|US Championship (2017)|
The 2017 U.S. Championship was a 12 player round-robin with Caruana, So, Nakamura, Robson, Shankland, Xiong, Kamsky, Onischuk, Naroditsky, Akobian, Zherebukh, and Shabalov. Wesley So became US Champion after defeating Onischuk in the rapid tiebreak phase: US Championship (Tiebreak) (2017).
The players competed for USD $194,000 in prize money as well as the coveted title of U.S. Champion. For the 9th consecutive year the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis hosted the championship.
The time control was 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game, plus 30-second increments per move starting from move 1. Agreed draws were not allowed before move 30. (1)
Official site: http://www.uschesschamps.com/2017-u.... Crosstable: https://uschesschamps.com/pgn/2017%...
(1) chess24: U.S. Championship https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...
| page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 66
|1. Shabalov vs S Shankland
|| ||½-½||42||2017||US Championship||B82 Sicilian, Scheveningen|
|2. J Xiong vs Y Zherebukh
|| ||½-½||26||2017||US Championship||E60 King's Indian Defense|
|3. Nakamura vs Akobian
||1-0||56||2017||US Championship||A07 King's Indian Attack|
|4. Robson vs Caruana
||0-1||40||2017||US Championship||C11 French|
|5. W So vs Shabalov
||1-0||29||2017||US Championship||D12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav|
|6. Akobian vs J Xiong
||½-½||68||2017||US Championship||D85 Grunfeld|
|7. Robson vs Nakamura
||0-1||65||2017||US Championship||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|8. Y Zherebukh vs Kamsky
||½-½||30||2017||US Championship||B28 Sicilian, O'Kelly Variation|
|9. Onischuk vs D Naroditsky
||½-½||34||2017||US Championship||E20 Nimzo-Indian|
|10. S Shankland vs Caruana
||½-½||37||2017||US Championship||E32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical|
|11. D Naroditsky vs Y Zherebukh
||½-½||66||2017||US Championship||B90 Sicilian, Najdorf|
|12. Shabalov vs Onischuk
||0-1||44||2017||US Championship||E06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3|
|13. J Xiong vs Robson
|| ||½-½||30||2017||US Championship||B90 Sicilian, Najdorf|
|14. Kamsky vs Akobian
||0-1||22||2017||US Championship||C07 French, Tarrasch|
|15. Caruana vs Nakamura
||½-½||58||2017||US Championship||B31 Sicilian, Rossolimo Variation|
|16. S Shankland vs W So
||½-½||37||2017||US Championship||C67 Ruy Lopez|
|17. Robson vs Kamsky
||1-0||58||2017||US Championship||B32 Sicilian|
|18. Akobian vs D Naroditsky
||0-1||58||2017||US Championship||D30 Queen's Gambit Declined|
|19. Y Zherebukh vs Shabalov
||1-0||49||2017||US Championship||A07 King's Indian Attack|
|20. Onischuk vs S Shankland
|| ||½-½||34||2017||US Championship||D45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav|
|21. Nakamura vs J Xiong
||½-½||31||2017||US Championship||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|22. W So vs Caruana
||½-½||49||2017||US Championship||C67 Ruy Lopez|
|23. Caruana vs J Xiong
||½-½||58||2017||US Championship||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|24. Shabalov vs Akobian
||½-½||33||2017||US Championship||A13 English|
|25. D Naroditsky vs Robson
|| ||½-½||30||2017||US Championship||B90 Sicilian, Najdorf|
| page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 66
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 27 ·
|Apr-14-17|| ||Tiggler: It is very difficult to be both lucid and succinct. <AylerKupp> is usually one, but seldom the other. I tend to be succinct, but thereby am often obscure.|
|Apr-14-17|| ||tuttifrutty: <I don't want you to welsh on your bet.>|
If someone bet, someone has to take the bet. Simple math, simple answer, simple conclusion.
|Apr-14-17|| ||saffuna: Yeah, but who to judge and how is always the problem.|
I for one understand every word <aylerkupp> writes. I swear to it. So you would lose, <tutti>.
|Apr-14-17|| ||tuttifrutty: <I for one understand every word <aylerkupp> writes. I swear to it. So you would lose, <tutti>.>|
So why didn't you take my bet???
