Rc7 and at this point the engine finally realizes White’s advantage is 3 P’s.
Rybka Banned for Plagiarism
The International Computer Games Association (ICGA) has conducted an investigation into allegations that, in the chess program Rybka, the programmer Vasik Rajlich plagiarized two other programs: Crafty and Fruit. The result: By a unanimous 5-0 decision they were convinced that the evidence against Vasik Rajlich was overwhelming and beyond reasonable doubt.
On five occasions, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, he violated rules by claiming other programmers’ work as his own and as a result was unfairly been awarded one shared and four World Computer Chess Championship titles. Rajlich has repeatedly denied plagiarizing the work of other programmers.
As a result Rajlich has been stripped of past titles and the titles now go to the next program in line. So, the new champions are 2006 2nd place goes to Shredder, 2007 Zappa (World Champion), 2008 Hiarcs (World Champion), 2009 tie between Junior, Shredder and Deep Sjeng, and the 2010 champion was a tie between Rondo and Thinker. Rybka was also stripped of its blitz titles for 2009 and 2010.
Vasik Rajlich is banned for life from competing in the World Computer Chess Championship or any other event organized by or sanctioned by the ICGA and they have demanded that he return the trophies and prize money. FULL STORY
It will be interesting to see what develops from all this.
On five occasions, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, he violated rules by claiming other programmers’ work as his own and as a result was unfairly been awarded one shared and four World Computer Chess Championship titles. Rajlich has repeatedly denied plagiarizing the work of other programmers.
As a result Rajlich has been stripped of past titles and the titles now go to the next program in line. So, the new champions are 2006 2nd place goes to Shredder, 2007 Zappa (World Champion), 2008 Hiarcs (World Champion), 2009 tie between Junior, Shredder and Deep Sjeng, and the 2010 champion was a tie between Rondo and Thinker. Rybka was also stripped of its blitz titles for 2009 and 2010.
Vasik Rajlich is banned for life from competing in the World Computer Chess Championship or any other event organized by or sanctioned by the ICGA and they have demanded that he return the trophies and prize money. FULL STORY
It will be interesting to see what develops from all this.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Fischer – Geller Classic
Soviet GM Yefim Geller was one of the least appreciated of the GM’s of his era. In addition to ranking among the world’s elite players he was known for his tactical ability and brilliant attacking style. In later years he abandoned his youthful aggressiveness and became a more rounded player and, according to Botvinnik, was the best player in the world in the late 1960’s. If you enjoy attacking chess, his games are worthy of examination. Here’s one of his brilliant wins over Fischer played at Skopje in 1967.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Bitter Loss on LSS
I reached the following position after 25.Bf2xb6 in a recently completed game on Lechenicher ScachServer:
I was counting on my two passed P’s on the Q-side to win, but it wasn’t to be. The critical position was reached at move 19. Until that time we had been following a blitz match game between Kramnik and Kasparov played in London, 2000 which was drawn.
At move 19 I subjected the position to analysis with both the Houdini and latest version of the Fire engines. My database had 5 games and in all of them 19.cxb6 resulted in a draw, but I did not want a draw so that was what prompted my decision to look for something else and I thought I had discovered it with 19.Ne2. After all, it developed a piece, so how bad could it be?! As a result of my decision to vary at move 19, we reached the above position which I reckoned I could win owing to the two passed P’s. Indeed the engines all rated the position as equal. As it turned out, as the game progressed, I kept watching the engine evaluations swing more and more in Black’s favor and I simply couldn’t find a way to save the game. Moral of the story: I should have trusted the GM’s and accepted the draw.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Opening Statistics
In his book Modern Chess Analysis which is about using chess engines in correspondence play, the late CCGM Robin Smith discusses how to use engines in opening analysis.
In his discussion on game database statistics, he advises caution because 1-the number of games may be too small to have any statistical meaning 2-the stats don’t take into accounts later improvements 3-they don’t take into account the playing styles of the players. For example, playing Black against the King’s Gambit Accepted I would find stats meaningless because I never accept the gambit and try to avoid tactical melees. 4-the strength of the players is often omitted and 5-you must take into account the number of draws. A 50% score in a line where White wins half of the games and loses half is not the same thing as a line where all of the games were drawn! As he points out in a must win situation, the first scenario would be the way to go but if one is playing in a section to earn a master norm, the second scenario with a lot of draws may be the best course.
For stats to be meaningful he recommends having several hundreds of games available. Also, it is important to select openings that fit one’s preferred style of play. It’s also important to do your research to make sure that no recent developments have refuted your selected line of play. White may have won 75% of the games in the db but a latrer improvement may have completely reversed the situation. He advises that if there is not a sufficient number of games in the db then it is absolutely essential to play over the games to make sure the results weren’t influenced by mistakes later in the game.
In a recent CC game I faced a situation (I had Black in a King’s Gambit Declined) where we quickly reached a position with only three games in my database. The results were +1 -1 =1 and I had a choice of two different moves, both of which looked OK, but one line (where Black scored +1 -0 =1) lead to a position that was materially imbalanced and the engine was showing a small advantage to Black. Because I am always skeptical of engine evaluations in this type of situation the question was, is that true?
Analysis lead to a position where White was a P up and Black was threatening to regain it immediately by capturing the a-Pawn. The engines wanted to play either 13.Be2 or 13.Bg5 with a tiny edge for White. But I had to ask what if White played 13.a3 which the engine says is evaluated at 0.00. The critical line came after 13…Bf5 forcing White to play 14.Kf2 to get out of the pin. This is the position in question:
In his discussion on game database statistics, he advises caution because 1-the number of games may be too small to have any statistical meaning 2-the stats don’t take into accounts later improvements 3-they don’t take into account the playing styles of the players. For example, playing Black against the King’s Gambit Accepted I would find stats meaningless because I never accept the gambit and try to avoid tactical melees. 4-the strength of the players is often omitted and 5-you must take into account the number of draws. A 50% score in a line where White wins half of the games and loses half is not the same thing as a line where all of the games were drawn! As he points out in a must win situation, the first scenario would be the way to go but if one is playing in a section to earn a master norm, the second scenario with a lot of draws may be the best course.
For stats to be meaningful he recommends having several hundreds of games available. Also, it is important to select openings that fit one’s preferred style of play. It’s also important to do your research to make sure that no recent developments have refuted your selected line of play. White may have won 75% of the games in the db but a latrer improvement may have completely reversed the situation. He advises that if there is not a sufficient number of games in the db then it is absolutely essential to play over the games to make sure the results weren’t influenced by mistakes later in the game.
In a recent CC game I faced a situation (I had Black in a King’s Gambit Declined) where we quickly reached a position with only three games in my database. The results were +1 -1 =1 and I had a choice of two different moves, both of which looked OK, but one line (where Black scored +1 -0 =1) lead to a position that was materially imbalanced and the engine was showing a small advantage to Black. Because I am always skeptical of engine evaluations in this type of situation the question was, is that true?
White can’t castle and Black is better developed but is it worth a P? Houdini suggests that after both14…Bg6 and 14…Nxe4+ the position’s evaluation is near 0.00. After 14…Nxe4+ 15.dxe4 Bxe4 16.Qd2 we reach this position:
The position is evaluated as equal, but is it? I thought White’s K looks safe and didn’t see any way for Black to work up a successful attack. I ran a couple of Shoot Outs from this position and the results were in White’s favor. In the most interesting game White ended up with 2R’s + B vs. a Q + 3P’s with the engine showing a 2P advantage for White (there’s that material imbalance again) and White did indeed win. I concluded that it was best to avoid all these murky lines and chose the one move where Black lost. It was a solid developing move and a quick examination of the game showed Black lost, not because of the opening, but because of mistakes later on.
Databases frequently give statistical analysis of opening moves but they are not always accurate and you must take into account a number of factors. And as I’ve suggested in the past, playing CC these days in tournaments where engines are allowed (or even not allowed but used anyway by highly rated players on most sites) still requires you to do your homework.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Purdy Wisdom
Playing over master games is one of the best ways to improve, but only of you cover the moves. Get a card and cut an aperture in it about as long and wide as a printed move of one side of a game. When you have decided what you would play and wish to compare your move with the text, slide the card down until the move shows. Then, after making a comparison, slide the card across until the other side’s move shows. Don’t ponder in advance about both side’s moves-only one side’s.
