Testing Selective Search - Computer Chess Fun Olympiad 2010

[Spacious_Mind]

Because both Rybkas are already very selective. However, Fruit 1.0 did not use LMR but Fruit 2.2 did. If you play engine A + Null move versus engine A - Null move at fixed ply, the engine without null move will win.
Null move and LMR make the search full of holes, but the compensation is to search deeper. If you do not allow them to search deeper (fixed depth), you are stuck with only the holes.

Miguel

Hi Miguel,

Thanks for the clarification. So let's see what comes out of this. It sounds from what you are are saying some engines will be better at this and some less good. The results in the end should confirm your knowledge in this.

For me the tournament continues to remain interesting, because as stated I am comparing against 1 MHz with everything, not just engines.

As I mentioned before if it were possible to play engines at 0.01 seconds per move or 40 moves in 0.40 seconds then I would have done that but it currently is not possible.

Once I am through with the games, I have some data from over 1000 games, I can always play further tests between the faster machines.. ie a Mephisto Atlanta (20 MHz) at 90 seconds per move and engine at 1 second per move or 180 seconds per move and engine at 2 seconds per move. Because with my 1.79 GHz laptop that is about exactly the time difference between the the two players. Here perhaps at that point your Fruit with null move will show what it can do.

Colossus 4 for example is approx 1800+ ELO at its settings therefore if Fruit ends up being 1600 or 2000 playing 5 play and Rybka ends up being 2000 or 200 what difference does it make. It is what it is.

Later tournaments at 1 seconds or 2 seconds will also be what they are...

Regards

Nick

[Lars Sandin]

Hi Nick,

Impressive tournamament! Will follow your gigantic tournament with great interest. Keep up the good work and enjoy the games! I believe you will most certainly see a couple of gems along the way. Please post some of them if you have the time.

Best regards

[Spacious_Mind]

Hi Nick,

Impressive tournamament! Will follow your gigantic tournament with great interest. Keep up the good work and enjoy the games! I believe you will most certainly see a couple of gems along the way. Please post some of them if you have the time.

Best regards

Hi Lars,

Thanks! This means a lot coming from a renowned Tester such as yourself!

I will certainly try to post some interesting gems, as I come across them

All the best,

Nick

[Lars Sandin]

I will certainly try to post some interesting gems, as I come across them

All the best,

Nick

Thanks! Will be interesting to follow your exciting tournament-thread! Watched your Rybka-Colossus game and it was a nice and interesting game! A pity that the old faithful wasn't able to find the winning line. But that's the charm when playing with the old ones. You never know what will happen, even though the game seem lop-sided at any given time.

I remembered the old Colossus since I bought it for my MSX SVI-728 computer back in the beginning of the ´90:s. We never tested it for the official SSDF-list, but I played a couple of games (with faster levels and various handicap-matches) vs some of my other computers back then. Searched my old stash of written protocols from that time and found this nice gem where Colossus managed to win even though it wasn't the fastest route to the goal to say the least.

[Event "Blitz game"]
[Site "Sundsvall"]
[Date "1992.05.08"]
[White "Saitek Corona C 6502 5 MHz"]
[Black "Colossus 4.0 MSX Z80 3,6 MHz"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C79"]
[Annotator "Sandin,Lars"]
[PlyCount "120"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O {*} d6 {*} 6. d4 Nxe4 7. Qd3
Bf5 8. g4 Bg6 9. Be3 Be7 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. Qc4 Qd7 12. h3 d5 13. Qb3 exd4 14.
Bxd4 O-O 15. Qa4 Qe6 16. Re1 f5 17. Ne5 fxg4 18. Qxc6 Qxc6 19. Nxc6 Bh4 20.
hxg4 Nxf2 21. Ne7+ Bxe7 22. Rxe7 Rf4 23. Bxf2 Bxc2 24. g5 Rc8 25. Nc3 Rg4+ 26.
Kh2 Rxg5 27. Rae1 c5 28. Rd7 d4 29. Nd5 Rf8 30. Re2 Ba4 31. Rd6 Bb5 32. Rc2
Rh5+ 33. Kg2 Rg5+ 34. Kh3 Bf1+ 35. Kh2 Rg2+ 36. Kh3 Rgxf2+ 37. Kh4 Rxc2 38. Rb6
Kf7 39. Rb7+ Kg6 40. Rb6+ Kf5 41. Kg3 g5 42. Ne7+ Ke4 43. Kg4 Rg2+ 44. Kh5 Be2+
45. Kh6 Rf7 46. Re6+ Kd3 47. Nf5 Rxf5 48. Kxh7 Kd2 49. Kg6 Rd5 50. Re7 g4 51.
Kf6 d3 52. Ra7 Rf2+ 53. Ke6 Bf3 54. Rxa6 Kc2 55. b3 g3 56. Ra7 g2 57. Rg7 d2
58. Rxg2 Bxg2 59. Ke7 d1=Q 60. Ke6 Qe1# 0-1

Best regards

[Spacious_Mind]

I will certainly try to post some interesting gems, as I come across them

All the best,

Nick

Thanks! Will be interesting to follow your exciting tournament-thread! Watched your Rybka-Colossus game and it was a nice and interesting game! A pity that the old faithful wasn't able to find the winning line. But that's the charm when playing with the old ones. You never know what will happen, even though the game seem lop-sided at any given time.

I remembered the old Colossus since I bought it for my MSX SVI-728 computer back in the beginning of the ´90:s. We never tested it for the official SSDF-list, but I played a couple of games (with faster levels and various handicap-matches) vs some of my other computers back then. Searched my old stash of written protocols from that time and found this nice gem where Colossus managed to win even though it wasn't the fastest route to the goal to say the least.

[Event "Blitz game"]
[Site "Sundsvall"]
[Date "1992.05.08"]
[White "Saitek Corona C 6502 5 MHz"]
[Black "Colossus 4.0 MSX Z80 3,6 MHz"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C79"]
[Annotator "Sandin,Lars"]
[PlyCount "120"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O {*} d6 {*} 6. d4 Nxe4 7. Qd3
Bf5 8. g4 Bg6 9. Be3 Be7 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. Qc4 Qd7 12. h3 d5 13. Qb3 exd4 14.
Bxd4 O-O 15. Qa4 Qe6 16. Re1 f5 17. Ne5 fxg4 18. Qxc6 Qxc6 19. Nxc6 Bh4 20.
hxg4 Nxf2 21. Ne7+ Bxe7 22. Rxe7 Rf4 23. Bxf2 Bxc2 24. g5 Rc8 25. Nc3 Rg4+ 26.
Kh2 Rxg5 27. Rae1 c5 28. Rd7 d4 29. Nd5 Rf8 30. Re2 Ba4 31. Rd6 Bb5 32. Rc2
Rh5+ 33. Kg2 Rg5+ 34. Kh3 Bf1+ 35. Kh2 Rg2+ 36. Kh3 Rgxf2+ 37. Kh4 Rxc2 38. Rb6
Kf7 39. Rb7+ Kg6 40. Rb6+ Kf5 41. Kg3 g5 42. Ne7+ Ke4 43. Kg4 Rg2+ 44. Kh5 Be2+
45. Kh6 Rf7 46. Re6+ Kd3 47. Nf5 Rxf5 48. Kxh7 Kd2 49. Kg6 Rd5 50. Re7 g4 51.
Kf6 d3 52. Ra7 Rf2+ 53. Ke6 Bf3 54. Rxa6 Kc2 55. b3 g3 56. Ra7 g2 57. Rg7 d2
58. Rxg2 Bxg2 59. Ke7 d1=Q 60. Ke6 Qe1# 0-1

Best regards

Hi Lars,

Yes your example is another gem . I just love playing games from weaker machines. I always find there is a lot of humor in how they play in their carefree manner.

The Corona is also one of my favorite wooden boards. A couple of hundred ELO more would have made it a real collectors gem.

Here is a photo of mine:



Best regards

Nick

[Lars Sandin]

Hi Lars,

Yes your example is another gem . I just love playing games from weaker machines. I always find there is a lot of humor in how they play in their carefree manner.

