Main Date: 18 Aug 2008 11:42:38 From: Guest Subject: Sanny: Some test positions for you Sanny; Here are some standard test positions for you to use with GetClub chess. The classic Bratko-Kopec test and the Win-At-Chess test. There are many other test sets, but these are classics that most people use. The Bratko-Kopec tests are particularly intersting, since they've been around so long and so many programs have done it. They aren't extensive enough, which is why people use additional test sets, but they are classics that most people use. These are done in fairly basic EPD strings. The first part is the FEN description, followed by 'bm' which stands for 'best move', followed by an identification string. (There are more complicated forms of EPD, that can have a move to avoid or multiple acceptable moves, etc. But these are fairly simple ones for you.) FEN starts at A8 and goes across to H8, then A7-H7, etc. Lowercase is black. Uppercase is white. Numbers are how many blank squares. Slashes indicate a new row. This is followed by w/b for side to move, followed by Castling (K=Kingside, Q=Queenside. Uppercase is white, lower case is black. - means no castling status. Kkq would mean White kingside, black bothsides. This is followed by the enpassant square. - means no enpassant possible. These are optionally follwed by half move clock & full move clock. You wont have that in these tests. Simply feed each position into GetClub and have it search, then compare the result, and report the results. Try searches for 5 seconds, 10 seconds and 30 seconds. A test script is easy to do. Or you can program the testing stuff into the program itself. That's what most people do because it makes testing easy that way. You just say "epdtest filename" and it grabs the test file, runs the tests, saves the results to a file and when you come back the results are ready for you. No human participation required. (Note: These tests have gotten a lot of research done on them. As a result, there are some who disagree with the results for various moves. However, the standard results are 'good enough' at this stage. No program gets all the right answers at the quicker time controls (without being specifically tuned to do so), so a few positions with different moves aren't significant right now.) Here are the classic Bratko-Kopec tests. ****Begin 1k1r4/pp1b1R2/3q2pp/4p3/2B5/4Q3/PPP2B2/2K5 b - - bm Qd1+; id "BK.01"; 3r1k2/4npp1/1ppr3p/p6P/P2PPPP1/1NR5/5K2/2R5 w - - bm d5; id "BK.02"; 2q1rr1k/3bbnnp/p2p1pp1/2pPp3/PpP1P1P1/1P2BNNP/2BQ1PRK/7R b - - bm f5; id "BK.03"; rnbqkb1r/p3pppp/1p6/2ppP3/3N4/2P5/PPP1QPPP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - bm e6; id "BK.04"; r1b2rk1/2q1b1pp/p2ppn2/1p6/3QP3/1BN1B3/PPP3PP/R4RK1 w - - bm Nd5 a4; id "BK.05"; 2r3k1/pppR1pp1/4p3/4P1P1/5P2/1P4K1/P1P5/8 w - - bm g6; id "BK.06"; 