|Apr-14-17|| ||saffuna: Like I said. Who can be the judge and how can you know he's telling the truth?|
|Apr-14-17|| ||AylerKupp: <tuttifrutty> Well, that's at least 2 people who claim to understand what I say. Which is more than I can say for myself since sometimes, particularly when someone asks me to clarify something I previously said, I go back and re-read my post and I'll be damned if I can understand it.|
Seriously (assuming I'm allowed to be serious for a moment), I didn't want to take your bet. As <saffuna> said, how would you know if they were telling the truth? I certainly wouldn't attest to that for every thing I write. I've even been known to praise a ridiculous analysis I posted that others thought I took seriously, even though I went to great pain to try to make sure that my joke was obvious. Besides, I wouldn't want to attempt to prevent you or anyone else from expressing themselves, as long as they abide by the <chessgames.com> posting guidelines. And you certainly do.
But, hey, I get it. I'm not everyone's cup of tea. If you don't want to see the stuff I post, just put me on your ignore list. I would not mind at all and even praise you for your good judgment. And I suspect that others on this site would do also.
But, fair warning, if you're going to put me on your ignore list, do it soon. I'm preparing my final response to <nok> and, while I am attempting to be as succinct as possible, one person's succinctness is another person's blabbering. And, as <saffuna> said, who can be the judge?
|Apr-14-17|| ||AylerKupp: <nok> I set up Stockfish to run single thread by limiting the number of threads for all engines in the Arena GUI and setting the number of threads for Stockfish 8 = 1 in the Arena engine configuration file. I restarted the analyses and verified that Stockfish was running single thread by looking at the processor utilization using the Windows Task Manager Performance tab and the system utilization level was at about 25%, just as you would expect if you had a single-thread engine running on a 4-core system. I ran 6 analyses to beyond d=35 in the single thread configuration and 3 additional analyses in the 4-thread configuration just to get more data.|
The results indicate that Stockfish 8 was 100% deterministic if running single thread. For the top 5 moves all 6 analyses had the <exact> same evaluations move rankings:
Move Eval Rank
-------- -------- -----------
14.f4 [+0.32] 1
14.Qd5 [+0.29] 2
14.d3 [+0.25] 3
14.Qc6 [+0.25] 3
14.Qa6 [+0.19] 5
The running times, number of nodes evaluated, nodes/sec, and principal variation were pretty consistent between analyses runs; the running times for the first 5 runs were all within 13 seconds of each other, the number of nodes evaluated were exactly the same for all 5 runs (2,043,736,889), the nodes evaluated rate within 3,212 nodes per sec in each run, and all the lines were the same for each of the 5 top moves for all of the analyses. So, while 5 runs is not a large statistical sample, it certainly looks like Stockfish 8 is deterministic when run in a single-thread configuration.
Note that restricting Stockfish to a single thread doesn't mean that it would always run in the same core. Recent Windows versions (I run an ancient XP) are symmetric multiprocessor (SMP) operating systems and, if Stockfish's thread was preempted as a result of 4 higher priority processes, then when it resumes it will be assigned to run in whatever core is available. This is what I saw; the overall system utilization was about 25% but there was a significant amount of activity (at various times, of course) in each of the various cores as a result of the Stockfish thread being moved around from core to core. So even in this less restrictive situation it still looks like Stockfish 8 is deterministic when run in a single-thread configuration.
In the first 5 single-thread runs I disabled my virus checker and kept off the computer. For the 6th run, just to see if it made a difference, I enabled my virus checker and ran other programs while the analysis was running just to see if this would affect the evaluations, the total number of nodes evaluated, and the node evaluation rate. It didn't. The running time was within 4 seconds of the longest running time of the previous 5 runs, the move rankings and evaluations were the same, the total number of nodes evaluated were the same, and the rate of node evaluations was slightly less than for the other 5 runs as you would expect given the extra 4 secs running time. So it looks like Stockfish 8 is still deterministic when running single-threaded even while other higher priority programs are running, at least if you have an adequate number of cores.
For comparison the average run time with 4 threads was 00:23:33, almost 1/2 the run time with 1 thread; the average number of nodes evaluated with 4 threads was 3,872,207,498, 1,828,470,609 <less> nodes than the average number of nodes evaluated with 1 thread (search tree pruning was obviously more efficient), yet the average node evaluation rate was 2,020,626 nodes/sec less than the average node evaluation rate with 1 thread. I suspect that this discrepancy is due to the coordination overhead between the threads but, with a running time approximately 1/2 with 4 threads rather than 1 thread, it's a good trade off.
For my own curiosity I will run a similar set of analyses with 2 threads. But don't worry, that's just to see how much more deterministic (if at all) Stockfish 8 is with 2 threads instead of 4 so I'm not going to post the results. Which I'm sure will make <tuttifrutty> happy if he doesn't have me on ignore.
|Apr-14-17|| ||Tiggler: <AylerKupp> Excellent experiment, explained with your usual exemplary clarity. It is a very nice verification of the intuition, that I presume <nok> shared, that there is nothing in the coding that accounts for non-deterministic behavior.|
As an aside, for those who lack your down-in-the-weeds knowledge of the subject, one only gets the results you quote after taking care to clear the hash-table between each test. As you know, the results can be profoundly different from run to run if this precaution is not followed. Advantage can be taken of this effect by experienced space-bar masters.
|Apr-15-17|| ||activechess55: Why no event page for Zurich and Grenke?|
|Apr-15-17|| ||tuttifrutty: It is, but don't panic...a tourney without Wesley, the US Champion, is not a tourney at all...|
|Apr-15-17|| ||morfishine: Don't be fooled by <aylerkupp> |
He's a typical left coast liberal, fixed in his own ideas who will blab on eternally trying to convince you he's correct. He won't acknowledge your viewpoints at all, which is typical of Liberals, and couches his condescending arguments in a veil of self-deprecation
This is all typical Liberal, lying, obnoxious behavior
I would avoid him like you'd avoid a viper
|Apr-15-17|| ||saffuna: <This is all typical Liberal, lying, obnoxious behavior|
I would avoid him like you'd avoid a viper >
Best endorsement for <aylerkupp> I've ever read!
|Apr-15-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: <tuttifrutty: <At any rate, I was trying to answer questions addressed to me, so I'm not sure why it bothers you that you don't understand my responses,>|
It does not bother me at all...short question requires short answer...it seems you were writing an award winning novel.>
What award did he win? I missed it...
|Apr-15-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: <<AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> Do computers get lucky>
Everything, of course, depends on your definition of "luck". One definition (which I got from an old fashioned dictionary book, just in case all the on-line definitions have been hacked by the computers)>|
It is good to know that someone is taking precautions in case on-line dictionaries are hacked by machines.
Some people prepare for FEMA camps. Others prepare for a zombie apocalypse, still others prepare for corruption of our internet dictionaries.
It isn't high on <my> list of concerns, but everyone is entitled to their own list.
|Apr-15-17|| ||Howard: Just read in the WSJ today that a book by Kasparov on AI comes out on May 2.|
|Apr-15-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<morfishine> He's a typical left coast liberal, fixed in his own ideas who will blab on eternally trying to convince you he's correct.>|
Wow! I don't know what I've done to elicit such a strong reaction from you or anyone else. Yes, I am, in general, a liberal and yes, I live in the left (west) coast and yes, I have a self-deprecating style. I would like to think that this is not a veil but evidence that I fortunately don't take myself too seriously, but perhaps that's part of what you consider obnoxious. So be it.
But perhaps I am biased in that I don't consider myself "typical". I will perhaps blab on eternally (guilty!) but other than on chess matters, I see no point in trying to convince you or anyone else who thinks like you that my views are correct. From experience I have found that to be a waste of time and life, IMHO, is too short to waste. But that's OK by me, everyone is entitled to their opinion. And as I have already indicated to <Joshka>, who apparently shares many your opinions, that I will not respond to political posts, only chess-related ones. And I'm not about to get into similar discussions with you or anyone else, only chess-related ones. Save them for the Kenneth S Rogoff page.
I frankly don't know what happened to you, unless someone else has taken over your user name. You used to be a pleasant, easy going person whose opinions I enjoyed and respected. But in the last couple of years your posts have been full of vitriol and I don't know why. It's none of my business, of course, I just hope that whatever changed your temperament is only temporary. It's OK to disagree, in fact our political system depends on it. One just has to keep as open a mind as possible, try to reach acceptable compromises, and hope for the best.
And if you wish to avoid me like a viper, why don't you just put me on your ignore list? I see no reason why you would have to suffer from what you called "lying and obnoxious" behavior. As I mentioned to <tuttifrutty>, it doesn't bother me in the least if you were to put me on your ignore list and I would even applaud you for your wisdom.
|Apr-15-17|| ||morfishine: Computers do not get "lucky"
Its all a matter of depth of database and speed of search
Nothing else matters with engines/computers
|Apr-15-17|| ||john barleycorn: < thegoodanarchist: <<AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> Do computers get lucky> Everything, of course, depends on your definition of "luck". ...>|
Here is what found its way into German jusrisdiction: Luck is independent of skill and memory of the players. and game of luck involves a serious disagreement of its outcome by the players and a "substantial" amount of money is involved.
|Apr-15-17|| ||Tiggler: <AylerKupp>:<I frankly don't know what happened to you>|
He stopped playing chess, is what happened. See his bio.
|Apr-15-17|| ||SirRuthless: <AylerKrupp> Trying to reason with people who don't want to be reasoned with is a waste of time. They will take all the ground you give and mock you in return.|
|Apr-15-17|| ||john barleycorn: < blunderclap: Sorry guys, I thought I had this all figured out, but a fatal flaw has emerged in my calculations. Goedel just told me that he just made that silly theorem of his up to @#$% me in the ass!>|
Take it up with <morfishine> since he pulls his *wisdom* out of the same hole.
|Apr-15-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<morfishine> Computers do not get "lucky">|
They probably don't in the general sense bit, if you remember, I limited the domain to chess engines, not computers in general, and put it in the context of non-determinism and the effect that it has on the alpha-beta algorithm. And it requires that one associates "luck" to some extent with "chance". I agree that this association is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I don't think that it is entirely inappropriate. There's even, as I just found out, a class of nondeterministic algorithms (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonde... for a very superficial discussion) that even have useful applications.
If you think that having chess engines spit out different move evaluations, rankings, lines, and even different top-5 moves (as I'll discuss in my next, hopefully very brief post, purely by chance does not constitute "luck", the I would be interested in knowing your definition of "luck".
And if quantum computers ever get built, they would surely generate non-deterministic results due to the uncertainty principle operating at the quantum level. But that is still off in the future and certainly an off-topic discussion for this site.
And, BTW, I'm not hung up on the subject, I just think that it's fun to speculate.
|Apr-15-17|| ||AylerKupp: <john barleycorn> I don't necessarily agree that luck is independent of skill and memory. In many games of "chance", the best players can calculate the odds of different outcomes. They would typically play according to the best odds but sometimes they might win even though they're playing against the odds, as when filling an inside straight in poker when your opponent holds 4 aces.|
But let me put it in chess terms because <Sally Simpson> and I had a related discussion some time back. In human chess, of course, when you are faced with a clearly losing position, playing for a swindle is certainly understandable. Against a computer this would probably not work, but if a human was playing against a computer (perhaps he was given odds) and happened to find himself in a winning position, wouldn't the computer be justified (assuming that it was programmed to do so) to attempt to swindle his opponent? Chess engines would not typically do this, when faced with all possibilities being losses, they would pick the line that delays the inevitable as long as possible; i.e. the horizon effect as I believe was originally defined.
But let's assume that an engine had been programmed to attempt a swindle when it was in a lost position and its human opponent overlooked his best move and the computer won. Would you in that situation consider that the computer got "lucky"?
|Apr-15-17|| ||morfishine: <SirRuthless> Just do us all a favor and STFU|
<blunderclap> Just do us all a favor and crawl back under the rock you came from
|Apr-15-17|| ||john barleycorn: <AylerKupp: <john barleycorn> I don't necessarily agree that luck is independent of skill and memory. In many games of "chance", the best players can calculate the odds of different outcomes. ...>|
Yes, calculating all the outcomes is satisfying in a sense. the problem is just to get the *right card* and that is the factor of luck.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 27 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC