Mexico - Zappa 5.5 v Rybka 4.5- Zappa wins $10,000
Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman
Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
- Harvey Williamson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6079
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 am
- Location: Media City, UK
- Contact:
- Mark Uniacke
- Hiarcs Author
- Posts: 1458
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:32 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
It is a bad eval in the Rybka version that played.joseMfc wrote:Both engines have made some mistakes, but also we have seen very good games, (Zappa's game 3, Rybka's game .
But Rybka's errors have been quite astonishing ... game 4 and game 9.
The end game with different colours bishops is, for humans, very easy to understand ...
Is this a bug in Rybka code or is so difficult for computers?.
Today last game .... how exciting match!
HIARCS 11 and most other chess programs will not play the blunder.
The standard of chess in the match has been incredibly variable from extremely high to extremely low!
It shows that even today computer chess has a long way to go...
- Mark Uniacke
- Hiarcs Author
- Posts: 1458
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:32 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
First congratulations to you and Erdo for Zappa achieving at least a drawn match with one game to go!Anthony C wrote:A black day for the Zappa team. Zappa got a very good position with Black in a Ruy Lopez, got in time trouble, blundered, and lost. After Qd8 Qb8 Qg8, White has the amazing plan of g5-g6, Kh5, and Bxh6, and can win despite being down a full exchange. Black could probably play for a win after e4 instead of Qxb5, or a draw after c3 instead of Qd8.
In the second game, Rybka simply outplayed Zappa, and again got a position where its deep search was able to find some tricks. If you look at the position 5 full moves before Rxc4 it is hard to believe that Black is winning. However in the endgame Rybka traded rooks and despite having an eval of +7 (Zappa only +2 for White) the game was drawn.
I actually think this match showcases the differences between Rybka and Zappa quite well. Zappa's knowledge is in its evaluation and its relatively accurate guesses about positions. Rybka's knowledge is in its intelligent search which lets it see very deeply very quickly. Interestingly most people associate a gradual score rise with a superiority in evaluation, when in fact it usually indicates a superiority in search, as the opponent is making many little blunders. In contrast when one engine has a superiority in evaluation the score will usually rise sharply after a move because suddenly the engine can secure a positional advantage (whatever the term is that the other engine is unaware of).
Two years ago I would have told you that a good evaluation is more important than a good search, but now I am not so sure. At the very least Rybka has proven that even today's engines on big hardware (Zappa) still make many search errors, especially at such quick timecontrols as 60+20.
cheers,
anthony
Thankfully when the match is over HIARCS can have its x8 test machine back for testing MP improvements!
I agree with the view that Rybka's main strength is in its fast well aimed search. Like you I have come to realise that search is king in the land of chess computers once a reasonable level of eval has been reached. (Warning this does not necessarily apply against humans)
Look at it this way, create two versions of the same program, let one version search 1 ply deeper than the other. Play a match and what score would you expect?
I think you will see 65%+-5%
Now convert that score to Elo gain, so you might find its about 100 Elo or more.
Now consider how you can change your evaluation to get an improvement of 100 Elo!?
Sadly, the breakthroughs in computer chess have mainly come from improvements to the search, whereas the eval improvements have been a more gradual creep.
Food for thought....
Are Rybka and Zappa better that Top 8 human beings from Mex?
Anthony, Harvey and aTerry.Terry McCracken wrote:Indeed, Steve!Steve B wrote:and of course we also are treated to Mark's Comments and analysis here as wellTerry McCracken wrote:I'm very glad Anthony that you take the time and give your analysis on the match and individual games.Anthony C wrote:A black day for the Zappa team. Zappa got a very good position with Black in a Ruy Lopez, got in time trouble, blundered, and lost. After Qd8 Qb8 Qg8, White has the amazing plan of g5-g6, Kh5, and Bxh6, and can win despite being down a full exchange. Black could probably play for a win after e4 instead of Qxb5, or a draw after c3 instead of Qd8.
In the second game, Rybka simply outplayed Zappa, and again got a position where its deep search was able to find some tricks. If you look at the position 5 full moves before Rxc4 it is hard to believe that Black is winning. However in the endgame Rybka traded rooks and despite having an eval of +7 (Zappa only +2 for White) the game was drawn.
I actually think this match showcases the differences between Rybka and Zappa quite well. Zappa's knowledge is in its evaluation and its relatively accurate guesses about positions. Rybka's knowledge is in its intelligent search which lets it see very deeply very quickly. Interestingly most people associate a gradual score rise with a superiority in evaluation, when in fact it usually indicates a superiority in search, as the opponent is making many little blunders. In contrast when one engine has a superiority in evaluation the score will usually rise sharply after a move because suddenly the engine can secure a positional advantage (whatever the term is that the other engine is unaware of).
Two years ago I would have told you that a good evaluation is more important than a good search, but now I am not so sure. At the very least Rybka has proven that even today's engines on big hardware (Zappa) still make many search errors, especially at such quick timecontrols as 60+20.
cheers,
anthony
I wish Vas would do the same! Of course he does have his own forum, still it would nice if he'd give his take on the match here as well.
Best,
Terry
its very special to have a Premiere Elite World programmer commenting on the games of other commercial engines as they are locked in fatal mortal combat with mucho dinero on the line
History In the making regards
Steve
Waiting for the Rematch Regards,
Terry
I would like to know the meaning and diference between a "Good evaluation and search inteligence".
With best respect,
Pablo
- Harvey Williamson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6079
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 am
- Location: Media City, UK
- Contact:
Hi Pablo,
I am sure someone else can explain this a lot better than me. But evaluation when you look at the position on the board and say its = or black is better or white is better and by how much they are better by judging that position.
Then the engine will search and in that search it may find some good tactics and discover that the initial evaluation of the position is wrong.
Some engines search deeper than others and some are more positionally aware.
Best Wishes,
Harvey
I am sure someone else can explain this a lot better than me. But evaluation when you look at the position on the board and say its = or black is better or white is better and by how much they are better by judging that position.
Then the engine will search and in that search it may find some good tactics and discover that the initial evaluation of the position is wrong.
Some engines search deeper than others and some are more positionally aware.
Best Wishes,
Harvey
Hi Harvey,
I think you are basically right but you are caught in the trap of "evaluation = position", "search = tactics". Evaluation can see tactics and search can see positional moves.
The classic examples are game 7 and game 9. In game 7 Rybka plays Rc7, a terrible move. Why? Because it relies on its search and its search wasn't seeing the correct lines where white gives the pawns on the queen side in exchange for new passed pawns on the kingside, which turn out to be stronger.
In game 9, Rybka won basically because of a pin on the d-file (Rd6 -> Bd3 -> Rd1). Zappa could never find a way to break this pin. Zappa evaluates this kind of a pin in the evaluation, except in this case it was doing it wrong. Very wrong. 0.3 evaluation error -> lost position.
So I really think search and evaluation are simply different options to try to improve play. Obviously I think eval works better while Vasik thinks search works better. So far in Mexico things are proving to be more or less a tossup: Zappa played very well in games 3, 5, and (mostly) 7, while Rybka played very well in games 2, 8, and (mostly) 9.
anthony
I think you are basically right but you are caught in the trap of "evaluation = position", "search = tactics". Evaluation can see tactics and search can see positional moves.
The classic examples are game 7 and game 9. In game 7 Rybka plays Rc7, a terrible move. Why? Because it relies on its search and its search wasn't seeing the correct lines where white gives the pawns on the queen side in exchange for new passed pawns on the kingside, which turn out to be stronger.
In game 9, Rybka won basically because of a pin on the d-file (Rd6 -> Bd3 -> Rd1). Zappa could never find a way to break this pin. Zappa evaluates this kind of a pin in the evaluation, except in this case it was doing it wrong. Very wrong. 0.3 evaluation error -> lost position.
So I really think search and evaluation are simply different options to try to improve play. Obviously I think eval works better while Vasik thinks search works better. So far in Mexico things are proving to be more or less a tossup: Zappa played very well in games 3, 5, and (mostly) 7, while Rybka played very well in games 2, 8, and (mostly) 9.
anthony
I can only agree with the opinion that zappa has superior evaluation and that rybka has superior search but I do not agree that you think that the eval work better and I do not agree that Vas think that the search works better.Anthony C wrote:Hi Harvey,
I think you are basically right but you are caught in the trap of "evaluation = position", "search = tactics". Evaluation can see tactics and search can see positional moves.
The classic examples are game 7 and game 9. In game 7 Rybka plays Rc7, a terrible move. Why? Because it relies on its search and its search wasn't seeing the correct lines where white gives the pawns on the queen side in exchange for new passed pawns on the kingside, which turn out to be stronger.
In game 9, Rybka won basically because of a pin on the d-file (Rd6 -> Bd3 -> Rd1). Zappa could never find a way to break this pin. Zappa evaluates this kind of a pin in the evaluation, except in this case it was doing it wrong. Very wrong. 0.3 evaluation error -> lost position.
So I really think search and evaluation are simply different options to try to improve play. Obviously I think eval works better while Vasik thinks search works better. So far in Mexico things are proving to be more or less a tossup: Zappa played very well in games 3, 5, and (mostly) 7, while Rybka played very well in games 2, 8, and (mostly) 9.
anthony
If we talk about your opinion
The facts are that you spent time on implementing more efficient parallel search than Vas and you know that parallel search is search and not evaluation.
If we talk about Vasik's opinion then rybla clearly made evaluation changes and not only search changes for the match and rybka missed the win in game 9 because of an evaluation change that allowed zappa to trade rooks.
Uri
- Terry McCracken
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1300
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:49 pm
I think you're right Uri. Can anyone here persuade Vas to comment on these matters?Uri Blass wrote:I can only agree with the opinion that zappa has superior evaluation and that rybka has superior search but I do not agree that you think that the eval work better and I do not agree that Vas think that the search works better.Anthony C wrote:Hi Harvey,
I think you are basically right but you are caught in the trap of "evaluation = position", "search = tactics". Evaluation can see tactics and search can see positional moves.
The classic examples are game 7 and game 9. In game 7 Rybka plays Rc7, a terrible move. Why? Because it relies on its search and its search wasn't seeing the correct lines where white gives the pawns on the queen side in exchange for new passed pawns on the kingside, which turn out to be stronger.
In game 9, Rybka won basically because of a pin on the d-file (Rd6 -> Bd3 -> Rd1). Zappa could never find a way to break this pin. Zappa evaluates this kind of a pin in the evaluation, except in this case it was doing it wrong. Very wrong. 0.3 evaluation error -> lost position.
So I really think search and evaluation are simply different options to try to improve play. Obviously I think eval works better while Vasik thinks search works better. So far in Mexico things are proving to be more or less a tossup: Zappa played very well in games 3, 5, and (mostly) 7, while Rybka played very well in games 2, 8, and (mostly) 9.
anthony
If we talk about your opinion
The facts are that you spent time on implementing more efficient parallel search than Vas and you know that parallel search is search and not evaluation.
If we talk about Vasik's opinion then rybla clearly made evaluation changes and not only search changes for the match and rybka missed the win in game 9 because of an evaluation change that allowed zappa to trade rooks.
Uri
The Other Side of the Story Regards,
Terry
P.S. Good Eval is nothing without Good Search and Good Search is nothing without Good Eval
- Harvey Williamson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6079
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 am
- Location: Media City, UK
- Contact:
Round 10 final score 5.5-4.5 Zappa wins
[Event "Blitz:10'+10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa Mexico "]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
{4MB, ZapM X Black.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. Nf3 {0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. c4 {11} e6 {B/0 0} 3.
Nc3 {8} c5 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {8} b6 {B/0 0} 5. Bg2 {10} Bb7 {B/0 0} 6. O-O {8} Be7
{B/0 0} 7. Re1 {8} d6 {B/0 0} 8. e4 {9} a6 {B/0 0} 9. d4 {8} cxd4 {B/0 0} 10.
Nxd4 {8} Qc7 {B/0 0} 11. Be3 {8} Nbd7 {B/0 0} 12. f4 {8} Rc8 {B/0 0} 13. Rc1 {9
} O-O {B/0 0} 14. f5 {10} e5 {0.42/19 289} 15. Nb3 {13} Qb8 {B/0 0} 16. Qe2 {
151} Rc7 {0.39/19 245} 17. Nd2 {554} Rfc8 {0.37/21 0} 18. g4 {(a4) 153} h6 {
0.43/20 233} 19. h4 {12} Nh7 {0.48/19 228} 20. Bf2 {10} Bc6 {0.48/20 498} 21.
Nd5 {131} Bxd5 {0.48/20 1} 22. exd5 {20} b5 {0.49/19 212} 23. b3 {40} b4 {
0.52/19 129} 24. Qe3 {109} Nc5 {0.51/19 43} 25. Ne4 {117} Nxe4 {0.54/19 113}
26. Bxe4 {14} Rd7 {0.58/19 424} 27. Bf3 {(Kh1) 179} Qc7 {0.52/18 122} 28. Kg2 {
(Ted1) 10} a5 {0.61/17 174} 29. Kh3 {(Th1) 371} Qd8 {0.50/18 195} 30. Qd2 {
(Ted1) 11} Rdc7 {0.52/18 125} 31. Rcd1 {(Ted1) 66} Bf6 {0.52/18 136} 32. Re2 {
(Tc1) 134} Rd7 {0.55/17 101} 33. Qd3 {(Tc1) 31} Be7 {0.51/16 27} 34. a3 {
(Dd2) 47} bxa3 {0.45/17 39} 35. Ra1 {43} Qf8 {0.29/18 0} 36. Rxa3 {55} Bd8 {
0.31/18 0} 37. Kg2 {1339} Rb8 {0.30/22 37} 38. Re1 {(Tea2) 109} Rdb7 {
0.23/20 80} 39. c5 {55} Rb4 {0.23/18 8} 40. c6 {(Dd1) 81} Qe7 {0.12/15 41} 41.
Bg3 {(Dd2) 179} Nf6 {0.09/16 32} 42. g5 {194} hxg5 {0.17/18 1} 43. hxg5 {25}
Ne8 {0.00/18 22} 44. Qd2 {(g6) 14} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 37} 45. Rxb3 {9} Rxb3 {
-0.01/16 0} 46. g6 {284} Bb6 {0.00/18 2} 47. Qa2 {27} Rb4 {0.00/17 9} 48. Rb1 {
(Te4) 34} fxg6 {0.00/17 53} 49. fxg6 {10} Qg5 {0.00/18 24} 50. Rxb4 {11} axb4 {
0.00/18 2} 51. Qb1 {(Dc4) 30} Qd2+ {0.00/19 107} 52. Kf1 {411} Qe3 {0.00/19 49}
53. Qf5 {33} Qg1+ {0.00/22 0} 54. Ke2 {9} Qe3+ {0.00/22 0} 55. Kd1 {(Kf1) 30}
Qb3+ {0.00/21 40} 56. Kd2 {(Ke1) 41} Qc3+ {0.00/20 38} 57. Kd1 {8} Qb3+ {
0.00/22 75} 58. Ke1 {11} Qe3+ {0.00/23 37} 59. Kd1 {(Kf1) 10} Qb3+ {0.00/24 94}
1/2-1/2
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa Mexico "]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
{4MB, ZapM X Black.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. Nf3 {0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. c4 {11} e6 {B/0 0} 3.
Nc3 {8} c5 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {8} b6 {B/0 0} 5. Bg2 {10} Bb7 {B/0 0} 6. O-O {8} Be7
{B/0 0} 7. Re1 {8} d6 {B/0 0} 8. e4 {9} a6 {B/0 0} 9. d4 {8} cxd4 {B/0 0} 10.
Nxd4 {8} Qc7 {B/0 0} 11. Be3 {8} Nbd7 {B/0 0} 12. f4 {8} Rc8 {B/0 0} 13. Rc1 {9
} O-O {B/0 0} 14. f5 {10} e5 {0.42/19 289} 15. Nb3 {13} Qb8 {B/0 0} 16. Qe2 {
151} Rc7 {0.39/19 245} 17. Nd2 {554} Rfc8 {0.37/21 0} 18. g4 {(a4) 153} h6 {
0.43/20 233} 19. h4 {12} Nh7 {0.48/19 228} 20. Bf2 {10} Bc6 {0.48/20 498} 21.
Nd5 {131} Bxd5 {0.48/20 1} 22. exd5 {20} b5 {0.49/19 212} 23. b3 {40} b4 {
0.52/19 129} 24. Qe3 {109} Nc5 {0.51/19 43} 25. Ne4 {117} Nxe4 {0.54/19 113}
26. Bxe4 {14} Rd7 {0.58/19 424} 27. Bf3 {(Kh1) 179} Qc7 {0.52/18 122} 28. Kg2 {
(Ted1) 10} a5 {0.61/17 174} 29. Kh3 {(Th1) 371} Qd8 {0.50/18 195} 30. Qd2 {
(Ted1) 11} Rdc7 {0.52/18 125} 31. Rcd1 {(Ted1) 66} Bf6 {0.52/18 136} 32. Re2 {
(Tc1) 134} Rd7 {0.55/17 101} 33. Qd3 {(Tc1) 31} Be7 {0.51/16 27} 34. a3 {
(Dd2) 47} bxa3 {0.45/17 39} 35. Ra1 {43} Qf8 {0.29/18 0} 36. Rxa3 {55} Bd8 {
0.31/18 0} 37. Kg2 {1339} Rb8 {0.30/22 37} 38. Re1 {(Tea2) 109} Rdb7 {
0.23/20 80} 39. c5 {55} Rb4 {0.23/18 8} 40. c6 {(Dd1) 81} Qe7 {0.12/15 41} 41.
Bg3 {(Dd2) 179} Nf6 {0.09/16 32} 42. g5 {194} hxg5 {0.17/18 1} 43. hxg5 {25}
Ne8 {0.00/18 22} 44. Qd2 {(g6) 14} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 37} 45. Rxb3 {9} Rxb3 {
-0.01/16 0} 46. g6 {284} Bb6 {0.00/18 2} 47. Qa2 {27} Rb4 {0.00/17 9} 48. Rb1 {
(Te4) 34} fxg6 {0.00/17 53} 49. fxg6 {10} Qg5 {0.00/18 24} 50. Rxb4 {11} axb4 {
0.00/18 2} 51. Qb1 {(Dc4) 30} Qd2+ {0.00/19 107} 52. Kf1 {411} Qe3 {0.00/19 49}
53. Qf5 {33} Qg1+ {0.00/22 0} 54. Ke2 {9} Qe3+ {0.00/22 0} 55. Kd1 {(Kf1) 30}
Qb3+ {0.00/21 40} 56. Kd2 {(Ke1) 41} Qc3+ {0.00/20 38} 57. Kd1 {8} Qb3+ {
0.00/22 75} 58. Ke1 {11} Qe3+ {0.00/23 37} 59. Kd1 {(Kf1) 10} Qb3+ {0.00/24 94}
1/2-1/2
- Mark Uniacke
- Hiarcs Author
- Posts: 1458
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:32 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
Terry, your PS is spot on!Terry McCracken wrote:I think you're right Uri. Can anyone here persuade Vas to comment on these matters?Uri Blass wrote:I can only agree with the opinion that zappa has superior evaluation and that rybka has superior search but I do not agree that you think that the eval work better and I do not agree that Vas think that the search works better.Anthony C wrote:Hi Harvey,
I think you are basically right but you are caught in the trap of "evaluation = position", "search = tactics". Evaluation can see tactics and search can see positional moves.
