On-line engine blitz tourney August

[Daniel Anulliero]

Wow! I had not realized it was so many already.

Happy birthday HG !

[Guenther]

Wow! I had not realized it was so many already.

First draft of the plain history is available!
I decided to keep it simple and not trying too much 'beautifying' of the tables.
The comments w/o name attached are by yourself, otherwise
a name is added.

The overview does not work yet, it will have linked anchors for each tourney.
Also I guess I will sort all tourney reversed - currently eldest is on top.

Stats etc. come later...

http://rwbc-chess.de/HGM_tourneys.htm

Really a pity that I accidently started this after #100 was already played.

Thanks.

Guenther

Edit:
I forgot to tell that I only once took the freedom to change the table and added a draw for the one game,
which was still running, when round 9 could not be played due to the 'ics bug'.
Before it was counted as 0:0 respectively * for both, which I found unfair to both players.

[zenpawn]

First draft of the plain history is available!

Very interesting. Didn't remember RM had scored 50% in its second tournament, a feat it's yet to repeat.

[Guenther]

First draft of the plain history is available!

Very interesting. Didn't remember RM had scored 50% in its second tournament, a feat it's yet to repeat.

Thanks! It will be ready in a few days, because I am on a little trip tomorrow.

Guenther

[cetormenter]

Wow! I had not realized it was so many already.

First draft of the plain history is available!
I decided to keep it simple and not trying too much 'beautifying' of the tables.
The comments w/o name attached are by yourself, otherwise
a name is added.

The overview does not work yet, it will have linked anchors for each tourney.
Also I guess I will sort all tourney reversed - currently eldest is on top.

Stats etc. come later...

http://rwbc-chess.de/HGM_tourneys.htm

Really a pity that I accidently started this after #100 was already played.

Thanks.

Guenther

Edit:
I forgot to tell that I only once took the freedom to change the table and added a draw for the one game,
which was still running, when round 9 could not be played due to the 'ics bug'.
Before it was counted as 0:0 respectively * for both, which I found unfair to both players.

Very interesting stuff. It is nice to see how the interest and quickly ramped up in the past few months and also how the winner has changed hands over all over the years. It is also neat that Micromax has played in almost all (I didn't check if it is indeed all) of the tournaments and thus it can be used a sort of "standard candle" for engines.

[hgm]

Added a check to king safety and center control. Previously Skipper would have been brutally slaughtered by a vicious king attack. Might also be that KingSlayer chose a non-aggressive opening. For instance for a king attack you need a bishop on b1-h7 diagonal and not on g2. Also Queen-exchange helped.

[pgn]
[Event "ICS rated blitz match"]
[Site "winboard.nl"]
[Date "2017.08.19"]
[Round "-"]
[White "KingSlayer"]
[Black "Skipper"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1457"]
[BlackElo "1076"]
[TimeControl "300+1"]
[Annotator "3. +0.00 1... -0.01"]

1. Nf3 e6 {-0.01/110 5} 2. g3 Bd6 {+0.09/100 5} 3. Nc3 {+0.00/13 5} Nf6
{+0.30/90 5} 4. d4 {+0.00/13 5} O-O {+0.40/100 5} 5. Bg2 {+0.00/12 5} Nc6
{+0.11/100 5} 6. O-O {+0.00/12 4} Be7 {+0.17/100 4} 7. h3 {+0.00/12 4} Rb8
{+0.29/100 4} 8. Kh1 {+0.10/11 4} d6 {+0.33/100 4} 9. Bg5 {+0.05/11 4} Nd5
{+0.27/100 4} 10. Bxe7 {+0.00/11 4} Qxe7 {+0.37/110 4} 11. Ne4 {+0.00/11 4}
f5 {+0.47/100 4} 12. Ned2 {+0.00/12 4} f4 {+0.47/100 4} 13. c4 {+0.00/12 4}
Nb6 {-0.19/100 4} 14. e4 {+0.00/11 4} fxe3 {+1.01/100 4} 15. fxe3
{+0.00/12 4} Qe8 {+1.01/90 4} 16. Ng5 {+0.11/10 4} Rxf1+ {+0.91/100 4} 17.
Bxf1 {+0.14/11 4} Nd8 {+0.81/100 4} 18. Bd3 {+0.33/11 4} h6 {+0.71/100 4}
19. Ngf3 {+0.40/11 4} Qh5 {+0.23/110 3} 20. Nh4 {+0.30/12 3} Qxd1+
{+0.15/120 3} 21. Rxd1 {+0.31/13 3} Na4 {+0.05/110 3} 22. Rb1 {+0.50/12 3}
Nc6 {-0.04/100 3} 23. c5 {+0.50/12 3} dxc5 {+0.06/120 3} 24. Bb5
{+0.83/14 3} cxd4 {+0.16/120 3} 25. Bxa4 {+0.89/14 3} dxe3 {+0.29/110 3}
26. Bxc6 {+0.94/15 3} bxc6 {+0.25/110 3} 27. Nc4 {+0.97/14 3} e2
{+0.52/110 3} 28. Re1 {+0.87/13 3} Ba6 {+0.42/130 3} 29. b3 {+1.00/15 3}
Bxc4 {+0.32/130 3} 30. bxc4 {+1.12/15 2.9} Rb2 {+0.20/120 3} 31. a3
{+1.16/15 2.9} c5 {+0.40/110 2.9} 32. Kg1 {+1.24/14 2.9} Rc2
{+0.31/110 2.9} 33. Kf2 {+1.12/15 2.8} Rxc4 {+0.21/120 2.8} 34. Rxe2
{+1.11/15 2.8} Kf7 {+0.11/120 2.8} 35. Nf3 {+1.21/14 2.7} Rc3
{+0.01/110 2.7} 36. Ne5+ {+1.27/14 2.7} Kg8 {+0.00/120 2.6} 37. Re3
{+1.80/14 2.6} Rc2+ {+0.00/120 2.6} 38. Kf3 {+1.82/15 2.6} Ra2
{+0.00/110 2.6} 39. Nc6 {+2.09/14 2.6} Ra1 {-0.68/100 2.5} 40. Nxa7
{+2.30/13 2.5} c4 {-1.38/90 2.5} 41. Nb5 {+2.58/13 2.5} c6 {-1.48/110 2.4}
42. Nd4 {+2.75/13 2.4} h5 {-1.58/100 2.4} 43. Nxe6 {+3.05/13 2.4} Rb1
{-1.89/110 2.4} 44. Ke4 {+3.41/12 2.3} Rb3 {-1.82/100 2.3} 45. Nc5
{+3.66/14 2.3} Rb2 {-1.92/110 2.3} 46. Kd4 {+3.81/14 2.3} Rh2
{-2.02/110 2.3} 47. h4 {+3.80/13 2.2} Rc2 {-2.12/110 2.2} 48. Rc3
{+4.13/13 2.2} Rxc3 {-2.98/100 2.2} 49. Kxc3 {+9.88/16 2.1} Kf7
{-3.08/110 2.2} 50. a4 {+10.52/16 2.1} Kf8 {-8.09/110 2.1} 51. a5
{+13.43/14 2.0} Ke7 {-8.19/120 2.1} 52. a6 {+13.52/14 2.0} Kd6
{-13.71/110 2.0} 53. Kxc4 {+14.56/14} Ke5 {-13.81/110 2.1} 54. a7
{+15.26/14} Kf5 {-13.91/100 2.0} 55. a8=Q {+15.64/13} Kg4 {-14.01/110 1.9}
56. Qc8+ {+79.91/12} Kxg3 {-14.11/110 1.9} 57. Qf5 {+79.95/17} Kxh4
{-2621.36/110 1.9} 58. Ne4 {+79.97/28} g5 {-2621.38/110 1.8} 59. Qxg5+
{+79.98/28} Kh3 {-2621.40/120 1.9} 60. Qg3#
{Skipper checkmated} 1-0
[/pgn]

Skipper back to 1087. Don't know yet if this an all time low for Skipper.

It seems Skipper does himself in voluntarily, in this game, by trading a Knight for 3 Pawns. That is almost never a good idea. And in this case it totally ruins its Pawn structure as a side effect. It is left with lots of isolated, or even isolated doubled Pawns. Even the advanced passer is a liability rather tha an asset here. You should not award passer bonuses when you are behind in pieces. And even with equal material an advance passer is usually doomed when it is not supported by its own King, as the opponent has an extra attacker on it in the form of his King.

[Henk]

At least I need to add test cases for passed pawn evaluation.

For a stupid developer I still have no proof that counting material only is not the best. I think I create a separate version that counts material only and see if another version can beat it easily.

[hgm]

Well, wrong knowledge is usually much more detrimental than no kowledge at all.

Fairy-Max has nothing but piece values, centralization (a sort of shared PST used by P, N, B and K, with a parabolic potential), 6th and 7th-rank Pawn bonus, a very kludgy Pawn structure (penalty for moving Pawns if there isn't one two squares left or right of it), a Pawn-push bonus that increases with game phase, penalty for moving the King and penalty for moving a Pawn straight in front of a back-rank King (the latter two switched off in the end-game).

That is all, and it doesn't do so bad.

[AlvaroBegue]

Well, wrong knowledge is usually much more detrimental than no kowledge at all.

Fairy-Max has nothing but piece values, centralization (a sort of shared PST used by P, N, B and K, with a parabolic potential), 6th and 7th-rank Pawn bonus, a very kludgy Pawn structure (penalty for moving Pawns if there isn't one two squares left or right of it), a Pawn-push bonus that increases with game phase, penalty for moving the King and penalty for moving a Pawn straight in front of a back-rank King (the latter two switched off in the end-game).

That is all, and it doesn't do so bad.

My first version of RuyDos was comparable with Fairy-Max in strength, and it even had a similar style. Its evaluation was just material plus some penalty for isolated pawns. The moment that I added piece-square tables (copied from my previous program Ruy-López) it started to beat Fairy-Max pretty consistently, through better center control and better development in the opening.

[Henk]

I think King safety of Fairy-Max is a weak point when castling long. Saw many games in the past when Skipper won because of Fairy-Max castling long and having or getting a bad pawn shield.

So maybe you should make an exception when king is on c1 instead of b1. Or pawn shield in general is a problem. I don't know. Might be even that castling long for Fairy-max is always bad.