The amazing style of Virtual Chess II....

[mclane]

the idea of an unsound attack is, that it is unsound. normally the opponent fails to refute the unsound sac in the time control.

thats enough to win the game.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Hmm - still looks like a blunder for me
After that unsound sacc White never got any problem:

Houdini 2.0c x64 b x64 sd12 An - W,G
Stellung ausspielen (Houdini2cProx64Ana8
18...Sbxd5 19.exd5 1.41/23 1:15 Dxd5 1.35/25 1:12 20.Lc4 1.35/24 0 Dc5 1.23/25 2:15 21.Sc2 1.26/25 2:38 a5 1.37/25 2:37 22.Lg5 (Se3) 1.34/24 4:09 22...h6 1.33/24 1:03 23.Lh4 1.35/24 52 Sd5 1.35/24 1:04 24.Lxe7 1.30/24 1:24 Sxe7 1.28/23 0 25.Se3 1.35/25 1:15 d5 1.38/25 2:30 26.Lf1 1.40/26 2:00 e4 1.40/26 47 27.Sd4 1.40/25 1 Db6 1.40/26 44 28.Sb5 1.40/25 1:24 Tc5 1.45/24 47 29.Tc1 1.53/24 51 Tac8 1.53/26 52 30.Txc5 1.60/27 53 Txc5 1.57/28 1:07 31.Dg4 1.52/28 3:22 Lc8 1.52/28 43 32.Df4 1.62/28 6:38 Le6 (Sg6) 1.58/27 59 33.Td1 1.69/27 2:23 f6 1.69/26 40 34.Le2 1.68/26 27 Lf7 1.68/26 38 35.Dg4 1.81/25 48 Le6 1.79/26 1:12 36.Dg3 1.79/26 26 Lf7 (Kh7) 1.80/26 2:44 37.Lg4 1.82/26 51 Kh7 2.14/26 6:19 38.h4 2.49/23 31 h5 (Lg8) 2.65/23 41 39.Ld7 2.65/22 0 Kg8 2.84/24 39 40.Sf5 2.84/23 0 Sxf5 3.02/24 1:10 41.Lxf5 2.98/23 0 Kf8 2.91/25 1:01 42.Lg6 2.91/24 0 e3 3.03/25 27 43.fxe3 3.61/25 35 Lxg6 3.15/23 0 44.Dxg6 3.09/23 0 De6 (Tc1) 4.06/26 4:10 45.Kh1 4.06/25 33 Kg8 4.37/26 3:29 46.Dxh5 4.37/25 0 Dxe3 4.58/25 2:05 47.Txd5 4.58/24 0

I clearly stated earlier that this move is equal to suicide against a +2700 Elo chess engines let alone Houdini....

But yet again,it's not a blunder....Virtual chess II is a unique chess entity....they don't write programs like that any more....
Dr.D

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

the idea of an unsound attack is, that it is unsound. normally the opponent fails to refute the unsound sac in the time control.

thats enough to win the game.

Exactly and that reminds me of Tal playing style....A lot of common between him and this great chess program
Dr.D

[Uri Blass]

the idea of an unsound attack is, that it is unsound. normally the opponent fails to refute the unsound sac in the time control.

thats enough to win the game.

The other side of the story is that even if the attack is sound the attacker may fail to find the right moves in the time control and lose the game and personally I do not find it easier to play for the attacker in human-human games(I tried in 4 OTB games in 2011 to play the benko gambit with black and lost all the games so decided not to play it and I am more succesful when I do not sacrifice).

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

the idea of an unsound attack is, that it is unsound. normally the opponent fails to refute the unsound sac in the time control.

thats enough to win the game.

The other side of the story is that even if the attack is sound the attacker may fail to find the right moves in the time control and lose the game and personally I do not find it easier to play for the attacker in human-human games(I tried in 4 OTB games in 2011 to play the benko gambit with black and lost all the games so decided not to play it and I am more succesful when I do not sacrifice).

The Benko Gambit is a decent opening for black and serves a lot of surprises to the unfamiliar with the opening line player....your opponents must have been well prepared....
Dr.D

[Uri Blass]

the idea of an unsound attack is, that it is unsound. normally the opponent fails to refute the unsound sac in the time control.

thats enough to win the game.

The other side of the story is that even if the attack is sound the attacker may fail to find the right moves in the time control and lose the game and personally I do not find it easier to play for the attacker in human-human games(I tried in 4 OTB games in 2011 to play the benko gambit with black and lost all the games so decided not to play it and I am more succesful when I do not sacrifice).

The Benko Gambit is a decent opening for black and serves a lot of surprises to the unfamiliar with the opening line player....your opponents must have been well prepared....
Dr.D

I cannot say that they were prepared.

Here are my losses and
I think that the pressure that I have to attack and do something caused me to blunder in these games.
If I am not a pawn down I usually have more patience because I feel that I have time to get my pieces to better squares and I also feel that I am better in tactics in most games that I play normally because I do not have the pressure to win some material back after I am a pawn down.

My first loss.

My opponent decided not to accept the gambit and played b3 that is not the objectively best move but a move I was not prepared to it.

I sacrificed a pawn later by 8...e3
The sacrifice was correct but I did not know to continue it correctly after my opponent gave back the pawn(I played 12...Nxf1 to destroy the castling of the opponent instead of 12...Ng4)
and later I lost the game(22...Kg6 is a losing mistake and I had to play 22...Kg8 but white is already better).

The opponent is not from my family inspite of the similiar family game(I think that the family name of my opponent in english should be balas and not blass based on the way that you say it but I copied the english name from fide)

Note that later in the end of 2011 I won against him with black when I simply played 2...e6 instead of 2...c5


[Event "5'/40+5'/40+5'/40"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.09.07"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Eyal Blass"]
[Black "Uri Blass"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A57"]
[PlyCount "55"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. b3 bxc4 5. bxc4 e5 6. Bb2 d6 7. Nf3 e4 8. Nfd2
e3 9. fxe3 Ng4 10. Nf3 Nxe3 11. Qd3 Qe7 12. Bc1 Nxf1 13. Rxf1 Nd7 14. Nbd2 Ne5
15. Nxe5 Qxe5 16. Rb1 Qxh2 17. Qf3 f6 18. Ne4 Qh4+ 19. g3 Qg4 20. Qe3 Kf7 21.
Bd2 Bf5 22. Rb7+ Kg6 23. Rf4 Qh3 24. Nf2 Qg2 25. Bc3 h5 26. Rxf5 Qg1+ 27. Kd2
Qg2 28. Rf3 *

second game
I could get advantage by playing Rxb2
I thought about this move but did not evaluate it correctly and was afraid from Na4
Later I could play Bxc3 when I still has the advantage based on the computer but I simply did not like to trade pieces when I am a pawn down.

Later I admitted my mistake and still had chances for a draw in the endgame but I played it bad blundered and lost.




[Event "5'/40+5'/40+5'/40"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.11.07"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Smuel barel"]
[Black "Uri Blass"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A58"]
[Annotator ",agur"]
[PlyCount "87"]
[TimeControl "40/300:40/300:40/300"]

{128MB, Perfect 15.ctg, URI-AMD} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. Nc3
axb5 6. Nxb5 Ba6 7. Nc3 g6 8. g3 d6 9. Bg2 Bg7 10. Nf3 Nbd7 11. O-O O-O 12. Re1
Qa5 13. e4 Rfb8 14. Bd2 Ng4 15. Qc2 Nge5 16. Nxe5 Nxe5 17. Nd1 Qb5 18. Bc3 Qd3
19. Qc1 Qb5 20. Re3 Nd3 21. Qd2 Bh6 22. f4 c4 23. Bf1 Bg7 24. Bxg7 Kxg7 25.
Bxd3 cxd3 26. Rc1 Rc8 27. Rc3 Qa5 28. a3 Rxc3 29. Nxc3 Rc8 30. Kf2 Qb6 31. Kf3
Qb3 32. Re1 Rb8 33. Rb1 Qc2 34. Ke3 Rb3 35. h4 f6 36. Qxc2 dxc2 37. Rc1 Rxb2
38. Kd2 Rb3 39. a4 Ra3 40. Kxc2 Bc4 41. Rb1 e6 42. Rb4 exd5 43. exd5 Bxd5 44.
Kb2 *


Third game
Another bad game
After my opponent played 15.Re3 that I knew that it is not theory I thought that I need to have a fast way to refute it and get the advantage so I too hurried to attack by Qb4 instead of slowly developing my pieces and later blundered a second pawn and lost the game.

[Event "5'/40+5'/40+5'/40"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.11.27"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lior Levi"]
[Black "Uri Blass"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A59"]
[PlyCount "77"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. bxa6 g6 6. Nc3 Bxa6 7. e4 Bxf1 8.
Kxf1 d6 9. Nf3 Nbd7 10. h3 Bg7 11. g3 O-O 12. Kg2 Qa5 13. Qc2 Rfb8 14. Re1 Ne8
15. Re3 Qb4 16. Nd1 c4 17. Bd2 Qa4 18. Qxa4 Rxa4 19. Bc3 Nc5 20. Bxg7 Kxg7 21.
Nd4 Nb3 22. Nxb3 Rxb3 23. Nc3 Ra8 24. axb3 Rxa1 25. bxc4 Nc7 26. b3 Na6 27. Na4
Ra3 28. Rc3 Kf8 29. f4 Ke8 30. e5 Kd7 31. Kf3 Nb4 32. Ke4 f5+ 33. Kd4 Ra2 34.
c5 Rd2+ 35. Ke3 Rxd5 36. Nb6+ Kc6 37. cxd6+ Kxb6 38. dxe7 Rd1 39. Ke2 *

4th game
This was 50+10 time control unlike the previous games that were 90+30 and against better opponent.

[Event "5'/40+5'/40+5'/40"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2011.12.02"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Eyal Koren"]
[Black "Uri Blass"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A31"]
[PlyCount "76"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d5 6. cxd5 Bc5 7. e3 O-O 8.
N5c3 e4 9. Nd2 Re8 10. Nb3 Bb4 11. Bd2 Re5 12. a3 Bxc3 13. Bxc3 Rxd5 14. Qc2
Qc7 15. Rc1 Bg4 16. h3 Be6 17. Bxf6 Qxc2 18. Rxc2 gxf6 19. Bc4 Rd8 20. Nd4 Bxc4
21. Rxc4 Nd7 22. Ke2 Rac8 23. Rhc1 Rxc4 24. Rxc4 Nb6 25. Rc7 Rd7 26. Rc2 Kg7
27. g4 Kg6 28. Nf5 h5 29. Ng3 hxg4 30. hxg4 Re7 31. Rc5 Na4 32. Rb5 a6 33. Rb4
Nc5 34. Rc4 Nd3 35. b4 b5 36. Rxe4 Rxe4 37. Nxe4 Ne5 38. Nc5 Nc4 *

I too hurried to attack by Qc7 and my opponent found the move Rc1(rook to close file that I did not consider that is surprisingly strong)

[Waschbaer]

the idea of an unsound attack is, that it is unsound. normally the opponent fails to refute the unsound sac in the time control.

thats enough to win the game.

If that argument is the reasen for making the move, you are right and of course it belongs to human tactics.

But do you think an engine will use such heuristics?
If not, then this sacc is not the best move, with other words, the engine blundered.
But because it's a sacc, it is a good looking blunder and humans may try to find some arguments why it is not a blunder.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

the idea of an unsound attack is, that it is unsound. normally the opponent fails to refute the unsound sac in the time control.

thats enough to win the game.

If that argument is the reasen for making the move, you are right and of course it belongs to human tactics.

But do you think an engine will use such heuristics?
If not, then this sacc is not the best move, with other words, the engine blundered.
But because it's a sacc, it is a good looking blunder and humans may try to find some arguments why it is not a blunder.

I still believe that the engine didn't blunder....it simply played the move according to it's implemented aggressive playing style....

Even more,it did win the game after all....
Dr.D

[towforce]

If not, then this sacc is not the best move, with other words, the engine blundered.

Imagine a playground with children: when spoken to, child A1 responds with a technically correct statement - but child A2 is playful, fun and exciting to be around. Child A2 would probably be more popular.

Likewise, a program that plays daring, gung-ho moves is going to be more fun for most people than the one that always picks the "best" move.

[Alexander Schmidt]

But do you think an engine will use such heuristics?

Not all programmers' main intetion is to sqeeze the last ELO point out of the engine in engine-engine matches. Some set value on the style, want to create a interesting program which plays positional sacrifices. Along the way such engines are relatively stronger against humans.

So of course this move was played because of special heuristics, and it was of course not a blunder because it was done deliberately and not because of a bug or a wrong evaluation.