Round 5 in Paderborn: Cluster Toga - Rybka 1-0!

[Yarget]

Hello everyone!

Yes, Rybka lost the 5th round game against Cluster Toga. Now Toga, Rybka and Hiarcs are sharing the lead but I think that Toga has the best "correction".

Cluster Toga - Rybka

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. f3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. Be3 Be7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. O-O-O Nbd7 11. g4 b5 12. g5 Nh5 13. Kb1 Nb6 14. Nd5 Bxd5 15. exd5 Qc7 16. Na5 Nxd5 17. Qxd5 Qxa5 18. Bd3 ! 18... Qd8 19. h4 Qd7 20. Rhe1 g6 21. Be4 Rad8 22. a3 Qc8 23. Qd2 Qc7 24. Qf2 Rb8 25. c3 f6 26. Rg1 Kh8 27. Ba7 Rbc8 28. Be3 Rb8 29. Rd2 Qd7 30. Rgd1 Qh3 31. Ba7 Rbd8 32. Qb6 Qxh4 33. Qxa6 Ng3 34. Bf2 Qxg5 35. Bc6 f5 ?? 36. Bb6 Rb8 37. Bc7 Qe3 38. Rd3 Qf2 39. Bxb8 Rxb8 40. Bxb5 Ne2 41. a4 Qc5 42. Rd5 Nxc3+ 43. bxc3 Qa3 44. Qc6 Qxa4 45. R1d2 Qa7 46. Ra2 Qb7 47. Kc2 Kg7 48. c4 Kh6 49. Qxb7 Rxb7 50. Ra6 Kg5 51. Bc6 Rc7 52. c5 dxc5 53. Rxe5 Bf8 54. Kd3 Kf4 55. Rd5 Kg3 56. Kc4 Bh6 57. Kxc5 Be3+ 58. Kb5 Re7 59. Ba8 g5 60. Rxf5 h5 61. Ra4 Re8 62. Bd5 Rb8+ 63. Kc4 Rb2 64. Kc3 Rb5 65. Kd3 Bf4 66. Raxf4 gxf4 67. Rxh5 Rb8 68. Ke4 Rb4+ 69. Kf5 Kf2 70. Kg4 Ke3 71. Re5+ Kd2 72. Be4 Ke3 73. Rd5 Rb8 74. Rd3+ Kf2 75. Kxf4 1-0

According to Jeroen Noomen 30 ;Qh3 was a mistake by Rybka.

Regards
Per

[Eelco de Groot]

Thanks for the game Per. I think maybe Cluster Toga as a scientific experiment should not be competing for first prize but this is a private tournament. Analysis by Glaurung, Glaurung sees no danger in Qh3 at 18 plies deep, in fact the score is increasing:

[d]1r3r1k/3qb2p/p2p1pp1/1p2p1Pn/4B2P/P1P1BP2/1P1R1Q2/1K1R4 b - -


Engine: Glaurung 2.0.1 default (256 MB, Athlon 2009 MHz)
by Tord Romstad

16 2:24 +0.43 30...Qh3 31.Qg1 f5 32.Rh2 Qg3 33.Bd5 Qxg1
34.Rxg1 Kg7 35.Rd2 f4 36.Bf2 a5
37.b3 a4 38.Ba7 Rbc8 (55.506.301) 384

16 2:24 +0.39 30...fxg5 31.hxg5 Qh3 32.Qg1 Rxf3
33.Bxf3 Qxf3 34.Ka1 Kg8 35.Rf2 Qg3
36.Kb1 Qxg1 37.Rxg1 Kg7 38.Rgf1 Nf4
39.Bxf4 exf4 40.Rxf4 Bxg5 (55.506.301) 384

16 2:24 +0.39 30...Qe6 31.Qh2 a5 32.Bd5 Qd7 33.Be4 Rbc8
34.Rd3 a4 35.Bd5 f5 36.Qh3 Rfe8
37.Qh2 Kg7 38.R3d2 (55.506.301) 384 _____________________________________________________________

17 4:58 +0.47 30...Qh3 31.Qg1 f5 32.Rh2 Qg3 33.Bd5 Qxg1
34.Rxg1 Kg7 35.Rd2 f4 36.Bf2 a5
37.Be4 Ng3 38.Bxg3 fxg3 39.Rxg3 Rbc8 (115.647.358) 387

17 4:58 +0.43 30...Qe6 31.Qh2 a5 32.Bc6 Rbc8
33.Bb7 Qf5+ 34.Rd3 Rb8 35.Be4 Qe6
36.Bd5 Qd7 37.Re1 Rbc8 38.Qh1 Qf5
39.Be4 (115.647.358) 387

17 4:58 +0.35 30...fxg5 31.hxg5 Qh3 32.Rg1 Rbc8
33.Rdd1 Qd7 34.Rh1 Qe6 35.Qh2 a5
36.Bd5 Qf5+ 37.Be4 Qf7 38.Bd5 Qg7
39.Rhe1 (115.647.358) 387

_____________________________________________________________

18 12:41 +0.58 30...Qh3 31.Qg1 a5 32.Ba7 Rbc8
33.Bb6 Qxh4 34.gxf6 Rxf6 35.Bxa5 Ng3
36.Bb7 Rcf8 37.Bd5 Qf4 38.Qh2 h6
39.Bb6 Qf5+ 40.Rd3 (284.733.319) 374

18 12:41 +0.39 30...Qe6 31.Qh2 a5 32.Bc6 Rbc8
33.Bb7 Qf5+ 34.Rd3 Rb8 35.Be4 Qe6
36.Bd5 Qd7 37.Re1 Rbc8 38.Red1 Rc7
39.R3d2 Qf5+ 40.Be4 (284.733.319) 374

18 12:41 +0.27 30...fxg5 31.hxg5 Qh3 32.Rg1 Rbc8
33.Rdd1 Qd7 34.Qc2 Qe6 35.Rh1 a5
36.Bb7 Rb8 37.Be4 a4 38.Bd5 Qd7
39.Rhe1 (284.733.319) 374

_____________________________________________________________

18 14:46 +0.58 30...Qh3 31.Qg1 a5 32.Ba7 Rbc8
33.Bb6 Qxh4 34.gxf6 Rxf6 35.Bxa5 Ng3
36.Bb7 Rcf8 37.Bd5 Qf4 38.Qh2 h6
39.Bb6 Qf5+ 40.Rd3 (328.495.004) 370

18 14:46 +0.47 30...f5 31.Bd5 f4 32.Ba7 Rbc8 33.Rd3 Ng3
34.Qb6 Nf5 35.Qxa6 Nxh4 36.Rg1 Nf5
37.Bb6 Rb8 38.Bf2 Rfc8 39.Qa7 Qxa7
40.Bxa7 (328.495.004) 370

18 14:46 +0.39 30...Qe6 31.Qh2 a5 32.Bc6 Rbc8
33.Bb7 Qf5+ 34.Rd3 Rb8 35.Be4 Qe6
36.Bd5 Qd7 37.Re1 Rbc8 38.Red1 Rc7
39.R3d2 Qf5+ 40.Be4 (328.495.004) 370


Maybe 30... f5 would have been better but is 30... Qh3 really losing the game?

[swami]

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=475&start=45

Further results and next round pairings.

Hiarcs/Cluster Toga/Rybka are the engines leading the table with 3.5 points it seems...

[Yarget]

I find it hard as well to believe that Qh3 is the crucial point in this game not to mention that it is the move that is losing the game. Still, this is the comment from Jeroen Noomen in Rybka-forum:

"A painful loss in round 5 against Toga Cluster. I didn't know Toga had a very good book, otherwise I wouldn't have played this line. Everything was OK until Rybka went 30... Qh3? which looks like losing to me. When the black pawns a6 and b5 are gone, nothing is going to stop a3-a4-a5 etc. Still, the weird ending with 3 pawns against rook might have given some chances. Some people reported that Rybka could have played much better, so maybe somebody can figure that out?"

I think we need more analyzes before we can make any kind of conclusions. I wonder how Vas, SMK, Mark and Volker will react if Cluster Toga should win the tournament??

Regards
Per

[Spock]

I wonder how Vas, SMK, Mark and Volker will react if Cluster Toga should win the tournament??

Regards
Per

Their reactions should simply be "Congratulations"

I see nothing wrong with Cluster Toga competing for first prize.

[Yarget]

Hello Ray

Their reactions should simply be "Congratulations"

I agree but to whom?? Fabien, Thomas or Kai Himstedt??

Regards
Per

[swami]

Hello Ray

Their reactions should simply be "Congratulations"

I agree but to whom?? Fabien, Thomas or Kai Himstedt??

Regards
Per

I think he meant the whole team...but largely Fabien deserves the credit IMO.

[Spock]

Hello Ray

Their reactions should simply be "Congratulations"

I agree but to whom?? Fabien, Thomas or Kai Himstedt??

Regards
Per

All of them !

Remember all those others are a team effort as well e.g Hiarcs, for example Harvey contributes tremendously to Hiarcs development through testing etc

[Tord Romstad]

I think we need more analyzes before we can make any kind of conclusions. I wonder how Vas, SMK, Mark and Volker will react if Cluster Toga should win the tournament??

I have never understood the controversies around Gridchess/Cluster Toga. What's the problem with a chess program having numerous authors? In my opinion, a tournament victory for Cluster Toga would be a great triumph for the computer chess community. Isn't it exciting that cooperation, sharing of knowledge and open source has produced a program competitive with the very best?

I personally don't see how anyone not directly associated to one of the other participants can cheer for other programs than Cluster Toga in Paderborn.

Tord

[Denis P. Mendoza]

I think we need more analyzes before we can make any kind of conclusions. I wonder how Vas, SMK, Mark and Volker will react if Cluster Toga should win the tournament??

I have never understood the controversies around Gridchess/Cluster Toga. What's the problem with a chess program having numerous authors? In my opinion, a tournament victory for Cluster Toga would be a great triumph for the computer chess community. Isn't it exciting that cooperation, sharing of knowledge and open source has produced a program competitive with the very best?

I personally don't see how anyone not directly associated to one of the other participants can cheer for other programs than Cluster Toga in Paderborn.

Tord

I agree. That was the essence of this IPCCC tournament. Although Cluster Toga (Gridchess) remains controvercial to some, let's not forget that Kai Himstedt work was developed in co-operation between the University of Paderborn and the University of Hamburg. That's probably the key reason why it was allowed to join this specific tournament.

The tournament is already running, so let's give credit to all these participants, including Cluster Toga.