chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Stockfish (Computer) vs AlphaZero (Computer)
AlphaZero - Stockfish Match (2018), London ENG, Jan-18
Italian Game: Two Knights Defense. Fried Liver Attack (C57)  ·  1/2-1/2
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 219 more Stockfish/AlphaZero games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
Jan-10-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: The computer improves on Polerio vs Domenico, 1610 where Black played 8...Ne7.

There is a to-and-fro middle game which ends up in this ending:


click for larger view

114.Kf5!▢

Soon aferwards we reach this well known drawn position,


click for larger view

and they could have stopped there.

Jan-11-19  zanzibar: <offramp> When you say "the computer improves on 8...Ne7" it's slightly misleading... after all, you noted elsewhere, the "book" comment in the PGN shows the opening was forced by "human" intervention.

So the improvement, as played, is really by the AlphaZero team, who determined opening play before unleashing the engines.

Here are the two games from the match (each engine get one chance at handling both sides of the board):

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Here's the bookend game:

AlphaZero vs Stockfish, 2018

Of course <offramp>'s comment is interesting in a historical sense - but for exploring the opening play from here:


click for larger view

.

Jan-11-19  zanzibar: I could make some obvious comments about the futility of exploring an opening position with a statistical sample of one game (per color).

This should be obvious - and the AlphaZero team really should have released other games, if they indeed even had any, from the same position.

(OK, I have to reread their paper - but <CG> seems to have all the games A0 released)

But one has to question exactly why they explored this given position in the first place.

I'll have a look at the database stats in a future post (see last comment of this post, below).

But in the other game I commented negatively about the relevancy of the move 5...Nxd5. It turns out that Heisman (of the Dan H fame), actually published an entire book devoted to this move:

https://www.amazon.com/Fried-Liver-...

Whereupon we find two one-star comments, one of which I'll quote here:

<
C. Amari
1.0 out of 5 stars?!
August 25, 2008

This is an analysis of the Fried Liver that covers only one black option on move 5. There is no coverage of 5...Na5 or 5...Nb4, for instance. I'm not sure that the sole move addressed, 5...Nxd5 is even the most common. I suppose one can, by way of defining "Fried Liver Attack" narrowly, limit the scope of this exercise, but those who expect the analysis to begin at 4.Ng5 will be disappointed. Indeed, since there is no relevant comparative analysis at all, there is no real support for the view that 5...Nxd5 is even best. Hence anyone seeking a resource for Black to plan a response to 4.Ng5 (I suspect the motivation of many potential purchasers) will find that all the paths charted begin with a single step - and that may be a misstep.

Also, the interface with Chessbase Reader has some bugs in it.

>

In point of fact, my <MillBase> db shows only 2% of the Two Knight Fried Liver games have Black playing 5...Nxd5.

.

Jan-13-19  Albion 1959: Why did they not pull the plug at move 118 ? Save everyone another eighty pointless moves !
Jan-14-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <C. Amari
1.0 out of 5 stars?!
August 25, 2008

This is an analysis of the Fried Liver that covers only one black option on move 5. There is no coverage of 5...Na5 or 5...Nb4, for instance. I'm not sure that the sole move addressed, 5...Nxd5 is even the most common. I suppose one can, by way of defining "Fried Liver Attack" narrowly, limit the scope of this exercise, but those who expect the analysis to begin at 4.Ng5 will be disappointed. Indeed, since there is no relevant comparative analysis at all, there is no real support for the view that 5...Nxd5 is even best. Hence anyone seeking a resource for Black to plan a response to 4.Ng5 (I suspect the motivation of many potential purchasers) will find that all the paths charted begin with a single step - and that may be a misstep.

Also, the interface with Chessbase Reader has some bugs in it.>

<zanzibar>

I'm pretty sure that 5....Nxd5 6.Nxf7 <is> the Fried Liver. Even 5....Nxd5 6.d4 doesn't qualify, strictly speaking. The FL is just an (obsolete) variation of the Two Knights Defense. Readers can certainly question Heisman's judgment in writing a whole book about one (lousy) variation of the Two Knights, but having made that choice, he was pretty much obligated to leave 5....Nd4 and 5....Na5 (and 4....Bc5) out.

<Albion 1959: Why did they not pull the plug at move 118 ? Save everyone another eighty pointless moves !>

Valid question....

Jan-15-19  zanzibar: <KP> yes, I somehow got it in my head that the (generic) <Two Knights, 4.Ng5> was the start of the Fried Liver.

My mistake, and as you point out, 6.Nxf7 is the correct <Fried Liver> sequence.

The 6.d4 variation is the <Lolli>, I believe.

Still, the points I was trying to make remain true - Black shouldn't allow White to choose between the two (see the AlphaZero paper- this TCEC (2016) opening is one of the most lopsided).

I wonder what Heisman's rationale for his book was? I thought he was a pretty straight shooter for beginners - and this stuff should be avoided, unless you want a lopsided game.

(Which, btw- was part of the rationale for the change of openings in TCEC (2016). These openings were chosen, somewhat ad-hoc, by venator (aka Jeroen Noomen)

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybka...

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybka...)

Jan-15-19  scholes: In tcec season 8, superfinal had draw rate of 91 per cent in 100 games. So they started using skewed openings.
Jan-17-19  zanzibar: <scholes> yes, I'm looking into this a bit more now. <venator>, aka Noomen, says as much in the post:

<

Now it is time to tell you more about my opening selection for this final. Here is my summary:

"My first intention for the TCEC 9 super final was to use short, balanced opening lines. While making the set during the TCEC 8 super final (played in 2015), I changed my mind, though. In this final it became clear that balanced lines were leading to relatively level and quiet games and the number of wins turned out to be very limited: only 11 wins, the remaining 89 games being drawn.

During the TCEC 8 final many people were asking for more imbalanced positions, to get more exciting chess and more decisive results. I decided to listen to the suggestions in the chat and use them in the opening set for the TCEC 9 super final. Here is a small selection of the suggestions that I used for the set:

Play sharp main lines
Play gambits
Play shorter lines, but also longer lines if this is necessary to get an interesting game
Play positions with opposite castling to create an asymmetrical position
Play positions with other imbalances, like f.e. weak pawns, pair of bishops, more space, non-symmetrical pawn structures
Play positions that are positionally more difficult for engines
Play the most topical opening variations to get as much variety as possible

A position from the final set had to met several criteria:

No 0.00 score after leaving book
No easy way to make a draw
No easy way to exchange a lot of pieces quickly
Most pieces should still be on the board

In the end I think I succeeded to assemble an interesting set, that can lead to a lot of exciting games. More exciting chess has been my main goal. The other one being (hopefully) more decisive results. Of course it takes two to tango, the engines must be willing to make a great fight of it! >

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybka...

(slightly edited)

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is 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 login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Comp Chomps, Chumps & Challenges CageFredthebear
by fredthebear
116.g8=Q, 118...c1=Q, 154.h8=Q
from Promotion: Three by Penguincw


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC