Test Position: 1.Rxg4!
Moderator: Ras
-
yanquis1972
- Posts: 1766
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:14 am
Re: Test Position: 1.Rxg4!
wow. the little engine that could.
-
Robert Flesher
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:06 am
Re: Test Position: 1.Rxg4!
Remember Rebel was talking GM scalps long ago. Infact it beat Anand ! on a mere 450 MHZ AMD computer. Hardly the "little" engine mention here, would you not agreeyanquis1972 wrote:wow. the little engine that could.
-
yanquis1972
- Posts: 1766
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:14 am
Re: Test Position: 1.Rxg4!
well, compared to the quad and octa monsters of today, it is quite tiny. but i agree, pro deo is a blessing. i was following computer chess back in rebel's late days and was always aggravated that i couldn't use it because it wasn't windows compatible. i'm so glad ed gave us pro deo, which is basically super-rebel.
-
Terry McCracken
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:16 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Test Position: 1.Rxg4!
Those were speed games. Kasparov also suffered defeat as early as 1994 against Richard Lang's Genius 2.9 beta with only 25 min. per side.Robert Flesher wrote:Remember Rebel was talking GM scalps long ago. Infact it beat Anand ! on a mere 450 MHZ AMD computer. Hardly the "little" engine mention here, would you not agreeyanquis1972 wrote:wow. the little engine that could.
I don't put a lot of stock in blitz and rapid time controls.
Terry McCracken
-
zullil
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:31 am
- Location: PA USA
- Full name: Louis Zulli
Re: Test Position: 1.Rxg4!
Crafty-23.1 does nicely!acase wrote:This is one of those "locked pawn" positions that are notorious for giving engines a hard time.
[d] 5k2/p1pr2p1/Pp1p2P1/1PpPpN1p/2P1P1nP/3K4/8/6R1 w --
Code: Select all
Crafty v23.1 (8 cpus)
White(1): hash 2048M
hash table memory = 2048M bytes.
White(1): setboard 5k2/p1pr2p1/Pp1p2P1/1PpPpN1p/2P1P1nP/3K4/8/6R1 w - -
White(1): egtb=off
White(1): st 7200
search time set to 7200.00.
White(1): display
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
8 | | . | | . | |<K>| | . |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
7 |<P>| |<P>|<R>| . | |<P>| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
6 |-P-|<P>| |<P>| | . |-P-| . |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
5 | . |-P-|<P>|-P-|<P>|-N-| . |<P>|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4 | | . |-P-| . |-P-| . |<N>|-P-|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
3 | . | | . |-K-| . | | . | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2 | | . | | . | | . | | . |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1 | . | | . | | . | |-R-| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
a b c d e f g h
White(1): display stats
display statistics at end of each search.
White(1): go
time limit 120:00 (+0.00) (120:00)
depth time score variation (1)
starting thread 1
starting thread 2
starting thread 3
starting thread 4
starting thread 5
starting thread 6
starting thread 7
12-> 0.05 0.26 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Nf5+ Kf8 <HT>
(s=3)
13 0.07 0.23 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Kxh5 9. Rxg7 (s=2)
13-> 0.08 0.23 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Kxh5 9. Rxg7
14 0.09 0.23 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Kxh5 9. Rxg7
14-> 0.11 0.23 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Kxh5 9. Rxg7 (s=4)
15 0.13 0.23 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Kxh5 9. Rxg7 (s=3)
15-> 0.18 0.23 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Kxh5 9. Rxg7 (s=3)
16 0.22 0.27 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Rc8 9. Ke3 Kxh5 10.
Rxg7 (s=2)
16-> 0.29 0.27 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Rc8 9. Ke3 Kxh5 10.
Rxg7 (s=3)
17 0.40 0.18 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Rc8 9. Ke3 g5 10.
hxg6 Kxg6 (s=2)
17-> 0.63 0.18 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Rc8 9. Ke3 g5 10.
hxg6 Kxg6 (s=3)
18 0.76 0.18 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Rc8 9. Ke3 g5 10.
hxg6 Kxg6 (s=2)
18-> 1.14 0.18 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Nxh5 Nxh5 5. Rxh5 Kf6 6. Rf5+ Kxg6
7. h5+ Kh6 8. Rf7 Rc8 9. Ke3 g5 10.
hxg6 Kxg6 (s=4)
19 1.59 0.02 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Rg5 Rg8 5. Ke3 Ng4+ 6. Ke2 Nf6 7. Kf3
Ra8 8. Nxh5 Nxh5 9. Rxh5 Kf6 10. Rg5
Rh8 (s=3)
19-> 2.61 0.02 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf5 Rd8 4.
Rg5 Rg8 5. Ke3 Ng4+ 6. Ke2 Nf6 7. Kf3
Ra8 8. Nxh5 Nxh5 9. Rxh5 Kf6 10. Rg5
Rh8 (s=3)
20 3.04 0.21 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Re8 6. Nf7 Kg8 7. Ng5
Re7 8. Ne6 Kh8 9. Rf2 Kg8 10. Rf1 Kh8
11. Ke3 (s=2)
20-> 3.92 0.21 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Re8 6. Nf7 Kg8 7. Ng5
Re7 8. Ne6 Kh8 9. Rf2 Kg8 10. Rf1 Kh8
11. Ke3 (s=3)
21 4.64 0.30 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Re8 6. Nf7 Kg8 7. Ng5
Rc8 8. Ne6 Kh8 9. Rf2 Kg8 10. Rf1 Kh8
11. Ke3 Ng4+ 12. Kd3 (s=2)
21-> 6.24 0.30 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Re8 6. Nf7 Kg8 7. Ng5
Rc8 8. Ne6 Kh8 9. Rf2 Kg8 10. Rf1 Kh8
11. Ke3 Ng4+ 12. Kd3 (s=3)
22 8.05 0.27 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Re8 6. Nf7 Ke7 7. Ng5
Rh8 8. Ne6 Rh6 9. Rg3 Ne8 10. Rg2 Kd7
11. Ke3 Ke7 12. Rg1 (s=2)
22-> 11.89 0.27 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Re8 6. Nf7 Ke7 7. Ng5
Rh8 8. Ne6 Rh6 9. Rg3 Ne8 10. Rg2 Kd7
11. Ke3 Ke7 12. Rg1
23 17.44 0.01 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Ke7 6. Nf7 Rf8 7. Ng5
Nd7 8. Nf7 Nf6
23-> 28.92 0.01 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Ke7 6. Nf7 Rf8 7. Ng5
Nd7 8. Nf7 Nf6 (s=2)
24 33.57 0.01 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Ke7 6. Nf7 Rf8 7. Ng5
Nd7 8. Nf7 Nf6
24-> 48.72 0.01 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Ke7 6. Nf7 Rf8 7. Ng5
Nd7 8. Nf7 Nf6 (s=3)
25 59.89 0.01 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Ke7 6. Nf7 Rf8 7. Ng5
Nd7 8. Nf7 Nf6 (s=2)
25-> 1:40 0.01 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Ke7 6. Nf7 Rf8 7. Ng5
Nd7 8. Nf7 Nf6 (s=4)
26 2:06 0.01 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Ke7 6. Nf7 Rf8 7. Ng5
Nd7 8. Nf7 Nf6 (s=3)
26-> 2:47 0.01 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Ke7 6. Nf7 Rf8 7. Ng5
Nd7 8. Nf7 Nf6 (s=2)
27 3:21 0.01 1. Ng3 Nf6 2. Rf1 Ke7 3. Rf3 Rd8 4.
Nf5+ Kf8 5. Nh6 Ke7 6. Nf7 Rf8 7. Ng5
Nd7 8. Nf7 Nf6
27 5:51 +1 1. Rxg4!
27 5:54 +3 1. Rxg4!
27 5:59 3.03 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Kf6 12. Kh8 Rd8+ 13.
g8=Q Rxg8+ 14. Kxg8 Kg5 15. Kf7 Kf4
27-> 6:03 3.03 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Kf6 12. Kh8 Rd8+ 13.
g8=Q Rxg8+ 14. Kxg8 Kg5 15. Kf7 Kf4
(s=9)
28 6:04 -1 1. Rxg4?
28 6:07 2.52 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Kf6 12. Kh8 Rd8+ 13.
g8=Q Rxg8+ 14. Kxg8 Kg5 15. Ne7 Kf4
16. Nc6 (s=8)
28-> 8:22 2.52 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Kf6 12. Kh8 Rd8+ 13.
g8=Q Rxg8+ 14. Kxg8 Kg5 15. Ne7 Kf4
16. Nc6 (s=16)
29 8:36 +1 1. Rxg4!
29 8:50 3.15 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Kf6 12. Kh8 Rxg7 13.
Nxg7 Kg5 14. Ne6+ Kg4 15. Nxc7 Kf3
16. Ne8 (s=15)
29-> 13:17 3.15 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Kf6 12. Kh8 Rxg7 13.
Nxg7 Kg5 14. Ne6+ Kg4 15. Nxc7 Kf3
16. Ne8 (s=15)
30 13:53 3.24 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Rd8 12. g8=Q+ Rxg8 13.
Nh6+ Kf6 14. Nxg8+ Kf7 15. Nh6+ Kf6
16. Nf5 Kf7 17. Ng7 Ke7 18. Ne6 (s=14)
30-> 24:01 3.24 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Rd8 12. g8=Q+ Rxg8 13.
Nh6+ Kf6 14. Nxg8+ Kf7 15. Nh6+ Kf6
16. Nf5 Kf7 17. Ng7 Ke7 18. Ne6 (s=15)
31 25:16 3.40 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Rd8 12. g8=Q+ Rxg8 13.
Nh6+ Kf6 14. Nxg8+ Kf7 15. Nh6+ Kf6
16. Nf5 Kf7 17. Ng7 Ke7 18. Ne6 Kd7
(s=14)
31-> 47:45 3.40 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Rd8 12. g8=Q+ Rxg8 13.
Nh6+ Kf6 14. Nxg8+ Kf7 15. Nh6+ Kf6
16. Nf5 Kf7 17. Ng7 Ke7 18. Ne6 Kd7
(s=15)
32 51:02 3.51 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Rd8 12. g8=Q+ Rxg8 13.
Nh6+ Kf6 14. Nxg8+ Kf7 15. Nh6+ Kf6
16. Nf5 Kf7 17. Ng7 Ke7 18. Ne6 Kd7
19. Kg7 (s=14)
32-> 103:16 3.51 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Rd8 12. g8=Q+ Rxg8 13.
Nh6+ Kf6 14. Nxg8+ Kf7 15. Nh6+ Kf6
16. Nf5 Kf7 17. Ng7 Ke7 18. Ne6 Kd7
19. Kg7 (s=14)
33 109:05 +1 1. Rxg4!
33 109:35 3.89 1. Rxg4 hxg4 2. Ke3 Re7 3. Kf2 Rd7
4. Kg3 Rd8 5. Kxg4 Rd7 6. Kg5 Kg8 7.
h5 Kh8 8. h6 gxh6+ 9. Kxh6 Kg8 10.
g7 Kf7 11. Kh7 Rd8 12. Nh6+ Kf6 13.
g8=N+ Rxg8 14. Kxg8 Ke7 15. Kg7 Kd7
16. Nf5 Kc8 17. Kf6 Kd8 18. Nh6 Kd7
(s=13)
time=120:00 mat=-1 n=143277767761 fh=74% nps=19.9M
extensions=3769.8M qchecks=2561.4M reduced=2183.2M pruned=2576.7M
predicted=0 evals=912.8M 50move=0 EGTBprobes=0 hits=0
SMP-> splits=31377318 aborts=3214977 data=98/1024 elap=120:00
terminating SMP processes.
White(1): Rxg4
time used: 120:00
-
Robert Flesher
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:06 am
Re: Test Position: 1.Rxg4!
Terry McCracken wrote:Those were speed games. Kasparov also suffered defeat as early as 1994 against Richard Lang's Genius 2.9 beta with only 25 min. per side.Robert Flesher wrote:Remember Rebel was talking GM scalps long ago. Infact it beat Anand ! on a mere 450 MHZ AMD computer. Hardly the "little" engine mention here, would you not agreeyanquis1972 wrote:wow. the little engine that could.
I don't put a lot of stock in blitz and rapid time controls.
Infact this is not correct. The match with Anand was 4 blitz games at 5min with 5 seconds increments, 2 active 15min, and 2 games played at 40/2:00hr.
So an amazing result none the less.
-
Terry McCracken
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:16 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Test Position: 1.Rxg4!
He lost some fast games so indeed it is correct!Robert Flesher wrote:Terry McCracken wrote:Those were speed games. Kasparov also suffered defeat as early as 1994 against Richard Lang's Genius 2.9 beta with only 25 min. per side.Robert Flesher wrote:Remember Rebel was talking GM scalps long ago. Infact it beat Anand ! on a mere 450 MHZ AMD computer. Hardly the "little" engine mention here, would you not agreeyanquis1972 wrote:wow. the little engine that could.
I don't put a lot of stock in blitz and rapid time controls.
Infact this is not correct. The match with Anand was 4 blitz games at 5min with 5 seconds increments, 2 active 15min, and 2 games played at 40/2:00hr.
So an amazing result none the less.
Terry McCracken
-
Robert Flesher
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:06 am
Re: Test Position: 1.Rxg4!
Terry McCracken wrote:He lost some fast games so indeed it is correct!Robert Flesher wrote:Terry McCracken wrote:Those were speed games. Kasparov also suffered defeat as early as 1994 against Richard Lang's Genius 2.9 beta with only 25 min. per side.Robert Flesher wrote:Remember Rebel was talking GM scalps long ago. Infact it beat Anand ! on a mere 450 MHZ AMD computer. Hardly the "little" engine mention here, would you not agreeyanquis1972 wrote:wow. the little engine that could.
I don't put a lot of stock in blitz and rapid time controls.
Infact this is not correct. The match with Anand was 4 blitz games at 5min with 5 seconds increments, 2 active 15min, and 2 games played at 40/2:00hr.
So an amazing result none the less.
My point was that the whole match was not all blitz. As your quote "those were speed games" clearly indicated. On ancient hardware Rebel 10 had and amazing result against Anand. The fact that you think that blitz games are not important is your opinion, however, one that some would not agree.
-
Terry McCracken
- Posts: 16465
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:16 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Test Position: 1.Rxg4!
The point is those tounament games are not relavent and Anand didn't lose at those time controls, it's that simple.Robert Flesher wrote:Terry McCracken wrote:He lost some fast games so indeed it is correct!Robert Flesher wrote:Terry McCracken wrote:Those were speed games. Kasparov also suffered defeat as early as 1994 against Richard Lang's Genius 2.9 beta with only 25 min. per side.Robert Flesher wrote:Remember Rebel was talking GM scalps long ago. Infact it beat Anand ! on a mere 450 MHZ AMD computer. Hardly the "little" engine mention here, would you not agreeyanquis1972 wrote:wow. the little engine that could.
I don't put a lot of stock in blitz and rapid time controls.
Infact this is not correct. The match with Anand was 4 blitz games at 5min with 5 seconds increments, 2 active 15min, and 2 games played at 40/2:00hr.
So an amazing result none the less.
My point was that the whole match was not all blitz. As your quote "those were speed games" clearly indicated. On ancient hardware Rebel 10 had and amazing result against Anand. The fact that you think that blitz games are not important is your opinion, however, one that some would not agree.
Losing some blitz and active games when the match is so short only serves as good advertising and infact overrates the outcome and the engine and downplays the genius of Anand.
Terry McCracken
-
Robert Flesher
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:06 am
Re: Test Position: 1.Rxg4!
Terry McCracken wrote:The point is those tounament games are not relavent and Anand didn't lose at those time controls, it's that simple.Robert Flesher wrote:Terry McCracken wrote:He lost some fast games so indeed it is correct!Robert Flesher wrote:Terry McCracken wrote:Those were speed games. Kasparov also suffered defeat as early as 1994 against Richard Lang's Genius 2.9 beta with only 25 min. per side.Robert Flesher wrote:Remember Rebel was talking GM scalps long ago. Infact it beat Anand ! on a mere 450 MHZ AMD computer. Hardly the "little" engine mention here, would you not agreeyanquis1972 wrote:wow. the little engine that could.
I don't put a lot of stock in blitz and rapid time controls.
Infact this is not correct. The match with Anand was 4 blitz games at 5min with 5 seconds increments, 2 active 15min, and 2 games played at 40/2:00hr.
So an amazing result none the less.
My point was that the whole match was not all blitz. As your quote "those were speed games" clearly indicated. On ancient hardware Rebel 10 had and amazing result against Anand. The fact that you think that blitz games are not important is your opinion, however, one that some would not agree.
Losing some blitz and active games when the match is so short only serves as good advertising and infact overrates the outcome and the engine and downplays the genius of Anand.
Terry, agreed! I was never at odds with you to this , I was just saying Rebel had a good result. To beat Anand, even in blitz is amazing , and this was my only point. Anyways, enough of our bantering, we'll just get moderated anyways.
Kind regards,
Robert