|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-04-17 | | offramp: This game is getting cormier and cormier by the minute. |
|
Oct-04-17
 | | ajk68: Caruana had four significant mistakes and one full-out blunder: 22. Bc2?
25. Qb2?
26. Kd2?
29. Bf5?
35. Qe3?? |
|
Oct-05-17
 | | keypusher: < cormier: 1) +0.32 (21 ply) 22.Nf5 Bxf5 23.gxf5 Nc6 24.Bd5 cormier: 1) +0.70 (22 ply) 21.Bxb3 Be6 22.Nf5 Qf8 23.Ba2 Nb7 24.Bd5 Bxd5 25.exd5> Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! How about some context? I notice that the engine, analyzing from move 21, likes 22.Nf5 a lot more than it does analyzing from move 22. The drop in evaluation may be a clue to the most interesting thing about this game -- how Caruana seemed to fall apart completely after 22.Bc2. It's not a terrible move at a glance -- Black's pieces are sort of tripping over each other, and Black's bishop is occupying a a good square for the knight mouldering on the back rank. So you can see why Caruana would want to leave that bishop on the board. But at a second look, b7 turns out to be a fine alternative for the N-- surely Caruana could see that. To me 22.Bc2 feels like an expedient -- the sort of thing a player settles on hurriedly after thinking and thinking about something aggressive (like 22.Nf5) and deciding it wasn't as good as he had previously believed. It reminded me of Taimanov thinking and thinking about 20.Qh3 in this game, finally bailing out with 20.Nf3, and going down ingloriously thereafter. 
click for larger viewTaimanov vs Fischer, 1971 |
|
| Oct-05-17 | | Sally Simpson: Hi K.P.
You are a brave man going through that lost but we have to bear in mind the lad's profile User: cormier he does say he speaks only a little English. So no explanations or context. This is the lad I put on ignore when watching a live game on here because I dislike getting clues. I take him or anyone else who slips in computer lines off ignore after the game is over. |
|
| Oct-05-17 | | fisayo123: Carlsen has finally come to his senses cut out the Berlin nonsense and realized his own strength in the Closed Ruy Lopez. |
|
| Oct-05-17 | | Petrosianic: If only he'd had you to advise him, think how much earlier he would have realized this. |
|
Oct-05-17
| | keypusher: <fisayo123> I was going to say <well, the loosey-goosey stuff he was playing here, there was no way he'd play a Berlin, but that doesn't tell you anything about his long-term preferences>. But then I checked, and it seems like he really has been favoring 3...a6 lately, including against Karjakin last year. But 2018, we'll see, though I hope you are right. |
|
Oct-05-17
 | | AylerKupp: <<keypusher> I’ve tried to tell <cormier> that Stockfish needs higher search depths than the low 20-plies in order for its evaluations to have any credibility but apparently he either disagrees or does not get it. He might as well be running Ziggurat 0.22 (the lowest rated engine in the CCRL engine tournament list). Maybe if I posted my opinion in French he would understand it. Along those lines, has anyone downloaded and tried SugaR? It’s a Stockfish derivative developed by Marco Zerbinati and Todd Romstad (one of the main Stockfish developers) and it’s the #1 ranked engine in the current CCRL rating list. |
|
| Oct-05-17 | | scholes: Only because latest SF dev is not tested. See here. http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi... |
|
| Oct-05-17 | | scholes: By the way Sugar is 99.9% Stockfish. It is just legal clone. It is developed by Marco Zerbinati only. Saying it is derivative is not correct. Sugarxpro 1.2 is based june-july sf dev version hence number 1 in list ahead of sf8. |
|
Oct-05-17
| | AylerKupp: <<scholes> Saying it is derivative is not correct.> I suppose that depends on what one means by the words “derivative” and “clone”. This is what their web site says: “Sugar, a UCI chess playing engine derived from Stockfish. Copyright (C) 2008-2016 Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski, Tord Romstad”. Maybe I just took the web site’s author word for it. I would consider as derivative any chess engine that contains more than 50% of its code from another engine, but that percentage guideline is arbitrary. I can’t say where the line between “derivative” and “clone”, if indeed there is one, should be drawn. And how did you get that 99.9% number? Did you do a source code comparison using WinDiff or similar program or did you just make it up? If you didn’t do a source comparison then you should not casually throw around numbers like 99.9%, 99%, 90%, or anything else. As far as I’m concerned any software that has not been tested does not exist as a viable product, and I spent 40 years either developing or managing the development of software. It doesn’t matter if a chess engine is rated at 4999 if it is not sufficiently stable to be used. Only when the latest Stockfish development version is released and tested against other engines in an open competitive environment would I consider its playing strength credible. |
|
| Oct-06-17 | | Appaz: <AylerKupp: This is what their web site says: “Sugar, a UCI chess playing engine derived from Stockfish. Copyright (C) 2008-2016 Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski, Tord Romstad”. Maybe I just took the web site’s author word for it.> The three guys you mentioned are the original developers of Stockfish, and are not involved with SugaR. Nothing like that is implied by the site author. |
|
| Oct-06-17 | | scholes: <AylerKupp>
Read all comments of Milos ,co-author of Fire, 2nd strongest free chess engine http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi... <As far as I’m concerned any software that has not been tested does not exist as a viable product, and I spent 40 years either developing or managing the development of software. It doesn’t matter if a chess engine is rated at 4999 if it is not sufficiently stable to be used. Only when the latest Stockfish development version is released and tested against other engines in an open competitive environment would I consider its playing strength credible.> Every stockfish dev version is as stable as others. There is zilch testing for final version. They call it 5,6,7 when they reach 50 elo improvement or year is over or when they feel like it. Stockfish has army of testers at fishtest. Sugar has only private testers. |
|
Oct-06-17
| | AylerKupp: <<Appaz> The three guys you mentioned are the original developers of Stockfish, and are not involved with SugaR. Nothing like that is implied by the site author.> Yes, you’re right. I knew that those three were the original developers of Stockfish and somehow I deluded myself into thinking that it was a “coincidence” that they were also involved with SugaR, in spite of the fact that this didn’t make any sense. So I clearly misunderstood what the citation said. Which then makes me wonder what Marco Zerbinati’s contribution is. When I get back home I will run download both the latest SugaR and the latest development version of Stockfish and run WinDiff to see what the source code difference between them is. Maybe there isn’t any and it’s just a way to get the latest non-released version of Stockfish into engine tournaments before formally releasing a new version of Stockfish? |
|
Oct-06-17
| | AylerKupp: <scholes> Yes, I misunderstood (it obviously wasn’t a good day for me regarding reading comprehension!) what you said and thought that you meant that the latest Stockfish development version had not been tested. Which, of course, is not the case. Still, I don’t pay any attention of the Elo improvement claims made by chess engine developers until that version’s performance is validated by its performance in engine vs. engine tournaments. It’s too easy for software developers to drink their own bathwater. And see my comments to <Appaz> above about trying to find out what the differences are between the latest SugaR and the latest Stockfish development version. |
|
| Oct-14-17 | | Timi: Positional masterpiece |
|
Oct-14-17
 | | chancho: What has been noted from Carlsen's varied setbacks is an unquenchable desire to further improve and his love for the game has not diminished one bit. This guy is most likely going to be at the forefront of the chessic landscape for a looong time. |
|
| Oct-30-17 | | yurikvelo: https://pastebin.com/gchCf7PX
list of Caruana's blunders |
|
Oct-30-17
| | keypusher: < yurikvelo: https://pastebin.com/gchCf7PX
list of Caruana's blunders>
I count one. How many did you get? |
|
| Mar-29-18 | | PJs Studio: Love how Carlsen played this game. Cool and calm defense just waiting for a small inaccuracy by Caruana. Should be a GREAT WC Match! Can’t wait! |
|
| Oct-07-18 | | cormier: 
click for larger viewAnalysis by Houdini 4: d 20 dpa
1. - / + (-1.27): 27.Re1 Bb8 28.Nf3 Nf6 29.Nxe5 dxe4 30.Nxe4 Bxe5 31.dxe5 Nxg4 32.Bd4 Bc4 33.Nd6 Nxe5 34.Bxe5 Rxe5 35.Rxe5 Qxd6 36.Re3 Bxd3 37.Rxa5 Bc4 38.Ra1 Qb6 39.Qb1 a5 40.Qf5 Be6 41.Qe5 Rd8 42.Rg3 g6 43.Qf4 Kh7 44.Qe4 Bf5 45.Qe3 2. - / + (-1.30): 27.Bf1 Ng5 28.Bg2 Bb6 29.Re1 exd4 30.Bxd4 dxe4 31.Ndxe4 Bxd4 32.cxd4 Nc4 33.Qb1 Nxe4 34.Nxe4 Qxd4 35.Rxa6 Rcd8 36.Ng3 Ne5 37.Qe4 Nd3 38.Qxd4 Rxd4 39.Re3 b4 40.Nf5 Rd7 |
|
| Oct-07-18 | | cormier: 
click for larger viewAnalysis by Houdini 4: d 21 dpa done
1. - / + (-0.97): 26...Bb6 27.Nf3 Bc4 28.Bc2 Ng5 29.Nxg5 hxg5 30.Rd1 d5 31.Qb1 exd4 32.cxd4 g6 33.Qb2 Re6 34.Ra3 Rec6 35.Bb1 Qe7 36.Qa1 Qc7 37.Bxg5 f6 38.Be3 b4 2. - / + (-0.74): 26...d5 27.Re1 Ng5 28.Bxg5 hxg5 29.Nf3 exd4 30.cxd4 Bb6 31.e5 Rc6 32.Qb1 Bc7 33.Bf5 Bxf5 34.Nxf5 Nc4 35.Kg2 Ree6 36.Qb3 g6 37.Ne3 Ba5 38.Rec1 Rc7 39.Nxc4 dxc4 40.Qe3 3. = / + (-0.69): 26...Ng5 27.Bxg5 hxg5 28.Qa3 exd4 29.Qxa5 Qxa5 30.Rxa5 Rxc3 31.Rxc3 dxc3 32.Nf3 Bc8 33.Nxg5 Bc5 34.Ra1 g6 35.Kf1 f6 36.Nf3 b4 37.Ne2 Bb7 38.Nfd4 Bxe4 39.Bxe4 Rxe4 40.Nb3 Kf7 41.Rxa6 f5 42.gxf5 gxf5 43.Nec1 Rh4 44.Nxc5 dxc5 45.Ke2 Rxh3 46.Kd1 |
|
| Oct-07-18 | | cormier: it seem's 26.Nd2 was not the best ..... |
|
| Oct-07-18 | | cormier: 
click for larger viewAnalysis by Houdini 4: d 24 dpa only done
<1. = / + (-0.53): 26.Ra3> Bc4 27.Rca1 Bb6 28.Qb1 exd4 29.cxd4 Ng5 30.Bxg5 hxg5 31.Kg2 Rb8 32.Bxc4 bxc4 33.Qb4 Bc7 34.Qc3 Nb3 35.Qxc4 Nxa1 36.Rxa1 d5 37.Qxd5 Qxd5 38.exd5 Bxg3 39.Kxg3 Rb5 40.Rxa6 Rxd5 41.Ra7 f6 42.h4 gxh4+ 43.Kxh4 Rb5 44.Nd2 <2. = / + (-0.56): 26.Re1> Bc4 27.Qe2 exd4 28.cxd4 d5 29.e5 Bxd3 30.Qxd3 Re6 31.Nf5 Bb8 32.Nd2 Nf8 33.Ra3 Nc4 34.Nxc4 dxc4 35.Qc3 Ng6 36.Rea1 Rcc6 37.Qb4 Qd5 38.Qd2 Ne7 39.Qb4 Nxf5 40.gxf5 Re8 41.Rxa6 Rxa6 42.Rxa6 Bc7 |
|
| Oct-07-18 | | cormier: 
click for larger viewAnalysis by Houdini 4: d 25 dpa done
<1. = (0.00): 25.Rcb1> Qc7 26.Kg2 Red8 27.d5 Bxe3 28.Qxe3 Bd7 29.c4 Nc5 30.cxb5 Nxd3 31.Qxd3 Bxb5 32.Qe3 Qc3 33.Qb6 Nf8 34.Rc1 Qb2 35.Rab1 Qa3 36.Ra1 Qb2 37.Rab1 2. = (-0.15): 25.d5 Bxe3 26.Qxe3 Bd7 27.c4 Nxa5 28.cxb5 Rxc1+ 29.Rxc1 axb5 30.Qa7 Nb3 31.Rb1 Nc5 32.Bxb5 Qb8 33.Qa2 Bxb5 34.Qa5 Nf6 35.Nd2 Nd3 36.Qxb5 Qxb5 37.Rxb5 Rc8 38.Rb6 Rc2 39.Ngf1 Ne8 40.h4 Kf8 41.Kg2 Ke7 42.Kg3 Kd7 43.Rb7+ Nc7 44.Ra7 Nf4 45.h5 Nd3 46.f3 Nf4 |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