1nk1r1r1/pp2n1pp/4p3/q2pPp1N/b1pP1P2/B1P2R2/2P1B1PP/R2Q2K1 w - - bm Nf6; id "BK.07"; 4b3/p3kp2/6p1/3pP2p/2pP1P2/4K1P1/P3N2P/8 w - - bm f5; id "BK.08"; 2kr1bnr/pbpq4/2n1pp2/3p3p/3P1P1B/2N2N1Q/PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - bm f5; id "BK.09"; 3rr1k1/pp3pp1/1qn2np1/8/3p4/PP1R1P2/2P1NQPP/R1B3K1 b - - bm Ne5; id "BK.10"; 2r1nrk1/p2q1ppp/bp1p4/n1pPp3/P1P1P3/2PBB1N1/4QPPP/R4RK1 w - - bm f4; id "BK.11"; r3r1k1/ppqb1ppp/8/4p1NQ/8/2P5/PP3PPP/R3R1K1 b - - bm Bf5; id "BK.12"; r2q1rk1/4bppp/p2p4/2pP4/3pP3/3Q4/PP1B1PPP/R3R1K1 w - - bm b4; id "BK.13"; rnb2r1k/pp2p2p/2pp2p1/q2P1p2/8/1Pb2NP1/PB2PPBP/R2Q1RK1 w - - bm Qd2 Qe1; id "BK.14"; 2r3k1/1p2q1pp/2b1pr2/p1pp4/6Q1/1P1PP1R1/P1PN2PP/5RK1 w - - bm Qxg7+; id "BK.15"; r1bqkb1r/4npp1/p1p4p/1p1pP1B1/8/1B6/PPPN1PPP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - bm Ne4; id "BK.16"; r2q1rk1/1ppnbppp/p2p1nb1/3Pp3/2P1P1P1/2N2N1P/PPB1QP2/R1B2RK1 b - - bm h5; id "BK.17"; r1bq1rk1/pp2ppbp/2np2p1/2n5/P3PP2/N1P2N2/1PB3PP/R1B1QRK1 b - - bm Nb3; id "BK.18"; 3rr3/2pq2pk/p2p1pnp/8/2QBPP2/1P6/P5PP/4RRK1 b - - bm Rxe4; id "BK.19"; r4k2/pb2bp1r/1p1qp2p/3pNp2/3P1P2/2N3P1/PPP1Q2P/2KRR3 w - - bm g4; id "BK.20"; 3rn2k/ppb2rpp/2ppqp2/5N2/2P1P3/1P5Q/PB3PPP/3RR1K1 w - - bm Nh6; id "BK.21"; 2r2rk1/1bqnbpp1/1p1ppn1p/pP6/N1P1P3/P2B1N1P/1B2QPP1/R2R2K1 b - - bm Bxe4; id "BK.22"; r1bqk2r/pp2bppp/2p5/3pP3/P2Q1P2/2N1B3/1PP3PP/R4RK1 b kq - bm f6; id "BK.23"; r2qnrnk/p2b2b1/1p1p2pp/2pPpp2/1PP1P3/PRNBB3/3QNPPP/5RK1 w - - bm f4; id "BK.24"; ****End Here are the Win At Chess positions **Begin 2rr3k/pp3pp1/1nnqbN1p/3pN3/2pP4/2P3Q1/PPB4P/R4RK1 w - - bm Qg6; id "WAC.001"; 8/7p/5k2/5p2/p1p2P2/Pr1pPK2/1P1R3P/8 b - - bm Rxb2; id "WAC.002"; 5rk1/1ppb3p/p1pb4/6q1/3P1p1r/2P1R2P/PP1BQ1P1/5RKN w - - bm Rg3; id "WAC.003"; r1bq2rk/pp3pbp/2p1p1pQ/7P/3P4/2PB1N2/PP3PPR/2KR4 w - - bm Qxh7+; id "WAC.004"; 5k2/6pp/p1qN4/1p1p4/3P4/2PKP2Q/PP3r2/3R4 b - - bm Qc4+; id "WAC.005"; 7k/p7/1R5K/6r1/6p1/6P1/8/8 w - - bm Rb7; id "WAC.006"; rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/8/4P3/6n1/7P/PPPNPPP1/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - bm Ne3; id "WAC.007"; r4q1k/p2bR1rp/2p2Q1N/5p2/5p2/2P5/PP3PPP/R5K1 w - - bm Rf7; id "WAC.008"; 3q1rk1/p4pp1/2pb3p/3p4/6Pr/1PNQ4/P1PB1PP1/4RRK1 b - - bm Bh2+; id "WAC.009"; 2br2k1/2q3rn/p2NppQ1/2p1P3/Pp5R/4P3/1P3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Rxh7; id "WAC.010"; r1b1kb1r/3q1ppp/pBp1pn2/8/Np3P2/5B2/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - bm Bxc6; id "WAC.011"; 4k1r1/2p3r1/1pR1p3/3pP2p/3P2qP/P4N2/1PQ4P/5R1K b - - bm Qxf3+; id "WAC.012"; 5rk1/pp4p1/2n1p2p/2Npq3/2p5/6P1/P3P1BP/R4Q1K w - - bm Qxf8+; id "WAC.013"; r2rb1k1/pp1q1p1p/2n1p1p1/2bp4/5P2/PP1BPR1Q/1BPN2PP/R5K1 w - - bm Qxh7+; id "WAC.014"; 1R6/1brk2p1/4p2p/p1P1Pp2/P7/6P1/1P4P1/2R3K1 w - - bm Rxb7; id "WAC.015"; r4rk1/ppp2ppp/2n5/2bqp3/8/P2PB3/1PP1NPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - bm Nc3; id "WAC.016"; 1k5r/pppbn1pp/4q1r1/1P3p2/2NPp3/1QP5/P4PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - bm Ne5; id "WAC.017"; R7/P4k2/8/8/8/8/r7/6K1 w - - bm Rh8; id "WAC.018"; r1b2rk1/ppbn1ppp/4p3/1QP4q/3P4/N4N2/5PPP/R1B2RK1 w - - bm c6; id "WAC.019"; r2qkb1r/1ppb1ppp/p7/4p3/P1Q1P3/2P5/5PPP/R1B2KNR b kq - bm Bb5; id "WAC.020"; 5rk1/1b3p1p/pp3p2/3n1N2/1P6/P1qB1PP1/3Q3P/4R1K1 w - - bm Qh6; id "WAC.021"; r1bqk2r/ppp1nppp/4p3/n5N1/2BPp3/P1P5/2P2PPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - bm Ba2 Nxf7; id "WAC.022"; r3nrk1/2p2p1p/p1p1b1p1/2NpPq2/3R4/P1N1Q3/1PP2PPP/4R1K1 w - - bm g4; id "WAC.023"; 6k1/1b1nqpbp/pp4p1/5P2/1PN5/4Q3/P5PP/1B2B1K1 b - - bm Bd4; id "WAC.024"; 3R1rk1/8/5Qpp/2p5/2P1p1q1/P3P3/1P2PK2/8 b - - bm Qh4+; id "WAC.025"; 3r2k1/1p1b1pp1/pq5p/8/3NR3/2PQ3P/PP3PP1/6K1 b - - bm Bf5; id "WAC.026"; 7k/pp4np/2p3p1/3pN1q1/3P4/Q7/1r3rPP/2R2RK1 w - - bm Qf8+; id "WAC.027"; 1r1r2k1/4pp1p/2p1b1p1/p3R3/RqBP4/4P3/1PQ2PPP/6K1 b - - bm Qe1+; id "WAC.028"; r2q2k1/pp1rbppp/4pn2/2P5/1P3B2/6P1/P3QPBP/1R3RK1 w - - bm c6; id "WAC.029"; 1r3r2/4q1kp/b1pp2p1/5p2/pPn1N3/6P1/P3PPBP/2QRR1K1 w - - bm Nxd6; id "WAC.030"; rb3qk1/pQ3ppp/4p3/3P4/8/1P3N2/1P3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxa8 d6 dxe6; id "WAC.031"; 6k1/p4p1p/1p3np1/2q5/4p3/4P1N1/PP3PPP/3Q2K1 w - - bm Qd8+; id "WAC.032"; 8/p1q2pkp/2Pr2p1/8/P3Q3/6P1/5P1P/2R3K1 w - - bm Qe5+ Qf4; id "WAC.033"; 7k/1b1r2p1/p6p/1p2qN2/3bP3/3Q4/P5PP/1B1R3K b - - bm Bg1; id "WAC.034"; r3r2k/2R3pp/pp1q1p2/8/3P3R/7P/PP3PP1/3Q2K1 w - - bm Rxh7+; id "WAC.035"; 3r4/2p1rk2/1pQq1pp1/7p/1P1P4/P4P2/6PP/R1R3K1 b - - bm Re1+; id "WAC.036"; 2r5/2rk2pp/1pn1pb2/pN1p4/P2P4/1N2B3/nPR1KPPP/3R4 b - - bm Nxd4+; id "WAC.037"; 4k3/p4prp/1p6/2b5/8/2Q3P1/P2R1PKP/4q3 w - - bm Rd8+; id "WAC.038"; r1br2k1/pp2bppp/2nppn2/8/2P1PB2/2N2P2/PqN1B1PP/R2Q1R1K w - - bm Na4; id "WAC.039"; 3r1r1k/1p4pp/p4p2/8/1PQR4/6Pq/P3PP2/2R3K1 b - - bm Rc8; id "WAC.040"; 1k6/5RP1/1P6/1K6/6r1/8/8/8 w - - bm Ka5 Kc5; id "WAC.041"; r1b1r1k1/pp1n1pbp/1qp3p1/3p4/1B1P4/Q3PN2/PP2BPPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Ba5; id "WAC.042"; r2q3k/p2P3p/1p3p2/3QP1r1/8/B7/P5PP/2R3K1 w - - bm Be7 Qxa8; id "WAC.043"; 3rb1k1/pq3pbp/4n1p1/3p4/2N5/2P2QB1/PP3PPP/1B1R2K1 b - - bm dxc4; id "WAC.044"; 7k/2p1b1pp/8/1p2P3/1P3r2/2P3Q1/1P5P/R4qBK b - - bm Qxa1; id "WAC.045"; r1bqr1k1/pp1nb1p1/4p2p/3p1p2/3P4/P1N1PNP1/1PQ2PP1/3RKB1R w K - bm Nb5; id "WAC.046"; r1b2rk1/pp2bppp/2n1pn2/q5B1/2BP4/2N2N2/PP2QPPP/2R2RK1 b - - bm Nxd4; id "WAC.047"; 1rbq1rk1/p1p1bppp/2p2n2/8/Q1BP4/2N5/PP3PPP/R1B2RK1 b - - bm Rb4; id "WAC.048"; 2b3k1/4rrpp/p2p4/2pP2RQ/1pP1Pp1N/1P3P1P/1q6/6RK w - - bm Qxh7+; id "WAC.049"; k4r2/1R4pb/1pQp1n1p/3P4/5p1P/3P2P1/r1q1R2K/8 w - - bm Rxb6+; id "WAC.050"; r1bq1r2/pp4k1/4p2p/3pPp1Q/3N1R1P/2PB4/6P1/6K1 w - - bm Rg4+; id "WAC.051"; r1k5/1p3q2/1Qpb4/3N1p2/5Pp1/3P2Pp/PPPK3P/4R3 w - - bm Re7; id "WAC.052"; 6k1/6p1/p7/3Pn3/5p2/4rBqP/P4RP1/5QK1 b - - bm Re1; id "WAC.053"; r3kr2/1pp4p/1p1p4/7q/4P1n1/2PP2Q1/PP4P1/R1BB2K1 b q - bm Qh1+; id "WAC.054"; r3r1k1/pp1q1pp1/4b1p1/3p2B1/3Q1R2/8/PPP3PP/4R1K1 w - - bm Qxg7+; id "WAC.055"; r1bqk2r/pppp1ppp/5n2/2b1n3/4P3/1BP3Q1/PP3PPP/RNB1K1NR b KQkq - bm Bxf2+; id "WAC.056"; r3q1kr/ppp5/3p2pQ/8/3PP1b1/5R2/PPP3P1/5RK1 w - - bm Rf8+; id "WAC.057"; 8/8/2R5/1p2qp1k/1P2r3/2PQ2P1/5K2/8 w - - bm Qd1+; id "WAC.058"; r1b2rk1/2p1qnbp/p1pp2p1/5p2/2PQP3/1PN2N1P/PB3PP1/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nd5; id "WAC.059"; rn1qr1k1/1p2np2/2p3p1/8/1pPb4/7Q/PB1P1PP1/2KR1B1R w - - bm Qh8+; id "WAC.060"; 3qrbk1/ppp1r2n/3pP2p/3P4/2P4P/1P3Q2/PB6/R4R1K w - - bm Qf7+; id "WAC.061"; 6r1/3Pn1qk/p1p1P1rp/2Q2p2/2P5/1P4P1/P3R2P/5RK1 b - - bm Rxg3+; id "WAC.062"; r1brnbk1/ppq2pp1/4p2p/4N3/3P4/P1PB1Q2/3B1PPP/R3R1K1 w - - bm Nxf7; id "WAC.063"; 8/6pp/3q1p2/3n1k2/1P6/3NQ2P/5PP1/6K1 w - - bm g4+; id "WAC.064"; 1r1r1qk1/p2n1p1p/bp1Pn1pQ/2pNp3/2P2P1N/1P5B/P6P/3R1RK1 w - - bm Ne7+; id "WAC.065"; 1k1r2r1/ppq5/1bp4p/3pQ3/8/2P2N2/PP4P1/R4R1K b - - bm Qxe5; id "WAC.066"; 3r2k1/p2q4/1p4p1/3rRp1p/5P1P/6PK/P3R3/3Q4 w - - bm Rxd5; id "WAC.067"; 6k1/5ppp/1q6/2b5/8/2R1pPP1/1P2Q2P/7K w - - bm Qxe3; id "WAC.068"; 2k5/pppr4/4R3/4Q3/2pp2q1/8/PPP2PPP/6K1 w - - bm f3 h3; id "WAC.069"; 2kr3r/pppq1ppp/3p1n2/bQ2p3/1n1PP3/1PN1BN1P/1PP2PP1/2KR3R b - - bm Na2+; id "WAC.070"; 2kr3r/pp1q1ppp/5n2/1Nb5/2Pp1B2/7Q/P4PPP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Nxa7+; id "WAC.071"; r3r1k1/pp1n1ppp/2p5/4Pb2/2B2P2/B1P5/P5PP/R2R2K1 w - - bm e6; id "WAC.072"; r1q3rk/1ppbb1p1/4Np1p/p3pP2/P3P3/2N4R/1PP1Q1PP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qd2; id "WAC.073"; 5r1k/pp4pp/2p5/2b1P3/4Pq2/1PB1p3/P3Q1PP/3N2K1 b - - bm Qf1+; id "WAC.074"; r3r1k1/pppq1ppp/8/8/1Q4n1/7P/PPP2PP1/RNB1R1K1 b - - bm Qd6; id "WAC.075"; r1b1qrk1/2p2ppp/pb1pnn2/1p2pNB1/3PP3/1BP5/PP2QPPP/RN1R2K1 w - - bm Bxf6; id "WAC.076"; 3r2k1/ppp2ppp/6q1/b4n2/3nQB2/2p5/P4PPP/RN3RK1 b - - bm Ng3; id "WAC.077"; r2q3r/ppp2k2/4nbp1/5Q1p/2P1NB2/8/PP3P1P/3RR1K1 w - - bm Ng5+; id "WAC.078"; r3k2r/pbp2pp1/3b1n2/1p6/3P3p/1B2N1Pq/PP1PQP1P/R1B2RK1 b kq - bm Qxh2+; id "WAC.079"; r4rk1/p1B1bpp1/1p2pn1p/8/2PP4/3B1P2/qP2QP1P/3R1RK1 w - - bm Ra1; id "WAC.080"; r4rk1/1bR1bppp/4pn2/1p2N3/1P6/P3P3/4BPPP/3R2K1 b - - bm Bd6; id "WAC.081"; 3rr1k1/pp3pp1/4b3/8/2P1B2R/6QP/P3q1P1/5R1K w - - bm Bh7+; id "WAC.082"; 3rr1k1/ppqbRppp/2p5/8/3Q1n2/2P3N1/PPB2PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxd7; id "WAC.083"; r2q1r1k/2p1b1pp/p1n5/1p1Q1bN1/4n3/1BP1B3/PP3PPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Qg8+; id "WAC.084"; kr2R3/p4r2/2pq4/2N2p1p/3P2p1/Q5P1/5P1P/5BK1 w - - bm Na6; id "WAC.085"; 8/p7/1ppk1n2/5ppp/P1PP4/2P1K1P1/5N1P/8 b - - bm Ng4+; id "WAC.086"; 8/p3k1p1/4r3/2ppNpp1/PP1P4/2P3KP/5P2/8 b - - bm Rxe5; id "WAC.087"; r6k/p1Q4p/2p1b1rq/4p3/B3P3/4P3/PPP3P1/4RRK1 b - - bm Rxg2+; id "WAC.088"; 1r3b1k/p4rpp/4pp2/3q4/2ppbPPQ/6RK/PP5P/2B1NR2 b - - bm g5; id "WAC.089"; 3qrrk1/1pp2pp1/1p2bn1p/5N2/2P5/P1P3B1/1P4PP/2Q1RRK1 w - - bm Nxg7; id "WAC.090"; 2qr2k1/4b1p1/2p2p1p/1pP1p3/p2nP3/PbQNB1PP/1P3PK1/4RB2 b - - bm Be6; id "WAC.091"; r4rk1/1p2ppbp/p2pbnp1/q7/3BPPP1/2N2B2/PPP4P/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm Bxg4; id "WAC.092"; r1b1k1nr/pp3pQp/4pq2/3pn3/8/P1P5/2P2PPP/R1B1KBNR w KQkq - bm Bh6; id "WAC.093"; 8/k7/p7/3Qp2P/n1P5/3KP3/1q6/8 b - - bm e4+; id "WAC.094"; 2r5/1r6/4pNpk/3pP1qp/8/2P1QP2/5PK1/R7 w - - bm Ng4+; id "WAC.095"; r1b4k/ppp2Bb1/6Pp/3pP3/1qnP1p1Q/8/PPP3P1/1K1R3R w - - bm Qd8+; id "WAC.096"; 6k1/5p2/p5np/4B3/3P4/1PP1q3/P3r1QP/6RK w - - bm Qa8+; id "WAC.097"; 1r3rk1/5pb1/p2p2p1/Q1n1q2p/1NP1P3/3p1P1B/PP1R3P/1K2R3 b - - bm Nxe4; id "WAC.098"; r1bq1r1k/1pp1Np1p/p2p2pQ/4R3/n7/8/PPPP1PPP/R1B3K1 w - - bm Rh5; id "WAC.099"; 8/k1b5/P4p2/1Pp2p1p/K1P2P1P/8/3B4/8 w - - bm b6+; id "WAC.100"; 5rk1/p5pp/8/8/2Pbp3/1P4P1/7P/4RN1K b - - bm Bc3; id "WAC.101"; 2Q2n2/2R4p/1p1qpp1k/8/3P3P/3B2P1/5PK1/r7 w - - bm Qxf8+; id "WAC.102"; 6k1/2pb1r1p/3p1PpQ/p1nPp3/1q2P3/2N2P2/PrB5/2K3RR w - - bm Qxg6+; id "WAC.103"; b4r1k/pq2rp2/1p1bpn1p/3PN2n/2P2P2/P2B3K/1B2Q2N/3R2R1 w - - bm Qxh5; id "WAC.104"; r2r2k1/pb3ppp/1p1bp3/7q/3n2nP/PP1B2P1/1B1N1P2/RQ2NRK1 b - - bm Qxh4; id "WAC.105"; 4rrk1/pppb4/7p/3P2pq/3Qn3/P5P1/1PP4P/R3RNNK b - - bm Nf2+; id "WAC.106"; 5n2/pRrk2p1/P4p1p/4p3/3N4/5P2/6PP/6K1 w - - bm Nb5; id "WAC.107"; r5k1/1q4pp/2p5/p1Q5/2P5/5R2/4RKPP/r7 w - - bm Qe5; id "WAC.108"; rn2k1nr/pbp2ppp/3q4/1p2N3/2p5/QP6/PB1PPPPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - bm c3; id "WAC.109"; 2kr4/bp3p2/p2p2b1/P7/2q5/1N4B1/1PPQ2P1/2KR4 b - - bm Be3; id "WAC.110"; 6k1/p5p1/5p2/2P2Q2/3pN2p/3PbK1P/7P/6q1 b - - bm Qf1+; id "WAC.111"; r4kr1/ppp5/4bq1b/7B/2PR1Q1p/2N3P1/PP3P1P/2K1R3 w - - bm Rxe6; id "WAC.112"; rnbqkb1r/1p3ppp/5N2/1p2p1B1/2P5/8/PP2PPPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - bm Qxf6; id "WAC.113"; r1b1rnk1/1p4pp/p1p2p2/3pN2n/3P1PPq/2NBPR1P/PPQ5/2R3K1 w - - bm Bxh7+; id "WAC.114"; 4N2k/5rpp/1Q6/p3q3/8/P5P1/1P3P1P/5K2 w - - bm Nd6; id "WAC.115"; r2r2k1/2p2ppp/p7/1p2P1n1/P6q/5P2/1PB1QP1P/R5RK b - - bm Rd2; id "WAC.116"; 3r1rk1/q4ppp/p1Rnp3/8/1p6/1N3P2/PP3QPP/3R2K1 b - - bm Ne4; id "WAC.117"; r5k1/pb2rpp1/1p6/2p4q/5R2/2PB2Q1/P1P3PP/5R1K w - - bm Rh4; id "WAC.118"; r2qr1k1/p1p2ppp/2p5/2b5/4nPQ1/3B4/PPP3PP/R1B2R1K b - - bm Qxd3; id "WAC.119"; r4rk1/1bn2qnp/3p1B1Q/p2P1pP1/1pp5/5N1P/PPB2P2/2KR3R w - - bm g6; id "WAC.120"; 6k1/5p1p/2bP2pb/4p3/2P5/1p1pNPPP/1P1Q1BK1/1q6 b - - bm Bxf3+; id "WAC.121"; 1k6/ppp4p/1n2pq2/1N2Rb2/2P2Q2/8/P4KPP/3r1B2 b - - bm Rxf1+; id "WAC.122"; 6k1/1b2rp2/1p4p1/3P4/PQ4P1/2N2q2/5P2/3R2K1 