Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

Discussion of computer chess matches and engine tournaments.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
zullil
Posts: 5723
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:31 pm
Location: PA USA
Full name: Louis Zulli

Re: Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

Post by zullil » Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:56 pm

Ras wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:53 pm
First, thanks for the game, it's really exciting. And double thanks for making it open again.

Can the "but but but my Stockfish says bla bla bla" fraction please shut up lest the players decide to continue the game via PM again?
Bye.

User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

Post by Ovyron » Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:33 pm

Thanks Ras :) - and thanks to other members of the audience that have made this game memorable.

This game has never been about the game result, I've spent more than 200 hours analyzing interactively, the enjoyment comes from that and of course it happens regardless of what the outcome of the game is.

To put things into perspective, here's me talking back in 2014:
Okay, I have an announcement to make:

I have solved this position to a draw.

White claims a tie.

And, since you made a ridiculous claim I will make one that also sounds ridiculous:

God could not beat me from this position.
And then I went on to lose that game :mrgreen:

So I don't make such claims anymore, but at least, if I do end drawing I think it'd mean something!

User avatar
Guenther
Posts: 3219
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:33 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Full name: Guenther Simon
Contact:

Re: Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

Post by Guenther » Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:57 pm

Ras wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:53 pm
First, thanks for the game, it's really exciting. And double thanks for making it open again.

Can the "but but but my Stockfish says bla bla bla" fraction please shut up lest the players decide to continue the game via PM again?
You have no clue, who is the troll here? A pity... I would take 1 Louis Zulli for 100.000 'ovyrons'.
Counting him to a kind of 'SF blabla fraction' is a shame.
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Louis_Zulli

After nearly 600 useless ovyron posts in the last 3 months it seems the forum is poisoned by vanity and empty babbling.
May be I should say bye as well? - the forum is worthless meanwhile anyway - most interesting posters are gone due to the endless
and useless babbling posts. No 'foe' button can cure the stupidity rising all over here.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

And no, the game is by no means exciting and never was, at least for chess players of a certain strength...
You must have a blind spot somewhere. A cure would be to be punished to be forced to read all his 10.000s posts
at talkchess and the rybka forum and elsewhere.


Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?
Post by Ovyron » Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:38 pm
I'm willing to defend 1.g4 against anybody that seriously think it is losing, and I guarantee that I can draw them. The main reason it's ? is because you give any chances of winning whatsoever, so it's only black that can win if you're not careful.

And I'm not saying something like "1.g4 is a draw with perfect play", even at some imperfect playing level it's a draw.
[/code]
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=72084#p815558

User avatar
Harvey Williamson
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Media City, UK
Contact:

Re: Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

Post by Harvey Williamson » Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:57 pm


User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

Post by Ovyron » Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:10 pm

Guenther wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:57 pm
And no, the game is by no means exciting and never was, at least for chess players of a certain strength...
I don't know Guenther, you do sound very excited to me, very agitated, even :)

1. g4 d5 2. g5 e5 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg2 Ne7 6. c3 dxc3 7. Nxc3 Nbc6 8. O-O d4 9. Ne4 Ng6 10. a3 Bg4 11. Bd2 Bd6 12. Rc1 O-O 13. Nxc5 Bxc5 14. Rxc5 Qd7 15. Qb3 Rad8 16. Re1 Be6 17. Qd3 Rfe8 18. e4 b6 19. Rcc1 Bg4 20. Rxc6 Qxc6 21. Nxd4 Qc5 22. Be3 Ne5 23. Qc3 Qxc3 24. bxc3 Rc8 25. f3 Be6 26. Nb5 Red8 27. Bd4 Nc6 28. Be3 a6 29. Nd4 Ne5 30. Rc1 Nc4 31. Bf4 Nxa3 32. Bf1 a5 33. Ba6 Rc5 34. Be3 Bc4 35. Bb7 Rc7 36. Ra1 Rxd4 37. Bxd4


Ras
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

Post by Ras » Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:18 pm

Guenther wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:57 pm
You have no clue, who is the troll here?
A game is a game, and I want to see it going. Also, it's bad chess etiquette to constantly chime in like that. If White loses, the time for "told you so" will be after the game.
Rasmus Althoff
https://www.ct800.net

User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

Post by Ovyron » Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:49 pm

Yes, and if I lose I'd be very interested in what critics have to say. I had expected Zullil to come back like that and do what he did, except I was expecting that he'd do it at a point where I deviated from Stockfish, and he'd point out what was my losing mistake, and I'd have learned a lot about it.

Instead, there's no white blunder to be found :shock: , he said I kept playing the best moves, yet the best moves lost me 3.00 on evaluation on an evaluation that was already that bad. Every time I had moved I made sure that the alternative moves lost faster, so it'd have been very interesting to see at what point a white deviation would have saved the game.

But if I lose now it seems as if the losing move was 2.g5?? or that 1.g4?? is indeed losing by force and everyone saying that was right, which I'd find extremely shocking!

User avatar
Harvey Williamson
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Media City, UK
Contact:

Re: Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

Post by Harvey Williamson » Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:19 am


Uri Blass
Posts: 8652
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

Post by Uri Blass » Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:20 am

Note that for me more interesting then centipawn is analysis like
white depth 20 lose against black depth 10
white depth 21 draw against black depth 10
white depth 21 lose against black depth 11
...

The idea is that if white want a draw simply play comp-comp game at small depth to see if white can draw.
If white can draw or win then increase black's depth by 1 in the next game
If white lose then increase white's depth by 1 in the next game.

Unfortunately I know about no tool that can do it automatically for engines and testing it by hand is too much work.

The reason is that I consider centi-pawn as misleading in practical analysis because I prefer to win a queen that is easy win and not to get faster mate that it is impossible to find at small depth so I consider a move for black that win with depth 8 for black against depth 50 as a better practical move for humans than a move for black that mate faster but you need depth 20 to beat depth 50.

zullil
Posts: 5723
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:31 pm
Location: PA USA
Full name: Louis Zulli

Re: Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

Post by zullil » Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:15 am

Ovyron wrote:
Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:49 pm
Yes, and if I lose I'd be very interested in what critics have to say. I had expected Zullil to come back like that and do what he did, except I was expecting that he'd do it at a point where I deviated from Stockfish, and he'd point out what was my losing mistake, and I'd have learned a lot about it.

Instead, there's no white blunder to be found :shock: , he said I kept playing the best moves, yet the best moves lost me 3.00 on evaluation on an evaluation that was already that bad. Every time I had moved I made sure that the alternative moves lost faster, so it'd have been very interesting to see at what point a white deviation would have saved the game.

But if I lose now it seems as if the losing move was 2.g5?? or that 1.g4?? is indeed losing by force and everyone saying that was right, which I'd find extremely shocking!
Just to clarify: I did not intend to suggest that "there's no white blunder to be found." I returned to this game just recently, and made no attempt to analyze the moves made while I was away.

Post Reply