If you like, you can keep a record of the number of moves you get the same as in the text and watch it rise. It won’t rise evenly, as some games contain many obvious moves-others not. But if you take an average over ten games, your average for the next ten games will be higher. And so on.
If you like, you can keep a record of the number of moves you get the same as in the text and watch it rise. It won’t rise evenly, as some games contain many obvious moves-others not. But if you take an average over ten games, your average for the next ten games will be higher. And so on.
It is axiomatic that positional play is concerned only with small advantages and disadvantages. Big ones naturally occur only through forcing moves, i.e. combinations. But because the great majority of chess moves have to be positional, positional play is, taken all around, of roughly the same importance as combination play.
Challengers to the Houdini Engine
I’ve downloaded and have been experimenting with two new engines, Fire 1.5 xTreme and RobboLito 0.09 w32. I’ve haven’t done any serious testing against Houdini, just a bunch of blitz games and both engines seem to perform on at least an equal level with Houdini. So far RobboLito have a +1 score against Houdini and Fire is even while none of the games between Fire and RobboLito were decisive. Of course blitz and slow games aren’t the same thing so further testing is needed. Neither of these engines appear on any engine rating lists that I’ve seen. Either I just haven’t seen such a list or they haven’t been tested for some reason.
One thing I do not like about RobboLito is that you can only see the move it is currently considering (at least on the Fritz 12 interface). i.e when you click on the “+” button to see more lines, nothing happens so the Fire engine is the more valuable of the two. Also, at least on my laptop, I need to use the 32-bit version of RobboLito to avoid crashes. Here is a game played with a T/L of 30 moves in 15 minutes the 15/5.
One thing I do not like about RobboLito is that you can only see the move it is currently considering (at least on the Fritz 12 interface). i.e when you click on the “+” button to see more lines, nothing happens so the Fire engine is the more valuable of the two. Also, at least on my laptop, I need to use the 32-bit version of RobboLito to avoid crashes. Here is a game played with a T/L of 30 moves in 15 minutes the 15/5.
Proposed anti-Draw Solutions
In a recent article I read Andrey Chitatelsky of Moscow wrote of a couple of proposals to deal with the spate of draws in top level competition. He pointed out that draws decrease chess' appeal as popular sport and commercial endeavor. Not only that they take away the appeal of the game for the average player.
One idea is to play the rapid and blitz games before (not after the classic games) so that the player who wins the rapid match has the advantage right from the start. The result of this is a draw is to the advantage of the winner of the blitz match. This way the loser will be forced to try and win. No more quick draws so they can take their chances in blitz. This does not eliminate draws, but reduces fast draws without a fight.
Another involves something really, really important to today’s professional players…money. Half of tournament prize fund is divided among winners of games finishing with a result. So a player, who scored +4 -4 =4, gets 4 times more money than those who scored +1 -1 =10. This idea is for elite tournaments. Aggressive players would receive more money and this should increase tension in tournament as players try for a bigger payday by winning more games.
The most radical solution is to treat draws as wins for Black. The logic behind this is that chess is so developed on the highest level that white has a significant advantage. If there wasn’t any difference between loss and draw, white could play risky and select sharp positions instead of boring, risk free positions with small advantage. As Chitatelsky points out, this idea only works at the elite level.
He also suggested that eliminating draws would be good for advanced chess because White loses very seldom in advanced chess and most games are very boring. But if White was forced to think about winning it would lead to interesting games and attempts to win. This may be the case on the elite OTB level, but I don’t think advanced chess is all that popular among the world’s elite players at this time and to impose such a rule on correspondence players (almost all of whom play advanced chess anyway) is not a good idea because most of them aren’t in the same class as the world’s elite OTB players.
Chitatelsky makes an interesting observation that modern day chess at highest levels is “becoming strange sport without competition nature, which is very unattractive to wide audience.” I know what he means…I really haven’t been interested in watching GM play, even at the world championship level, for years. Most of them are so boring I wouldn’t care if they all give up chess and left it to us rating challenged amateurs to play the game for nothing but the fun of it.
One idea is to play the rapid and blitz games before (not after the classic games) so that the player who wins the rapid match has the advantage right from the start. The result of this is a draw is to the advantage of the winner of the blitz match. This way the loser will be forced to try and win. No more quick draws so they can take their chances in blitz. This does not eliminate draws, but reduces fast draws without a fight.
Another involves something really, really important to today’s professional players…money. Half of tournament prize fund is divided among winners of games finishing with a result. So a player, who scored +4 -4 =4, gets 4 times more money than those who scored +1 -1 =10. This idea is for elite tournaments. Aggressive players would receive more money and this should increase tension in tournament as players try for a bigger payday by winning more games.
The most radical solution is to treat draws as wins for Black. The logic behind this is that chess is so developed on the highest level that white has a significant advantage. If there wasn’t any difference between loss and draw, white could play risky and select sharp positions instead of boring, risk free positions with small advantage. As Chitatelsky points out, this idea only works at the elite level.
He also suggested that eliminating draws would be good for advanced chess because White loses very seldom in advanced chess and most games are very boring. But if White was forced to think about winning it would lead to interesting games and attempts to win. This may be the case on the elite OTB level, but I don’t think advanced chess is all that popular among the world’s elite players at this time and to impose such a rule on correspondence players (almost all of whom play advanced chess anyway) is not a good idea because most of them aren’t in the same class as the world’s elite OTB players.
Chitatelsky makes an interesting observation that modern day chess at highest levels is “becoming strange sport without competition nature, which is very unattractive to wide audience.” I know what he means…I really haven’t been interested in watching GM play, even at the world championship level, for years. Most of them are so boring I wouldn’t care if they all give up chess and left it to us rating challenged amateurs to play the game for nothing but the fun of it.
Friday, June 24, 2011
1975 US Championship
It just occurred to me that this coming Sunday marks the anniversary of the completion of the 24th US Championship and Zonal Tournament that was played in Oberlin, Ohio from June 7-26, 1975. I was able to attend every one of rounds played in that tournament…a thoroughly enjoyable experience.
1. Browne x ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 8½- 4½
2. Rogoff ½ x ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ 8 - 5
3. Vukcevich ½ ½ x ½ 1 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 0 1 ½ 7½- 5½
4. Byrne, R. 0 ½ ½ x ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 7 - 6
5. Reshevsky ½ ½ 0 ½ x ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 7 - 6
6. Lombardy ½ 1 1 ½ ½ x ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 6½- 6½
7. Bisguier ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ x ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 6½- 6½
8. Tarjan ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 1 ½ x 1 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 6½- 6½
9. Commons ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 x ½ 1 0 1 1 6½- 6½
10. Kavalek ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ x 0 ½ ½ ½ 5½- 7½
11. Peters ½ 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 1 0 1 x ½ 0 ½ 5½- 7½
12. Mednis 0 0 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ ½ x ½ ½ 5½- 7½
13. Grefe 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ x 1 5½- 7½
14. Benko 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 x 5 - 8
As a result of this tournament, Walter Browne, and Ken Rogoff qualified for the 1976 Interzonals. Robert Byrne also qualified as a result of having played in the 1974 Candidates Matches. Lubomir Kavalek also played in 1976 Interzonals.
One surprise of the tournament was Arthur Bisguier’s results; he is the only player ever to have drawn all of his games in US Championship play. Given Bisguier's temperment and style all draws was unusual.
The last round of this event was memorable because Samuel Reshevsky complained to the TD about the refusal of Pal Benko to honor a pre-arranged draw (technically illegal). Andrew Soltis wrote about it in The US Chess Championship: 1845-1985.
The second prize, and second interzonal invitation, depended on two pairings. If Rogoff were to lose with Black to Bisguier, then Reshevsky, the closest to him, could tie the young Yale student by defeating a now-demoralized Benko.
What happened next did not reflect honorably on the character of U.S. Championship participants. In fact, it recalled the long-forgotten Grundy incident of the 5th American Chess Congress. According to Reshevsky, on the night before the final round, he approached Benko with a proposition: If we see that Rogoff is drawing or winning against Bisguier tomorrow, he said, there's no point in our exerting ourselves. We might as well draw because a win means nothing to either of us. But if Rogoff loses, Reshevsky went on, then I'll play to win because I can force a playoff for the Biel, Switzerland, interzonal spot by tying him for second place.
This in itself is against international chess etiquette. But Reshevsky added another element: If he managed to get into the interzonal, Reshevsky said he would choose Benko as his second there and there would be a nice salary for that. (According to Benko, the question of a last- round draw came up in the middle of the tournament and he indicated his willingness to draw.)
In any event, there was no repeat of "Grundy" the next day. Rogoff drew quickly, thereby clinching the trip to Biel and also allowing Bisguier to establish a record by drawing all 13 of his games in the Championship. Seeing this, Reshevsky indicated to Benko that it was time to draw as they had agreed. But Benko refused, pointing out that he had the better position and, more important, he would finish a humiliating last in the tournament if he only drew. "I must win to get out of last place," he told Reshevsky.
Reshevsky was outraged; he complained to tournament director Tim Redman that his opponent was not living up to an highly irregular agreement and, when he got no help from that quarter, began angrily repeating his draw offer at the table to Benko. He even tried enlisting the help of bystander Bisguier to convince Benko. All this served only to upset Reshevsky enough to throw away a pawn, but he managed to hold the position for a draw when play resumed the next day. Benko says he was too upset to win and the incident was soon forgotten.
Chess Life & Review (September 1975) told the story:
Going into the [final] round Reshevsky still had an outside chance of getting into a playoff for the second Interzonal spot, and the night before the game he approached his opponent, Pal Benko, with some "ideas." Benko, who had been Sammy's second at the Petropolis Interzonal, was told by Reshevsky that Sammy would watch Rogoff's game with Bisguier and should Rogoff win or draw Sammy wanted a draw since the Interzonal spot would then be out of reach. If Rogoff were to lose then Reshevsky would play for a win, and he informed Benko that if he did make it to the Interzonal Pal would again be his second and there would be a good bit of money involved. All of this was just great for Reshevsky, but Pal, who'd finished 2nd in last year's Championship, was in last place and he needed a victory to avoid finishing there.
The next day Rogoff drew quickly with Bisguier, giving Arthur a record of some sort for his thirteen draws, and that draw, combined with Vukcevich's draw with Byrne, gave Rogoff second place and a trip to the Interzonal. Seeing that his last chance of qualification was gone, Reshevsky offered a draw which he apparently felt sure Benko would accept, but Pal just looked up and said, "I cannot take a draw, I must win in order to get out of last place." As the playing session continued Reshevsky pestered Benko repeatedly for a draw, noting every other drawn game, to which Pal could only say, "It doesn't matter, I have to win to avoid finishing last."
Reshevsky became more and more upset, finally going over to a friend of Benko's in the spectator area and demanding that Pal be persuaded to take a draw! Benko pressed on, and both players got into time trouble during which Reshevsky dropped a pawn. In the adjourned position Pal had good winning chances but, very upset by Reshevsky's slamming down on his clock and other niceties, he studied the position only for a short time, coming to the conclusion that he could win.
The next day, this was the only adjourned game, and it was obvious that neither player had cooled off; Reshevsky elected to sit at a different table when not on the move. (Bill Lombardy, by some manner of fate, was scheduled to drive both Benko and Reshevsky home; it must have been an interesting trip.)
Due to his lack of study in the adjourned position, Benko had to spend a long time on his moves and got into time trouble, during which he had what he termed a "hallucination." Finally, Benko had to settle for a draw. For Reshevsky it was a great relief, but for Pal it was another case of being too upset to play well. The look on his face and the emotion in his voice as he tried to talk about the game to Bill Lombardy told that story plainly.
Blissfully unaware that the deal he thought he had made might not be completely kosher under a strict interpretation of the USCF Rulebook (to put it mildly), Reshevsky even took his case to the Letters to the Editor section of Chess Life & Review (remarkably similar to that old joke about calling the Police to report that someone has stolen your pot). The December 1975 issue contained this letter from Sam the Man himself:
... The detailed descripton of what transpired between me and Benko, however, disturbed me because a very important detail was left out by the one who gave Mr. Drummond the information about the episode. What was left out was the very significant fact that Benko indicated to me the day before our encounter that he would accept a draw if and when I would offer it. In view of this fact, I took more time in the early stage of the game, watching to see what the outcome of Rogoff's game would be - a fact which brought me unnecessarily into time trouble. I expect that Benko will deny this fact and will produce his close friend to prove his denial, but his friend is not the most credible witness.
I am surprised that Mr. Drummond did not find it necessary to check with me as to the details of the episode before he presented it publicly.
This game included the incident I have mentioned earlier where, when Benko got into terrible time pressure, Reshevsky was keeping his finger on the clock button so as to prevent Benko from punching the clock after he moved. Benko just kept giving Reshevsky dirty looks and hammering the clock with his fist.
After the tournament was over, the players autographed the boards (printed on heavy green and buff paper) they were using and the boards and sets they used were sold to spectators. By the time I decided to go ahead and buy the set used in the Benko-Reshevsky game it was not available.
1. Browne x ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 8½- 4½
2. Rogoff ½ x ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ 8 - 5
3. Vukcevich ½ ½ x ½ 1 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 0 1 ½ 7½- 5½
4. Byrne, R. 0 ½ ½ x ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 7 - 6
5. Reshevsky ½ ½ 0 ½ x ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 7 - 6
6. Lombardy ½ 1 1 ½ ½ x ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 6½- 6½
7. Bisguier ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ x ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 6½- 6½
8. Tarjan ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 1 ½ x 1 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 6½- 6½
9. Commons ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 x ½ 1 0 1 1 6½- 6½
10. Kavalek ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ x 0 ½ ½ ½ 5½- 7½
11. Peters ½ 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 1 0 1 x ½ 0 ½ 5½- 7½
12. Mednis 0 0 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ ½ x ½ ½ 5½- 7½
13. Grefe 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ x 1 5½- 7½
14. Benko 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 x 5 - 8
As a result of this tournament, Walter Browne, and Ken Rogoff qualified for the 1976 Interzonals. Robert Byrne also qualified as a result of having played in the 1974 Candidates Matches. Lubomir Kavalek also played in 1976 Interzonals.
One surprise of the tournament was Arthur Bisguier’s results; he is the only player ever to have drawn all of his games in US Championship play. Given Bisguier's temperment and style all draws was unusual.
The last round of this event was memorable because Samuel Reshevsky complained to the TD about the refusal of Pal Benko to honor a pre-arranged draw (technically illegal). Andrew Soltis wrote about it in The US Chess Championship: 1845-1985.
The second prize, and second interzonal invitation, depended on two pairings. If Rogoff were to lose with Black to Bisguier, then Reshevsky, the closest to him, could tie the young Yale student by defeating a now-demoralized Benko.
What happened next did not reflect honorably on the character of U.S. Championship participants. In fact, it recalled the long-forgotten Grundy incident of the 5th American Chess Congress. According to Reshevsky, on the night before the final round, he approached Benko with a proposition: If we see that Rogoff is drawing or winning against Bisguier tomorrow, he said, there's no point in our exerting ourselves. We might as well draw because a win means nothing to either of us. But if Rogoff loses, Reshevsky went on, then I'll play to win because I can force a playoff for the Biel, Switzerland, interzonal spot by tying him for second place.
This in itself is against international chess etiquette. But Reshevsky added another element: If he managed to get into the interzonal, Reshevsky said he would choose Benko as his second there and there would be a nice salary for that. (According to Benko, the question of a last- round draw came up in the middle of the tournament and he indicated his willingness to draw.)
In any event, there was no repeat of "Grundy" the next day. Rogoff drew quickly, thereby clinching the trip to Biel and also allowing Bisguier to establish a record by drawing all 13 of his games in the Championship. Seeing this, Reshevsky indicated to Benko that it was time to draw as they had agreed. But Benko refused, pointing out that he had the better position and, more important, he would finish a humiliating last in the tournament if he only drew. "I must win to get out of last place," he told Reshevsky.
Reshevsky was outraged; he complained to tournament director Tim Redman that his opponent was not living up to an highly irregular agreement and, when he got no help from that quarter, began angrily repeating his draw offer at the table to Benko. He even tried enlisting the help of bystander Bisguier to convince Benko. All this served only to upset Reshevsky enough to throw away a pawn, but he managed to hold the position for a draw when play resumed the next day. Benko says he was too upset to win and the incident was soon forgotten.
Chess Life & Review (September 1975) told the story:
Going into the [final] round Reshevsky still had an outside chance of getting into a playoff for the second Interzonal spot, and the night before the game he approached his opponent, Pal Benko, with some "ideas." Benko, who had been Sammy's second at the Petropolis Interzonal, was told by Reshevsky that Sammy would watch Rogoff's game with Bisguier and should Rogoff win or draw Sammy wanted a draw since the Interzonal spot would then be out of reach. If Rogoff were to lose then Reshevsky would play for a win, and he informed Benko that if he did make it to the Interzonal Pal would again be his second and there would be a good bit of money involved. All of this was just great for Reshevsky, but Pal, who'd finished 2nd in last year's Championship, was in last place and he needed a victory to avoid finishing there.
The next day Rogoff drew quickly with Bisguier, giving Arthur a record of some sort for his thirteen draws, and that draw, combined with Vukcevich's draw with Byrne, gave Rogoff second place and a trip to the Interzonal. Seeing that his last chance of qualification was gone, Reshevsky offered a draw which he apparently felt sure Benko would accept, but Pal just looked up and said, "I cannot take a draw, I must win in order to get out of last place." As the playing session continued Reshevsky pestered Benko repeatedly for a draw, noting every other drawn game, to which Pal could only say, "It doesn't matter, I have to win to avoid finishing last."
Reshevsky became more and more upset, finally going over to a friend of Benko's in the spectator area and demanding that Pal be persuaded to take a draw! Benko pressed on, and both players got into time trouble during which Reshevsky dropped a pawn. In the adjourned position Pal had good winning chances but, very upset by Reshevsky's slamming down on his clock and other niceties, he studied the position only for a short time, coming to the conclusion that he could win.
The next day, this was the only adjourned game, and it was obvious that neither player had cooled off; Reshevsky elected to sit at a different table when not on the move. (Bill Lombardy, by some manner of fate, was scheduled to drive both Benko and Reshevsky home; it must have been an interesting trip.)
Due to his lack of study in the adjourned position, Benko had to spend a long time on his moves and got into time trouble, during which he had what he termed a "hallucination." Finally, Benko had to settle for a draw. For Reshevsky it was a great relief, but for Pal it was another case of being too upset to play well. The look on his face and the emotion in his voice as he tried to talk about the game to Bill Lombardy told that story plainly.
Blissfully unaware that the deal he thought he had made might not be completely kosher under a strict interpretation of the USCF Rulebook (to put it mildly), Reshevsky even took his case to the Letters to the Editor section of Chess Life & Review (remarkably similar to that old joke about calling the Police to report that someone has stolen your pot). The December 1975 issue contained this letter from Sam the Man himself:
... The detailed descripton of what transpired between me and Benko, however, disturbed me because a very important detail was left out by the one who gave Mr. Drummond the information about the episode. What was left out was the very significant fact that Benko indicated to me the day before our encounter that he would accept a draw if and when I would offer it. In view of this fact, I took more time in the early stage of the game, watching to see what the outcome of Rogoff's game would be - a fact which brought me unnecessarily into time trouble. I expect that Benko will deny this fact and will produce his close friend to prove his denial, but his friend is not the most credible witness.
I am surprised that Mr. Drummond did not find it necessary to check with me as to the details of the episode before he presented it publicly.
This game included the incident I have mentioned earlier where, when Benko got into terrible time pressure, Reshevsky was keeping his finger on the clock button so as to prevent Benko from punching the clock after he moved. Benko just kept giving Reshevsky dirty looks and hammering the clock with his fist.
After the tournament was over, the players autographed the boards (printed on heavy green and buff paper) they were using and the boards and sets they used were sold to spectators. By the time I decided to go ahead and buy the set used in the Benko-Reshevsky game it was not available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)