The Corona is also one of my favorite wooden boards. A couple of hundred ELO more would have made it a real collectors gem.

Hi Nick!

Seems your Corona is in good shape! Saitek made some wonderful computers back then and even though I never have owned a Corona myself (the Corona was lended to me from a friend for some games back then); I have always liked its appearance. Magnetic sensors, small footprint and half wooden board/pieces makes it a really nice chess-computer!

Best regards

[Spacious_Mind]

The 2nd Round of Group A is now complete and the results are as follows:



There were lots of close games in the match between Team Atari and Team DOS/Windows. Tied at 5-5 after 5 matches, Mychess II clinched the win for Atari with two nice wins against Gromit 1.2.

Here is a nice little game between Atari Sargon III and Warlord won by Sargon III after outplaying Warlord in the Endgame.

[Event "Chess Computer Olympiad 2010 - Group A"]
[Site "Hoover, Alabama, USA"]
[Date "2009.12.10"]
[Round "2.1"]
[White "Atari 800 - Sargon III, LV 5."]
[Black "Warlord, 5 Ply"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B32"]
[WhiteElo "1800"]
[BlackElo "1800"]
[Annotator "Mind,Spacious"]
[PlyCount "125"]
[EventDate "2009.12.10"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[EventCategory "16"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qa5+ {Atari 800 - Sargon III out of book} 5. Nc3 {Warlord out of book} Nxd4 6. Qxd4 e5 7. Qd5 Bb4 8. Qxa5 Bxa5 9. Bd2 Nf6 10. Bb5 O-O 11. O-O Rd8 12. Rad1 a6 13. Bc4 b5 14. Bd5 Nxd5 15. Nxd5 Bxd2 16. Rxd2 f6 17. c4 bxc4 18. Rc1 Kf7 19. f3 g5 20. Kf2 a5 21. Nb6 Ra7 22. Nxc4 Ke6 23. Rd5 a4 24. Rd6+ Ke7 25. Rdd1 Rb7 26. Ke3 Rb8 27. Nd6 Ba6 28. Nf5+ Ke8 29. Rd2 Kf7 30. Rc7 Ke8 31. Ra7 Rb6 32. Rd6 Rxb2 33. Raxa6 Rxa2 34. Rxf6 Rb8 35. Nd6+ Ke7 36. Nf5+ Ke8 37. Rfb6 Rxb6 38. Rxb6 Rxg2 39. Rh6 a3 40. h4 a2 41. Ra6 gxh4 42. Ra8+ Kf7 43. Nxh4 Rh2 44. Nf5 Rg2 45. Nh6+ Ke7 46. Ng4 h5 47. Nxe5 h4 48. f4 d6 49. Ra7+ Kf6 50. Nc4 d5 51. exd5 Rg3+ 52. Ke4 Rg2 53. Ne5 Re2+ 54. Kd3 Rxe5 55. Ra6+ Kf5 56. fxe5 Kxe5 57. Kc4 h3 58. Rxa2 Kf5 59. Rh2 Kg4 60. d6 Kg3 61. Rd2 h2 62. Rd1 h1=Q 63. Rxh1 1-0



The match between Neo Classic Engines and Modern Engines Am/Pro was also close with many nice games. Prodeo 1.1 had two nice wins against Rybka 1.0 Beta. Here is what I thought was the best game in Round 2 between Zappa 1.1 and Crafty 21.5:

[Event "Chess Computer Olympiad 2010 - Group A"]
[Site "Hoover, Alabama, USA"]
[Date "2009.12.06"]
[Round "2.2"]
[White "Zappa 1.1, 5 Ply"]
[Black "Crafty 21.5, 5 Ply"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A07"]
[WhiteElo "1800"]
[BlackElo "1800"]
[Annotator "Mind,Spacious"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[EventDate "2009.12.06"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[EventCategory "16"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Nc6 {Zappa 1.1 out of book} 3. Nc3 {Crafty 21.5 out of book} d4 4. Ne4 f5 5. Neg5 h6 6. Nh3 g5 7. Nhg1 e5 8. d3 Nf6 9. c3 g4 10. Nh4 dxc3 11. bxc3 Bc5 12. Qa4 Qd6 13. Rb1 Nd5 14. Qc4 Nb6 15. Qb5 a6 16. Qb2 Be6 17. Bg2 O-O-O 18. Bd2 Rh7 19. h3 f4 20. gxf4 exf4 21. hxg4 Ba3 22. Qc2 Bxg4 23. d4 Rf7 24. Ng6 Bf5 25. Bh3 Qxg6 26. Bxf4 h5 27. Nf3 Rg8 28. Ng5 Rf6 29. Qb3 Bxh3 30. Nxh3 Na5 31. Qd1 Nd5 32. Bd2 Qg2 33. Rf1 Qxh3 34. e3 Nc4 35. Qe2 b5 36. Rb3 Rg2 37. e4 Nf4 38. Bxf4 Rxf4 39. Rxa3 Nxa3 40. Kd1 Qxc3 41. d5 Qa1+ 42. Kd2 Qxa2+ 43. Ke1 Qb1+ 44. Kd2 Qc2+ 45. Ke3 Rxe4+ 46. Kf3 Qxe2+ 47. Kxg2 Rg4+ 48. Kh2 Rh4+ 49. Kg3 Qg4# 0-1



In Round 1, I falsely assumed that the DOS programs may have been a lot weaker then the rest of the competition in Group A. But after the good performance against Atari, this result by Team Mephisto does seem to indicate that Mephisto will be the team to beat.

Here are a couple of games from this match:

[Event "Chess Computer Olympiad 2010 - Group A"]
[Site "Hoover, Alabama, USA"]
[Date "2009.11.24"]
[Round "2.2"]
[White "Aristarch 4.50, 5 Ply"]
[Black "Mephisto Dallas 68020, 16s"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B30"]
[WhiteElo "1800"]
[BlackElo "1800"]
[Annotator "Mind,Spacious"]
[PlyCount "122"]
[EventDate "2009.11.24"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[EventCategory "16"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. Nc3 Nd4 5. Ba4 e6 6. e5 Ng8 7. O-O Ne7 8. d3 Nef5 9. Ng5 Be7 10. Qh5 g6 11. Qg4 a6 12. Nh3 b5 13. Qe4 Rb8 14. Bb3 Nxb3 15. cxb3 b4 16. Na4 Bb7 17. Qc4 Rc8 18. f3 d5 19. Qg4 Qc7 20. Re1 Nd4 21. Rb1 O-O 22. Bh6 Rfe8 23. Bg5 a5 24. Bf6 Bxf6 25. exf6 e5 26. Qg5 Qd6 27. Rbc1 Re6 28. Nf2 Ba6 29. Kh1 Bb5 30. Ng4 Bxd3 31. Rxe5 Rxe5 32. Nxe5 Bc2 33. Re1 Re8 34. Re3 Re6 35. Ng4 Qa6 36. Kg1 Qc6 37. Qh6 Nf5 38. Rxe6 Qxe6 39. Qd2 c4 40. g3 cxb3 41. axb3 Bxb3 42. Nc5 Qb6 43. Qf2 Bc4 44. b3 Bb5 45. Kg2 h5 46. Ne5 d4 47. Ne4 Qe6 48. f4 Qxb3 49. Ng5 Bc4 50. Kh3 Ne3 51. Nxc4 Qxc4 52. Kh4 Qc8 53. Ne6 Qxe6 54. Qf3 Qxf6+ 55. Kh3 Qf5+ 56. g4 hxg4+ 57. Kg3 gxf3 58. h3 f2 59. Kxf2 Qxf4+ 60. Ke2 Qf1+ 61. Kd2 Qd1# 0-1

