OpenChess

Black's 16th move was the novelty; following Guest 42, Rybka 3 - Takker, Rybka 3, 1/2-1/2, 2008.10.29.

Is this one over now? I was going to say that I thought it was fairly drawish after White's 17th move, but computers might not understand the various imbalances that can occur. I prefer 17. Re1, and the two Bishops should be more valuable after the Queen trade than in the game. If nothing else, White could torture Black for a long time, with a nagging edge. Oh wait, that's what has transpired in any event.

Thanks Nelson

BB+, the game is going on. I think I have a won game, probably 64x is currently too busy to play, but I can wait as much as necessary to continue. I hope he keeps playing until there is no doubt about the result (that if I'm wrong would be a draw).

Hi Uly... back online after a busy few months (moved, married, switch jobs). Very sorry for not being in closer contact.

Just catching up with everything new in computer chess ( ). I know you are playing a lot of games nowadays, and I need some time to re-settle, but let's re-connect and see when we can continue this (maybe after the summer is over).

Wow! Welcome back 64x! I'm very happy to see you, as I'm used to seeing opponents go and never come back, I'm glad you weren't one of them.

Congratulations on your marriage and thanks for remembering this game , I'll for sure put you in the top of my list for game continuation, we can resume the game as soon as you want if you're willing to wait for my moves whenever I can make them.

Great! I will find my notes this coming weekend and see where we were at. I expect to resume around the first week of September, expecting you will reply only as your schedule allows. I think you have won (my situation does not qualify as a fortress), but let's see it through.

PS.Read your "battle of the methods" thread @RF, I would love to hear the translation sometime .

64x wrote:PS.Read your "battle of the methods" thread @RF, I would love to hear the translation sometime .

Probably some day... though I'd be ashamed on some of the analysis methods, since that very match has shown several flaws in my thinking processes that would probably be evident from someone hearing the depiction of what I'm doing.

For instance, a method I used to rely on 2 years ago was "Election Analysis", in where, I would analyze a position with engine A, get its move, analyze with engine B, get its move, and so, and so.

I would record the move choices of the engines as a "vote", and would consider the a move "best" if it got three votes, which meant that if three weak engines agreed on some bad move, I'd consider it best, and would move forward to the position after it, to continue the process, until the score dropped so that in the past position an engine would change its vote.

But the method relied on the engines that agreed on the votes, so if they were indeed weak and didn't understand the position, they wouldn't find the moves that refuted their votes. I lost games with it as the method is terribly flawed, later on I found out that I had it backwards.

It's not good that engines agree on a move like that, that's just redundancy and it's better to focus on engines that disagree and have different ideas. If an engine suggested a brilliancy and no other engine voted for it, it would have been pruned by Election Analysis, never to be found again.

From there, future analysis methods took the opposite approach of punishing redundancy, by not checking engines that suggested a move that was already suggested by another engine, and it turned to be much more effective.

Probably in two years I'll be telling you why I got rid of flawed analysis methods like the Carrousel, Pyramid or Ping Pong