The classic examples are game 7 and game 9. In game 7 Rybka plays Rc7, a terrible move. Why? Because it relies on its search and its search wasn't seeing the correct lines where white gives the pawns on the queen side in exchange for new passed pawns on the kingside, which turn out to be stronger.
In game 9, Rybka won basically because of a pin on the d-file (Rd6 -> Bd3 -> Rd1). Zappa could never find a way to break this pin. Zappa evaluates this kind of a pin in the evaluation, except in this case it was doing it wrong. Very wrong. 0.3 evaluation error -> lost position.
So I really think search and evaluation are simply different options to try to improve play. Obviously I think eval works better while Vasik thinks search works better. So far in Mexico things are proving to be more or less a tossup: Zappa played very well in games 3, 5, and (mostly) 7, while Rybka played very well in games 2, 8, and (mostly) 9.
anthony
If we talk about your opinion
The facts are that you spent time on implementing more efficient parallel search than Vas and you know that parallel search is search and not evaluation.
If we talk about Vasik's opinion then rybla clearly made evaluation changes and not only search changes for the match and rybka missed the win in game 9 because of an evaluation change that allowed zappa to trade rooks.
Uri
The Other Side of the Story Regards,
Terry
P.S. Good Eval is nothing without Good Search and Good Search is nothing without Good Eval
- Dylan Sharp
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2431
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:07 am
- Mark Uniacke
- Hiarcs Author
- Posts: 1458
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:32 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Round 10 final score 5.5-4.5 Zappa wins
Congratulations to Anthony and Erdo for winning the match with Rybka.Harvey Williamson wrote:[Event "Blitz:10'+10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.09.27"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybka"]
[Black "Zappa Mexico "]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A30"]
[PlyCount "118"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[TimeControl "600+10"]
{4MB, ZapM X Black.ctg, ZAPPA} 1. Nf3 {0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 2. c4 {11} e6 {B/0 0} 3.
Nc3 {8} c5 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {8} b6 {B/0 0} 5. Bg2 {10} Bb7 {B/0 0} 6. O-O {8} Be7
{B/0 0} 7. Re1 {8} d6 {B/0 0} 8. e4 {9} a6 {B/0 0} 9. d4 {8} cxd4 {B/0 0} 10.
Nxd4 {8} Qc7 {B/0 0} 11. Be3 {8} Nbd7 {B/0 0} 12. f4 {8} Rc8 {B/0 0} 13. Rc1 {9
} O-O {B/0 0} 14. f5 {10} e5 {0.42/19 289} 15. Nb3 {13} Qb8 {B/0 0} 16. Qe2 {
151} Rc7 {0.39/19 245} 17. Nd2 {554} Rfc8 {0.37/21 0} 18. g4 {(a4) 153} h6 {
0.43/20 233} 19. h4 {12} Nh7 {0.48/19 228} 20. Bf2 {10} Bc6 {0.48/20 498} 21.
Nd5 {131} Bxd5 {0.48/20 1} 22. exd5 {20} b5 {0.49/19 212} 23. b3 {40} b4 {
0.52/19 129} 24. Qe3 {109} Nc5 {0.51/19 43} 25. Ne4 {117} Nxe4 {0.54/19 113}
26. Bxe4 {14} Rd7 {0.58/19 424} 27. Bf3 {(Kh1) 179} Qc7 {0.52/18 122} 28. Kg2 {
(Ted1) 10} a5 {0.61/17 174} 29. Kh3 {(Th1) 371} Qd8 {0.50/18 195} 30. Qd2 {
(Ted1) 11} Rdc7 {0.52/18 125} 31. Rcd1 {(Ted1) 66} Bf6 {0.52/18 136} 32. Re2 {
(Tc1) 134} Rd7 {0.55/17 101} 33. Qd3 {(Tc1) 31} Be7 {0.51/16 27} 34. a3 {
(Dd2) 47} bxa3 {0.45/17 39} 35. Ra1 {43} Qf8 {0.29/18 0} 36. Rxa3 {55} Bd8 {
0.31/18 0} 37. Kg2 {1339} Rb8 {0.30/22 37} 38. Re1 {(Tea2) 109} Rdb7 {
0.23/20 80} 39. c5 {55} Rb4 {0.23/18 8} 40. c6 {(Dd1) 81} Qe7 {0.12/15 41} 41.
Bg3 {(Dd2) 179} Nf6 {0.09/16 32} 42. g5 {194} hxg5 {0.17/18 1} 43. hxg5 {25}
Ne8 {0.00/18 22} 44. Qd2 {(g6) 14} Rxb3 {-0.01/16 37} 45. Rxb3 {9} Rxb3 {
-0.01/16 0} 46. g6 {284} Bb6 {0.00/18 2} 47. Qa2 {27} Rb4 {0.00/17 9} 48. Rb1 {
(Te4) 34} fxg6 {0.00/17 53} 49. fxg6 {10} Qg5 {0.00/18 24} 50. Rxb4 {11} axb4 {
0.00/18 2} 51. Qb1 {(Dc4) 30} Qd2+ {0.00/19 107} 52. Kf1 {411} Qe3 {0.00/19 49}
53. Qf5 {33} Qg1+ {0.00/22 0} 54. Ke2 {9} Qe3+ {0.00/22 0} 55. Kd1 {(Kf1) 30}
Qb3+ {0.00/21 40} 56. Kd2 {(Ke1) 41} Qc3+ {0.00/20 38} 57. Kd1 {8} Qb3+ {
0.00/22 75} 58. Ke1 {11} Qe3+ {0.00/23 37} 59. Kd1 {(Kf1) 10} Qb3+ {0.00/24 94}
1/2-1/2
And to Harvey for providing the hardware for Zappa and helping Zappa prepare on HIARCS resources (grrrr)
Great job Harvey also providing the transmission on Playchess and even helping the dark side do their online updates!
Overall a great performance by Zappa to pull off this match win.
- Ted Summers
- Member
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:20 pm
- Location: Marietta, GA
- Contact:
- Mark Uniacke
- Hiarcs Author
- Posts: 1458
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:32 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Round 9
[fen]7B/5k2/4p3/5pR1/4r1p1/8/3Kb3/8 b - - 0 71[/fen]
I just tried little Palm Hiarcs on this position and running on my handheld it knew Ke7 was the correct move and 71...f4??? was a blunder.
The moral: next time Rybka plays a match they need Palm Hiarcs as an advisor
I just tried little Palm Hiarcs on this position and running on my handheld it knew Ke7 was the correct move and 71...f4??? was a blunder.
The moral: next time Rybka plays a match they need Palm Hiarcs as an advisor
- Sebastian Boehme
- Member
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:59 am
- Location: Bernburg (Germany)
- Contact:
Amazing match,
just got back home and Harvey told me Zappa won.
Finally someone broke the Rybka dominance a little bit.
It feels good to know we could get back the times of before December 2005 sooner or later.
Zappa, Hiarcs, Junior and maybe Shredder and Fritz or some other talented programs will make engine life more equal.
It was too boring to see Rybka rule for over 2 years now. Cheers on a good future and by the way:
A new fish burger for the autumn- Enjoy!
Regards,
Sebi
just got back home and Harvey told me Zappa won.
Finally someone broke the Rybka dominance a little bit.
It feels good to know we could get back the times of before December 2005 sooner or later.
Zappa, Hiarcs, Junior and maybe Shredder and Fritz or some other talented programs will make engine life more equal.
It was too boring to see Rybka rule for over 2 years now. Cheers on a good future and by the way:
A new fish burger for the autumn- Enjoy!
Regards,
Sebi