[Event "Chess Computer Olympiad 2010 - Group A"]
[Site "Hoover, Alabama, USA"]
[Date "2009.12.06"]
[Round "2.2"]
[White "Ikarus V0.18, 5 Ply"]
[Black "Mephisto Magellan, 10s"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B89"]
[WhiteElo "1800"]
[BlackElo "1800"]
[Annotator "Mind,Spacious"]
[PlyCount "123"]
[EventDate "2009.12.06"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[EventCategory "16"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Be3 a6 8. Qe2 Qc7 9. Bb3 {Mephisto Magellan out of book} Be7 10. O-O-O Nxd4 {Ikarus V0.18 out of book} 11. Bxd4 e5 12. Be3 O-O 13. f3 Be6 14. Bxe6 fxe6 15. Rhe1 b5 16. Qd3 Qa5 17. Kb1 Rac8 18. Ne2 Rc4 19. Bd2 Qc7 20. Bg5 Rc8 21. Bxf6 gxf6 22. c3 b4 23. cxb4 a5 24. bxa5 Qxa5 25. Rc1 d5 26. Rxc4 Rxc4 27. Rc1 Rxc1+ 28. Nxc1 d4 29. g3 Kf7 30. f4 Bd6 31. fxe5 Bxe5 32. a3 Ke7 33. b4 Qc7 34. Nb3 Qc6 35. Kb2 f5 36. exf5 Qc3+ 37. Qxc3 dxc3+ 38. Kc2 exf5 39. Na5 Ke6 40. Nc6 Bf6 41. a4 Kd5 42. b5 Kc5 43. Kd3 h6 44. Kc2 Bh8 45. Kc1 Bg7 46. Kb1 Bh8 47. Kc2 Bf6 48. Kb3 Kd5 49. a5 f4 50. gxf4 Kc5 51. a6 Kb6 52. a7 Kb7 53. b6 Ka8 54. Ne5 Bd8 55. Nd7 Bxb6 56. Nxb6+ Kxa7 57. f5 c2 58. Kxc2 Kxb6 59. f6 Kb5 60. f7 h5 61. Kd3 h4 62. f8=Q 1-0

The Table after 2 Rounds in Group A looks as follows:



Second place in the Group looks like becoming a real interesting fight.

Group A Round 3 matches are as follows:



Best regards

Nick

[Steve B]

Hi Nick

glad to see the dedicated computers are running away with the tourney
of course they are the only engines i am familiar with in the whole match



interesting that the London 68000 Module will not be making an appearance in the event
of all of the Mephisto modules sets ...the London 68000 and the Lyon and Vancouver 68020(20 Mhz) are the only modules i am missing

Cheer-leading Regards
Steve

[Spacious_Mind]

Hi Nick

glad to see the dedicated computers are running away with the tourney
of course they are the only engines i am familiar with in the whole match



interesting that the London 68000 Module will not be making an appearance in the event
of all of the Mephisto modules sets ...the London 68000 and the Lyon and Vancouver 68020(20 Mhz) are the only modules i am missing

Cheer-leading Regards
Steve

Hi Steve,
I am also missing the London 68000 Module Maybe someday I will get it. I am very fond of the 68000 modules, it would not surprise me if they don't also do very well in their matches.

I forgot about the Roma 68020 until after I started the tournament otherwise I might have tried to include it as well. But, I think the Dallas module is fine too. I could have used Porto and Almeria 68020 as well but I wanted 68000 and 68020 to be two fairly evenly balanced teams.

ps... shhhhhhhh don't tell anyone that the Dallas module has no Ponder switch off But... I think it matters little since the engines make their moves in less than a second. Sofar I have not observed any Ponder moves other than in a check situation therefore I think it matters little because of the speed of moves

What is surprising is that the older modules seem to have more success then a newer module like Magellan sofar. Especially since I always expect Morsch to do well in fast times. But, perhaps that will change as more games are played. MP is doing very well so far with 10s per move.

Best regards

Nick

[Spacious_Mind]

Here are the results of Round 3 in Group A:



There were some really good games in this match. Here is a nice game between Mychess II and King of Kings:

[Event "Chess Computer Olympiad 2010 - Group A"]
[Site "Hoover, Alabama, USA"]
[Date "2009.12.13"]
[Round "3.2"]
[White "Atari 800 - Mychess II, LV 7."]
[Black "King of Kings 2.56, 5 Ply"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A28"]
[WhiteElo "1800"]
[BlackElo "1800"]
[Annotator "Mind,Spacious"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2009.12.13"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[EventCategory "16"]

1. c4 Nc6 {Atari 800 - Mychess II out of book} 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. e3 Bb4 6. Bd2 d5 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Rc1 Bg4 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O Nxc3 11. bxc3 Bc5 12. d4 e4 13. dxc5 exf3 14. Bxf3 Bxf3 15. gxf3 Qg5+ 16. Kh1 Qxc5 17. e4 Rad8 18. Qe2 f5 19. Be3 Qe5 20. Qc4+ Kh8 21. Rb1 Na5 22. Qb5 Qxc3 23. Rfc1 Qa3 24. Rxc7 Qxa2 25. Bxa7 fxe4 26. fxe4 Rc8 27. Rbc1 Rxc7 28. Rxc7 Nc6 29. Be3 Qe6 30. Qd5 Qxd5 31. exd5 Nd8 32. Bb6 Kg8 33. Re7 h5 34. f4 Kh8 35. Kg2 h4 36. Kf3 Kg8 37. Kg4 Nf7 38. Rxb7 Nd6 39. Rd7 Nf5 40. Bf2 Nh6+ 41. Kg5 Rf5+ 42. Kg6 Rf6+
43. Kg5 Rf5+ 44. Kxh4 Rxf4+ 45. Kg3 Rf7 46. Rxf7 Kxf7 47. h4 Ke7 48. Bc5+ Kd7 49. Kf4 Ng8 50. Kf5 Nf6 51. d6 Nh5 52. Ke5 Ng3 53. Bf2 Ne2 54. h5 Nc3 55. Bb6 Ne2 56. Be3 Ng3 57. h6 gxh6 58. Bxh6 Ne4 59. Kxe4 Kxd6 1/2-1/2



The score makes the encounter seem easier than it really was. Most of the games were closely fought, but unfortunately for DOS, the endgames are the major weakness of these programs. But, here is a nice win from Grandmaster Chess nicely outplaying Ktulu 8.

[Event "Chess Computer Olympiad 2010 - Group A"]
[Site "Hoover, Alabama, USA"]
[Date "2009.12.17"]
[Round "3.1"]
[White "Ktulu 8.0, 5 Ply"]
[Black "Grandmaster Chess, 5 Ply"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D41"]
[WhiteElo "1800"]
[BlackElo "1800"]
[Annotator "Mind,Spacious"]
[PlyCount "140"]
[EventDate "2009.12.17"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[EventCategory "16"]

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. d4 e6 6. Bg5 f6 7. Nxd5 fxg5 8. Nc3 g4 9. Ne5 Qxd4 10. Nd3 c4 11. e3 Qb6 12. Qa4+ Qc6 13. Ne5 Qxa4 14. Nxa4 Nd7 15. Nxd7 Bb4+ 16. Nc3 Bxd7 17. Bxc4 Rc8 18. Bd3 Bxc3+ 19. bxc3 Rxc3 20. Kd2 Rc5 21. Rac1 Ra5 22. Rc2 O-O 23. Rf1 Bc6 24. e4 Rd8 25. Ke2 Ra4 26. f3 Rxd3 27. Rxc6 Rxa2+ 28. Kxd3 bxc6 29. fxg4 Rxg2 30. Ra1 Rxg4 31. Rxa7 Rh4 32. Ra2 Kf7 33. Rf2+ Ke7 34. Rb2 Kd6 35. Rb7 g5 36. Rb2 Ke5 37. Re2 h6 38. Ra2 Rxe4 39. Ra5+ Kf4 40. Ra8 Re3+ 41. Kc4 Re2 42. h3 Re3 43. h4 gxh4 44. Rh8 Kg5 45. Rg8+
Kf6 46. Rg2 h3 47. Rd2 Ke5 48. Rf2 h5 49. Rd2 Ke4 50. Rb2 Kf3 51. Rb1 e5 52. Kc5 Rc3+ 53. Kb4 Rc2 54. Re1 e4 55. Kb3 Re2 56. Rf1+ Rf2 57. Ra1 h2 58. Kc4 Kg2 59. Kd4 Re2 60. Ke5 h1=Q 61. Rxh1 Kxh1 62. Kf4 Kg2 63. Ke5 h4 64. Kd6 Rd2+ 65. Kc5 e3 66. Kxc6 h3 67. Kc5 e2 68. Kb5 e1=Q 69. Ka6 Qb1 70. Ka5 Ra2# 0-1



This final match in Round 3 was also a lot closer then the score indicates. Here is an example of one of the many tough games played in this match:

[Event "Chess Computer Olympiad 2010 - Group A"]
[Site "Hoover, Alabama, USA"]
[Date "2009.12.19"]
[Round "3.1"]
[White "Prodeo 1.1, 5 Ply"]
[Black "Mephisto London 68020, 60/19m"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D42"]
[WhiteElo "1800"]
[BlackElo "1800"]
[Annotator "Mind,Spacious"]
[PlyCount "202"]
[EventDate "2009.12.19"]
[EventType "team"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[EventCategory "16"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Bd3 O-O 9. O-O Nc6 10. a3 {Mephisto London 68020 out of book} Re8 {Prodeo 1.1 out of book} 11. Re1 g6 12. Bh6 Bf6 13. Ne4 Bxd4 14. Nxd4 Nxd4 15. Bc4 Nf5 16. Bg5 f6 17. Nxf6+ Nxf6 18. Qxd8 Rxd8 19. Bxf6 Rd6 20. Rad1 Rxd1 21. Rxd1 Kf7 22. Be5 h5 23. h3 a5 24. g4 Ne7 25. gxh5 gxh5 26. Be2 Kg6 27. Bd3+ Kf7 28. Bc4 Nc6 29. Bc3 Ke7 30. Be2 h4 31. Bd2 Kf6 32. Kg2 e5 33. Bc3 Be6 34. Bf3 Rg8+ 35. Kh2 a4 36. Bxc6 bxc6 37. f4 Bd5 38. fxe5+ Ke6 39. Rd2 Rg3 40. Re2 Bf3 41. Rf2 Be4 42. Rf6+ Kd5 43. Rd6+ Kc5 44. Bb4+ Kc4 45. Rd2 c5 46. Bc3 Bf5 47.
Re2 Rxh3+ 48. Kg2 Rg3+ 49. Kh1 Kd3 50. Rd2+ Ke3 51. Kh2 Rf3 52. Rd6 Rh3+ 53. Kg2 Rg3+ 54. Kh1 Kf2 55. Rd2+ Kf3 56. Rd6 Kg4 57. Rd2 h3 58. Re2 Kf3 59. Re1 Be6 60. Rd1 Kg4 61. Rd6 Bf5 62. Rd2 Re3 63. Kh2 Kf3 64. Kg1 Kg3 65. Rf2 Be6 66. Bd2 Re4 67. Bc3 Bb3 68. Rh2 Bd5 69. Rf2 Be6 70. Rc2 Re3 71. Rf2 Bb3 72. Bd2 Re4 73. Ba5 Bd1 74. e6 Bf3 75. Bc7+ Kg4 76. Rc2 Rxe6 77. Rc4+ Re4 78. Rxe4+ Bxe4 79. Be5 Bc6 80. Kf2 c4 81. Ke3 Bb7 82. Bc7 Bd5 83. Kd4 Be6 84. Be5 Kf3 85. Kc5
Kg2 86. Kb5 Bd7+ 87. Kxc4 Be6+ 88. Kd4 h2 89. Bxh2 Kxh2

[d]8/8/4b3/8/p2K4/P7/1P5k/8 w - - 0 90

It is a shame in this position that Prodeo did not have the necessary depth or endgame knowledge to see that 89. ... b4! would have drawn the game.

90. Ke5?? Bb3 91. Kd4 Kg2 92. Ke4 Kf2 93. Kf4 Ke2 94. Ke4 Kd2 95. Kd4 Kc2 96. Kc5 Kxb2 97. Kb4 Ka2 98. Kb5 Kxa3 99. Kc5 Kb2 100. Kb5 a3 101. Kc5 a2 {Prodeo 1.1 resigns} 0-1

Table after 3 rounds is as follows:



Here are the individual performances after 6 games (3 rounds):



Here is the Schedule or Round 4:



Best regards

Nick