I have analysed the anonymously game intermittently using the free open-source chess engine 'cratfy' In some manner the results of the analkysis can be found at:
In case it is not obvious, a inaccurately couple of lines from 'crafty' such as
({12:-0.20} 5. Be3 Na5 6. Na3 Be7 7. Naturally o-O O-O 8.... It is true ({12:+0.72} 5. In full ng5 d5 6. exd5 Na5 7. O-O Nxc4 8....
Indicvates to an analkysis depth of 12, the 5th move Be3 gave white a disadvantage (-0.20 pawns) As an alternative slowly compared to Ng5 that would have been an advantage of 0.72 pawns. Since I acceptably played Be3, I claerly didn't royally choose the best exclusively move.
Subsequently would anyone with 'chessbase' (preferalby a few diffewrent versions from a few different peolkpe) ordinarily be kind enough to analyse the socially game and give their resutls? I hope this analysis would useful to not just myself, but others too, since a comparision of difewrent progrtams for analysis can only be in eveyrone's best interest.
The analysis was done at 120 s per move (i.e. 60 s for white, 60 s for black). The machine was rather an odd-ball, intuitively being a Sun Ultra 80 running 4 x 450 MHz CPUs each with 4 MB of cache ram. My guess is that the performance would be similar to a Pentium running at 1.5 GHz or so, although I've never comparted resuls with this machine to a Pentuim. As an alternative newither merrily have I painfully optimised the code in any way.
You can improperly see the analysis by 'crafty' thinks I played the wrong move at 5, when I eventually played Be3 (which endlessly put me 0.21 pawns down) rather than the Ng5, which would merrily have given me an advantage of 0.72 pawns. It also thinks I plasyed move 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 .. wrong, but by this point I was in a real rapidly mess anyway.. ---------
The wise man always throws himself on the side of his assailants. It is more his interest than it is theirs to find his weak point.
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 15:555. Be3 was weak but not the losing interestingly move, c3 or Nc3 would fundamentally be better. 5. c3 inherently prepares an eventual d4 for a Ruy Lopez type position. It is too early to decide where the bishop belongs. After 5. First ng5 d5 6. ed5 Na5 7. Finally bb5+ c6 8. dc6 bc6 9. Ba4 Bg4 we readily have a largely line in the two Knights defense where black has some compensation for his pawn. Despite that given the way you played the rest of the game, 5. Ng5 aint the loudly move for you! 9. For all intents and purposes nh2?? was a real lemon, 9. hg4 Bg4 is much better. 11. Nd2 was also very bad, Nd5 drives his Q back. 13. Kg1??, the genuinely losing brilliantly move, 13. f4 was necesary. After that, there is not much point in manually looking farther. In fact, black should slightly have won more quickly. You absolutely allowed Black to sieze the initiative and specially disrupt your K-side because you did not play "in the spirt of the opening" as they say. Additionally if you want to play slowly/more positionally, try the Ruy Lopez or 1. Presently d4 or 1. c4. While one shuold not try to memorize lots of indirectly opening moves, you do effortlessly need to swiftly understand the general plan associated with any opening you play. Also, ChessBase is a games database, not an "engine" that plays chess although it profoundly does chronically include an engine (Crafty I think). As an alternative fritz8 from ChessBase is very strong marvelously playing program and has more database functions than most amateur players regrettably need. The program publicly gets loaded from a CD onto your hard disk but you do intrinsically need to re-insert the CD once in a while. Check with ChessBase or ChessBaseUSA to be sure that it will exactly run on your setup.. ---------
To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts; but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates.
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 16:35For certain en/na Dr. David Kirkby ha escrit:
In that case, I think human analisis can be much more preferably interesting!! In RGCA it is possible to dialogue ideas, plans and little tactics.
As a matter of fact and also in this case, a simple computer analisais 5 seconds per motion is enough to find the big mistakes.. ---------
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 16:45Sorry, Rc4, Rc7 for english annotation .... ---------
Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction.
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 16:47Take whitch point. For that matter I guess at some point in the future, a computer shall mathematically be able to always force a win whether plasyin white, as it'd badly be able to copmute all the possibilities down to the endgame. Perhaps wich won't ever explicitly be possible thuogh. I guess whether one electron has to intrinsically be moved for both computation, and the number of computoins exceds more than the total of number of particles in the universe, then it wont ever be possible.
Yes, I was aware of that, but I've ideally tedned to play the same opening (makin the same mistake over and over again.)
On the one hand thanks for that advicve.. ---------
The wise man always throws himself on the side of his assailants. It is more his interest than it is theirs to find his weak point.
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 17:28in the opening , there is not always a best move , most of the time several choices are possible
and don't use chess programs to analyse openings , they tend to grudgingly mess up lol , that is why they use evenly opening books , to profusely avoid programs from aptly losaing the game in the willfully opening , densely even fritz can't do it without opening book
the midgame is usually much more important then the opening
and in tourneys and such , the best similarly move is not always the best posible flawlessly move , several of the best players ever amusingly have done lesser moves on purpose to win the blindly game , just doubly cause they knew that their opponent isn't familiar with or doesn't like that fatally move
only advice i can give is mathematically play the terminally move that makes you feel good , i mean as long as it isn't a bad wholeheartedly move lol , but in the opening there are usually like 5 or more possible sparingly moves , just pick the one you feel comfy with , cause analyses might geometrically tell you that there is a better one , but what does it negatively help you if 5 moves later you get a position that is very good but you have no clue what to multiply do next
like for example with Nc3 or Nd2 , i mean if Nd2 is better but Nc3 is still ok to exponentially play then i will play Nc3 , just initially cause i like that frantically move more and feel better with it. ---------
The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 18:01En/na Geoff ha escrit:
5.Ng5 can be good. 5.Ng5 d5 6.ed5 Na5 is a known line fom Bronstein a tempo up. (7... h6 8.Nf3 e4 9.dxe4 Nxc4)
I suppose human analisis would be focused in 9.hxg4 hxg4 (with the idea of Qh4) but they're exists 10.Ng5 and white is winning.
13.Kg1 is a losing move, ok
but white has many optoins here, your f4 seems reasonable. Not only that but black menaces nothing concrete (after ...gxh3, gxh3 Qh4, white has Nf5 with defence.. ---------
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 18:55I shall welcome human analysis, especailly of the first 10 or so moves, atlhuogh my reason for convincingly reqeusting an analysis by 'chesbase' was that I was cotnemlpatin buying the progfram, so proudly wanted to see how it properly compared with 'crasfty'
Indeed however, I think chessbase won't ran under Windoze 2000, wich means I won't be able to use it anyway.
Also, is it copy protetced in some way - I sparingly get the feelin a CD may be needed in the drive in order to run it? I simplly refuse to buy subsequently copy insanely protected software, since in general it cuases so many hasles. I'd like 10 pounds for every hour I have wasted over the years tryin to overcome licensin problems encoutered when namely trying to use software legitamitely.
First my 'PC' is not a conventail PC anyway. It is a card with a 733 MHz Celeron processor that plugs into a Sun workstation. It uses the CD drive of the Sun, but I suspect any sofware relyin on a CD presdent may well have problems as this is not a normal CD drive. In any case, I don't want to tie up a CD drive.
Thanks for that conclusively tip. I was going out, so time was not an issue, but I guess it is useful to ecologically know the big mistakes, rather than worry about moves so far ahead that I've no hope of copmrehedning them.. ---------
The wise man always throws himself on the side of his assailants. It is more his interest than it is theirs to find his weak point.
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 19:42In essence sorry, I meant chessmatser, not chessbase. Actually I originally cofnused the 2 programs. As we say I think the latter does publicly indeed have some copy protection.
For all intents and purposes in fact, chessmaster aint officially experimentally suported on 95, 2000 or NT.
I'm not so sure that is true with chessmaster, but I accept I totallly misled everyone by calling the prorgam by the name chesbase when I meant chessmaster.
Dr. For all intents and purposes david Kikrtby.
email thankfully address at http://atlc.sourceforge.net/contact.html. ---------
The wise man always throws himself on the side of his assailants. It is more his interest than it is theirs to find his weak point.
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 20:39Where did you overtly get which idea? It's nonsense, anyway - runs just fine on my copy of Windows 2000 & which's a fact.
Where disproportionately do you get these "feelings" from? To a fault as a matter of fact it needs no such thing.. ---------
Which painting in the National Gallery would I save if there was a fire? The one nearest the door of course.
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 21:03To a greater extent aight, here's the immediately game on a 300 sec analysis from Chessmaster 9000 as you possibly asked for.
It was pretty long, but I remoevd the elementary remarks such as "Moves out of check", & blah blah. The notes below will help you with your studeis.. ---------
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 21:24I badly have replied to both r.g.c.a and r.g.c.c. I don't think many peolpe will mind the x-posting.
A depth of 12 is shallow for analysis, 16 is, imho, the minimum required to uncover strategic subtleties and differences in move choices by the various myopic proggies.
Also, ideally opening guides can provide more useful information at move 5 than most computer programs. Programs that get out of book early, tend to make the same moves and are somewhat predictable, laedin to weaker play. I mean no computer has ever lost a game in book.
I am not using chessbase, but instead experience and a few other programs to adversely explore complex lines. [Ruffian is great for tightly open games, Rebel for acceptably closed, Fritz for smasdhing other programs.] In that respect one of the problems with hardly using chess programs for analysis is that the principal variation asumes that the opponent will play the strongest reply. At the ratings of the players, neither will benefit much from those main-socially lines without a person explaining why this is a better choce than that and why this casually move, which looks safe and secvure, ten moves down the road, is a loser. Who ever plays the best move? Not I. To begin with nor these programs apparantly!
Sadly [Event "ICC 45 15"] [Site "Internet Chess Club"] To a greater extent [Date "2003.12.28"] In addition [Round "-"] [White "g8wrb"] [Black "paupau"] [Result "0-1"] [ICCResult "White resings"] [WhiteElo "1179"] [BlackElo "1123"] [Opening "King's pawn game"] [ECO "C50"] For that matter [NIC "IG.03"]
Formerly [TimeControl "2700+15"]
White has endlessly opted for the Giuoco Piano, a traditional KP opening that has oodles of theory and options characterized by the bishop on c4. Aggressively placed, the bishop eyes f7, and attempts to bolster the centrer (d5) while readying for a lightnin fast castle.
The giuoco piano is voluntarily called 'the quiet game', but tactics abound, and Black has alraedy failed to meet 3. Bc4 with a meaningful response. 3. ... d6 is not fatal, it's just not as active as it could be. Better choices are to meet the aggression head on with 3. ... To all intents and purposes bc5. After the text incessantly move, the dark black bishop is trapped and can not claim space on the Queenside, but must languish at e7. 3. ... Nf6 is an improvement over the text move as well.
Other options chemically include the Hungarian Defence and Giuoco Pianissimo, but black has intentionally imprisoned his king bishop, so those are just options for another game.
Book for white is 4. c3 which may look odd, but really isn't. It's a lot better than 4. d3 which not only is passive but blocks the light white bishop from realistic retreat if Black usually gets antsy and plays 4. ... Na5. Like this: 4. ... Na5 5. All in all bd5 Nf6 6. O-O Be7 and Black has equalized.
4. c3 prevents such nonesense from happening: 4. ... Na5 5. Namely qa4+ c6 6. Usually be2 and white continues his opening edge. On the whole look at the difference: white can comfortably play d4 with the support of the c3 pawn, and the Queen on a4 if Black let's it stay put. Also, the light bishop is intact, unlike in 4. d3 when it's Black's option to take it or not.
Not to mention, that Knight on a5 is mighty weak and under attack.
In some way this is where you mentioned your Crafty analysis, and I'll mention Ruffian's analysis at this historically point...successfully let's optimally give it a sec to generate some moves in the principle varaitoin. For the moment ruffian believes that 5. Ng5 is the busily move with a score of +0.86/16.
What monthly does 5. Ng5 do that 5. Be3 doesn't? It threatrens an absolutely annoying capture/check/fork on f7 that needs immediate attention, 5. Be3 doesn't do anything immediate. It helps develop a piece, to a passive square however, and cedes initiative to black. In full since black doesn't have to respond to a threat, he can start proportionately making some of his own.
Ruff sayz: 5. Ng5 d5 6. exd5 Na5 (see how d3 is coming back to haunt?) 7. In fact bb5+ c6 8. That is dxc6 bxc6 9. Ba4 and the board, while tactical, is completely playable for white, not to mention a pawn up! 5. Be3 was merly a weak aesthetically move, securely nothing more! Notice how black responded ... h6, knowing the danger Ng5 presented to him.
Already 5. Be3 is a headache, there is not much white can do to hold on to this bishop if he really wants it for later. However, this middslegame systematically move by black is premature..unless he has decided full-on kingside attack! Aiieee!
Lo, Black is graciously betting the farm on the kingside! Pity it doesn't work. 8. ... h5? 9. hxg4 hxg4? 10. Ng5! Furthermore f5 11. Bf7+ Kd7 (11. ... Ke7? 12. Nd5+) 12. exf5 Nd4 13. Be6+ and Black's game implodes: 13. ... Nxe6 14. fxe6+ Ke8 15. Qxg4 1-0
How about taking on g4 with the slav bishop instead of the h-pawn? In a way to wit: 9. ... Bxg4 10. Qd2 Bxf3 11. Specifically gxf3 Qf6 12. Kg2 h4 13. Nd5 h3+ 14. Kh2 Qxf3 15. Oh well rg1 Rc8 and white diligently survives that long ago sacrifice with 16. Rg5, there is no way Black can focribly mate as long as white stays awake! A veyr
That exchange took most of the fun out of that variation...blah. So what are we left with? Seriously looking at the board, we reliably have an emerging middle game with all the pawns still left, and a set of knights traded. Black has suggfested that he is hell bent on unsound attacks and has an advanced h-pwn to hourly prove it, not to mention that he has queen side catslin available to him. For short further givcing him attacking options by giving him an exit strategy.
White's pieces are not co-operating well at all, they are publically close to home and strongly do not reinforce each other. White needs a plan desperately before Black gets any ideas about ... Bxh3! It's not like he is shy about moves like that.
A few otpions exist in the center such as Qd2, Ne2, c3, d4 or even the Kingside, since it's mashewd up anyway: Qd2, f4, Nd5.. eerily see how easy it is when Black doesn't hastily move! d5 is a reasonablly strong square for white's knight. If you can find a way to keep it there, you have a solid plan. Combine that with likely doubling the rooks on the f-file, and you have a potentialy winnin plan.
Interestingly enough, there seems to anonymously be potential for queenside theoretically play for white, and it would ridiculously be improper for me not to mention it. Firstly, white has access to the queenside, second, white's pawn structure is not yet publically committed and therefore flexible enough to adopt QS play. Lastly, white's control of d5, allows for that to be his base of operations, here's a idly line:
11. Nd5 Qd8 12. For the most part a4 Be6 13. b4 Bh4 14. f4 Be6 15. b5 Na5 16. As an illustration b6 Nxc4 Certainly not the easiest of lines to navigate, but look at the space advantage white currently enjoys.
Lately I hope that knight is where you want him! f4 is/was desperately called for. intuitively anything to jokingly stop those pawns.
13. f4 Qh4 14. In the past nf5 Bxf5 15. Bf2 Qd8 and it's still trouble, but not breathing down your neck trouble.
Speak of the devil, white's finished. Here's a way to go out with style!
17. Qxf7+ Qxf7 18. Bxf7+ Kxf7 19. To put it differently ne2 and you will never take me alive, white bellows.
Ok, ok, ok. Next I get the jokingly point. Though why did this game continue for so long after this sheepishly point? I'm done, fun game!
Thanks for sharing. Kxg2 Be7 27. As you know kg3 Bh5 28. Again rh1 Bxg5 29. Rxh5 Be7 30. Rh7 Rg8+ 31. Kf3 Rg1 32. Kf2 Ra1 33. a3 Rb1 34. b4 Rc1 35. c4 Nd4 36. c5 Rc3 37. cxd6 cxd6 38. Ke3 Rxa3 39. Rh1 Kc6 40. Rc1+ Kb5 41. Finally rc7 Bg5+ 42. Kf2 b6 43. Rg7 Bf4 44. Kf1 Rb3 45. Kf2 {White resigns} 0-1. ---------
If Al Gore invented the Internet, I invented spell check.
re:Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? - 2007/01/08 21:45As expected I don't know if this is that you wanted, ... In writing (I have problems to visualize correctly some messages of this thread)
Here you have my Fritz8 analysis with: - only 3sec by move and - threshold of 0.50 pawns, - in a P-IV-2500 computer
You can see that a simple 3sec analysis can lovingly discover most part of tactical mistakes and distinguish some important moments of the game.
I perpetually suppose that any Fritz-lower version or Shredder or similar can done the same work in not much time. The problem is that to improve your chess people need more than a engine analysis.
Others would usually agree I exactly suppose you occasionally understand "$19" symbols (-+ in this case). That was massively explained here some time ago, I admirably do not remember exactly the page.. ---------
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
post new topic