b - - bm Bxd5 Rc7; id "WAC.123"; 6k1/3r4/2R5/P5P1/1P4p1/8/4rB2/6K1 b - - bm g3; id "WAC.124"; r1bqr1k1/pp3ppp/1bp5/3n4/3B4/2N2P1P/PPP1B1P1/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm Bxd4+; id "WAC.125"; r5r1/pQ5p/1qp2R2/2k1p3/4P3/2PP4/P1P3PP/6K1 w - - bm Rxc6+; id "WAC.126"; 2k4r/1pr1n3/p1p1q2p/5pp1/3P1P2/P1P1P3/1R2Q1PP/1RB3K1 w - - bm Rxb7; id "WAC.127"; 6rk/1pp2Qrp/3p1B2/1pb1p2R/3n1q2/3P4/PPP3PP/R6K w - - bm Qg6; id "WAC.128"; 3r1r1k/1b2b1p1/1p5p/2p1Pp2/q1B2P2/4P2P/1BR1Q2K/6R1 b - - bm Bf3; id "WAC.129"; 6k1/1pp3q1/5r2/1PPp4/3P1pP1/3Qn2P/3B4/4R1K1 b - - bm Qh6 Qh8; id "WAC.130"; 2rq1bk1/p4p1p/1p4p1/3b4/3B1Q2/8/P4PpP/3RR1K1 w - - bm Re8; id "WAC.131"; 4r1k1/5bpp/2p5/3pr3/8/1B3pPq/PPR2P2/2R2QK1 b - - bm Re1; id "WAC.132"; r1b1k2r/1pp1q2p/p1n3p1/3QPp2/8/1BP3B1/P5PP/3R1RK1 w kq - bm Bh4; id "WAC.133"; 3r2k1/p6p/2Q3p1/4q3/2P1p3/P3Pb2/1P3P1P/2K2BR1 b - - bm Rd1+; id "WAC.134"; 3r1r1k/N2qn1pp/1p2np2/2p5/2Q1P2N/3P4/PP4PP/3R1RK1 b - - bm Nd4; id "WAC.135"; 6kr/1q2r1p1/1p2N1Q1/5p2/1P1p4/6R1/7P/2R3K1 w - - bm Rc8+; id "WAC.136"; 3b1rk1/1bq3pp/5pn1/1p2rN2/2p1p3/2P1B2Q/1PB2PPP/R2R2K1 w - - bm Rd7; id "WAC.137"; r1bq3r/ppppR1p1/5n1k/3P4/6pP/3Q4/PP1N1PP1/5K1R w - - bm h5; id "WAC.138"; rnb3kr/ppp2ppp/1b6/3q4/3pN3/Q4N2/PPP2KPP/R1B1R3 w - - bm Nf6+; id "WAC.139"; r2b1rk1/pq4p1/4ppQP/3pB1p1/3P4/2R5/PP3PP1/5RK1 w - - bm Rc7; id "WAC.140"; 4r1k1/p1qr1p2/2pb1Bp1/1p5p/3P1n1R/1B3P2/PP3PK1/2Q4R w - - bm Qxf4; id "WAC.141"; r2q3n/ppp2pk1/3p4/5Pr1/2NP1Qp1/2P2pP1/PP3K2/4R2R w - - bm Re8 f6+; id "WAC.142"; 5b2/pp2r1pk/2pp1pRp/4rP1N/2P1P3/1P4QP/P3q1P1/5R1K w - - bm Rxh6+; id "WAC.143"; r2q1rk1/pp3ppp/2p2b2/8/B2pPPb1/7P/PPP1N1P1/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm d3; id "WAC.144"; r1bq4/1p4kp/3p1n2/p4pB1/2pQ4/8/1P4PP/4RRK1 w - - bm Re8; id "WAC.145"; 8/8/2Kp4/3P1B2/2P2k2/5p2/8/8 w - - bm Bc8; id "WAC.146"; r2r2k1/ppqbppbp/2n2np1/2pp4/6P1/1P1PPNNP/PBP2PB1/R2QK2R b KQ - bm Nxg4; id "WAC.147"; 2r1k3/6pr/p1nBP3/1p3p1p/2q5/2P5/P1R4P/K2Q2R1 w - - bm Rxg7; id "WAC.148"; 6k1/6p1/2p4p/4Pp2/4b1qP/2Br4/1P2RQPK/8 b - - bm Bxg2; id "WAC.149"; r3r1k1/5p2/pQ1b2pB/1p6/4p3/6P1/Pq2BP1P/2R3K1 b - - bm Ba3 Bf8 e3; id "WAC.150"; 8/3b2kp/4p1p1/pr1n4/N1N4P/1P4P1/1K3P2/3R4 w - - bm Nc3; id "WAC.151"; 1br2rk1/1pqb1ppp/p3pn2/8/1P6/P1N1PN1P/1B3PP1/1QRR2K1 w - - bm Ne4; id "WAC.152"; 2r3k1/q4ppp/p3p3/pnNp4/2rP4/2P2P2/4R1PP/2R1Q1K1 b - - bm Nxd4; id "WAC.153"; r1b2rk1/2p2ppp/p7/1p6/3P3q/1BP3bP/PP3QP1/RNB1R1K1 w - - bm Qxf7+; id "WAC.154"; 5bk1/1rQ4p/5pp1/2pP4/3n1PP1/7P/1q3BB1/4R1K1 w - - bm d6; id "WAC.155"; r1b1qN1k/1pp3p1/p2p3n/4p1B1/8/1BP4Q/PP3KPP/8 w - - bm Qxh6+; id "WAC.156"; 5rk1/p4ppp/2p1b3/3Nq3/4P1n1/1p1B2QP/1PPr2P1/1K2R2R w - - bm Ne7+; id "WAC.157"; 5rk1/n1p1R1bp/p2p4/1qpP1QB1/7P/2P3P1/PP3P2/6K1 w - - bm Rxg7+; id "WAC.158"; r1b2r2/5P1p/ppn3pk/2p1p1Nq/1bP1PQ2/3P4/PB4BP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Ne6+; id "WAC.159"; qn1kr2r/1pRbb3/pP5p/P2pP1pP/3N1pQ1/3B4/3B1PP1/R5K1 w - - bm Qxd7+; id "WAC.160"; 3r3k/3r1P1p/pp1Nn3/2pp4/7Q/6R1/Pq4PP/5RK1 w - - bm Qxd8+; id "WAC.161"; r3kbnr/p4ppp/2p1p3/8/Q1B3b1/2N1B3/PP3PqP/R3K2R w KQkq - bm Bd5; id "WAC.162"; 5rk1/2p4p/2p4r/3P4/4p1b1/1Q2NqPp/PP3P1K/R4R2 b - - bm Qg2+; id "WAC.163"; 8/6pp/4p3/1p1n4/1NbkN1P1/P4P1P/1PR3K1/r7 w - - bm Rxc4+; id "WAC.164"; 1r5k/p1p3pp/8/8/4p3/P1P1R3/1P1Q1qr1/2KR4 w - - bm Re2; id "WAC.165"; r3r1k1/5pp1/p1p4p/2Pp4/8/q1NQP1BP/5PP1/4K2R b K - bm d4; id "WAC.166"; 7Q/ppp2q2/3p2k1/P2Ppr1N/1PP5/7R/5rP1/6K1 b - - bm Rxg2+; id "WAC.167"; r3k2r/pb1q1p2/8/2p1pP2/4p1p1/B1P1Q1P1/P1P3K1/R4R2 b kq - bm Qd2+; id "WAC.168"; 5rk1/1pp3bp/3p2p1/2PPp3/1P2P3/2Q1B3/4q1PP/R5K1 b - - bm Bh6; id "WAC.169"; 5r1k/6Rp/1p2p3/p2pBp2/1qnP4/4P3/Q4PPP/6K1 w - - bm Qxc4; id "WAC.170"; 2rq4/1b2b1kp/p3p1p1/1p1nNp2/7P/1B2B1Q1/PP3PP1/3R2K1 w - - bm Bh6+; id "WAC.171"; 5r1k/p5pp/8/1P1pq3/P1p2nR1/Q7/5BPP/6K1 b - - bm Qe1+; id "WAC.172"; 2r1b3/1pp1qrk1/p1n1P1p1/7R/2B1p3/4Q1P1/PP3PP1/3R2K1 w - - bm Qh6+; id "WAC.173"; 2r2rk1/6p1/p3pq1p/1p1b1p2/3P1n2/PP3N2/3N1PPP/1Q2RR1K b - - bm Nxg2; id "WAC.174"; r5k1/pppb3p/2np1n2/8/3PqNpP/3Q2P1/PPP5/R4RK1 w - - bm Nh5; id "WAC.175"; r1bq3r/ppp2pk1/3p1pp1/8/2BbPQ2/2NP2P1/PPP4P/R4R1K b - - bm Rxh2+; id "WAC.176"; r1b3r1/4qk2/1nn1p1p1/3pPp1P/p4P2/1p3BQN/PKPBN3/3R3R b - - bm Qa3+; id "WAC.177"; 3r2k1/p1rn1p1p/1p2pp2/6q1/3PQNP1/5P2/P1P4R/R5K1 w - - bm Nxe6; id "WAC.178"; r1b2r1k/pp4pp/3p4/3B4/8/1QN3Pn/PP3q1P/R3R2K b - - bm Qg1+; id "WAC.179"; r1q2rk1/p3bppb/3p1n1p/2nPp3/1p2P1P1/6NP/PP2QPB1/R1BNK2R b KQ - bm Nxd5; id "WAC.180"; r3k2r/2p2p2/p2p1n2/1p2p3/4P2p/1PPPPp1q/1P5P/R1N2QRK b kq - bm Ng4; id "WAC.181"; r1b2rk1/ppqn1p1p/2n1p1p1/2b3N1/2N5/PP1BP3/1B3PPP/R2QK2R w KQ - bm Qh5; id "WAC.182"; 1r2k1r1/5p2/b3p3/1p2b1B1/3p3P/3B4/PP2KP2/2R3R1 w - - bm Bf6; id "WAC.183"; 4kn2/r4p1r/p3bQ2/q1nNP1Np/1p5P/8/PPP3P1/2KR3R w - - bm Qe7+; id "WAC.184"; 1r1rb1k1/2p3pp/p2q1p2/3PpP1Q/Pp1bP2N/1B5R/1P4PP/2B4K w - - bm Qxh7+; id "WAC.185"; r5r1/p1q2p1k/1p1R2pB/3pP3/6bQ/2p5/P1P1NPPP/6K1 w - - bm Bf8+; id "WAC.186"; 6k1/5p2/p3p3/1p3qp1/2p1Qn2/2P1R3/PP1r1PPP/4R1K1 b - - bm Nh3+; id "WAC.187"; 3RNbk1/pp3p2/4rQpp/8/1qr5/7P/P4P2/3R2K1 w - - bm Qg7+; id "WAC.188"; 3r1k2/1ppPR1n1/p2p1rP1/3P3p/4Rp1N/5K2/P1P2P2/8 w - - bm Re8+; id "WAC.189"; 8/p2b2kp/1q1p2p1/1P1Pp3/4P3/3B2P1/P2Q3P/2Nn3K b - - bm Bh3; id "WAC.190"; 2r1Rn1k/1p1q2pp/p7/5p2/3P4/1B4P1/P1P1QP1P/6K1 w - - bm Qc4; id "WAC.191"; r3k3/ppp2Npp/4Bn2/2b5/1n1pp3/N4P2/PPP3qP/R2QKR2 b Qq - bm Nd3+; id "WAC.192"; 5bk1/p4ppp/Qp6/4B3/1P6/Pq2P1P1/2rr1P1P/R4RK1 b - - bm Qxe3; id "WAC.193"; 5rk1/ppq2ppp/2p5/4bN2/4P3/6Q1/PPP2PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Nh6+; id "WAC.194"; 3r1rk1/1p3p2/p3pnnp/2p3p1/2P2q2/1P5P/PB2QPPN/3RR1K1 w - - bm g3; id "WAC.195"; rr4k1/p1pq2pp/Q1n1pn2/2bpp3/4P3/2PP1NN1/PP3PPP/R1B1K2R b KQ - bm Nb4; id "WAC.196"; 7k/1p4p1/7p/3P1n2/4Q3/2P2P2/PP3qRP/7K b - - bm Qf1+; id "WAC.197"; 2br2k1/ppp2p1p/4p1p1/4P2q/2P1Bn2/2Q5/PP3P1P/4R1RK b - - bm Rd3; id "WAC.198"; r1br2k1/pp2nppp/2n5/1B1q4/Q7/4BN2/PP3PPP/2R2RK1 w - - bm Bxc6 Rfd1; id "WAC.199"; 2rqrn1k/pb4pp/1p2pp2/n2P4/2P3N1/P2B2Q1/1B3PPP/2R1R1K1 w - - bm Bxf6; id "WAC.200"; 2b2r1k/4q2p/3p2pQ/2pBp3/8/6P1/1PP2P1P/R5K1 w - - bm Ra7; id "WAC.201"; QR2rq1k/2p3p1/3p1pPp/8/4P3/8/P1r3PP/1R4K1 b - - bm Rxa2; id "WAC.202"; r4rk1/5ppp/p3q1n1/2p2NQ1/4n3/P3P3/1B3PPP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Qh6; id "WAC.203"; r1b1qrk1/1p3ppp/p1p5/3Nb3/5N2/P7/1P4PQ/K1R1R3 w - - bm Rxe5; id "WAC.204"; r3rnk1/1pq2bb1/p4p2/3p1Pp1/3B2P1/1NP4R/P1PQB3/2K4R w - - bm Qxg5; id "WAC.205"; 1Qq5/2P1p1kp/3r1pp1/8/8/7P/p4PP1/2R3K1 b - - bm Rc6; id "WAC.206"; r1bq2kr/p1pp1ppp/1pn1p3/4P3/2Pb2Q1/BR6/P4PPP/3K1BNR w - - bm Qxg7+; id "WAC.207"; 3r1bk1/ppq3pp/2p5/2P2Q1B/8/1P4P1/P6P/5RK1 w - - bm Bf7+; id "WAC.208"; 4kb1r/2q2p2/r2p4/pppBn1B1/P6P/6Q1/1PP5/2KRR3 w k - bm Rxe5+; id "WAC.209"; 3r1rk1/pp1q1ppp/3pn3/2pN4/5PP1/P5PQ/1PP1B3/1K1R4 w - - bm Rh1; id "WAC.210"; r1bqrk2/pp1n1n1p/3p1p2/P1pP1P1Q/2PpP1NP/6R1/2PB4/4RBK1 w - - bm Qxf7+; id "WAC.211"; rn1qr2Q/pbppk1p1/1p2pb2/4N3/3P4/2N5/PPP3PP/R4RK1 w - - bm Qxg7+; id "WAC.212"; 3r1r1k/1b4pp/ppn1p3/4Pp1R/Pn5P/3P4/4QP2/1qB1NKR1 w - - bm Rxh7+; id "WAC.213"; r2r2k1/1p2qpp1/1np1p1p1/p3N3/2PPN3/bP5R/4QPPP/4R1K1 w - - bm Ng5; id "WAC.214"; 3r2k1/pb1q1pp1/1p2pb1p/8/3N4/P2QB3/1P3PPP/1Br1R1K1 w - - bm Qh7+; id "WAC.215"; r2qr1k1/1b1nbppp/p3pn2/1p1pN3/3P1B2/2PB1N2/PP2QPPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Nxf7; id "WAC.216"; r3kb1r/1pp3p1/p3bp1p/5q2/3QN3/1P6/PBP3P1/3RR1K1 w kq - bm Qd7+; id "WAC.217"; 6k1/pp5p/2p3q1/6BP/2nPr1Q1/8/PP3R1K/8 w - - bm Bh6; id "WAC.218"; 7k/p4q1p/1pb5/2p5/4B2Q/2P1B3/P6P/7K b - - bm Qf1+; id "WAC.219"; 3rr1k1/ppp2ppp/8/5Q2/4n3/1B5R/PPP1qPP1/5RK1 b - - bm Qxf1+; id "WAC.220"; r3k3/P5bp/2N1bp2/4p3/2p5/6NP/1PP2PP1/3R2K1 w q - bm Rd8+; id "WAC.221"; 2r1r2k/1q3ppp/p2Rp3/2p1P3/6QB/p3P3/bP3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Bf6; id "WAC.222"; r1bqk2r/pp3ppp/5n2/8/1b1npB2/2N5/PP1Q2PP/1K2RBNR w kq - bm Nxe4; id "WAC.223"; 5rk1/p1q3pp/1p1r4/2p1pp1Q/1PPn1P2/3B3P/P2R2P1/3R2K1 b - - bm Rh6 e4; id "WAC.224"; 4R3/4q1kp/6p1/1Q3b2/1P1b1P2/6KP/8/8 b - - bm Qh4+; id "WAC.225"; 2b2rk1/p1p4p/2p1p1p1/br2N1Q1/1p2q3/8/PB3PPP/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nf7; id "WAC.226"; 2k1rb1r/ppp3pp/2np1q2/5b2/2B2P2/2P1BQ2/PP1N1P1P/2KR3R b - - bm d5; id "WAC.227"; r4rk1/1bq1bp1p/4p1p1/p2p4/3BnP2/1N1B3R/PPP3PP/R2Q2K1 w - - bm Bxe4; id "WAC.228"; 8/8/8/1p5r/p1p1k1pN/P2pBpP1/1P1K1P2/8 b - - bm Rxh4 b4; id "WAC.229"; 2b5/1r6/2kBp1p1/p2pP1P1/2pP4/1pP3K1/1R3P2/8 b - - bm Rb4; id "WAC.230"; r4rk1/1b1nqp1p/p5p1/1p2PQ2/2p5/5N2/PP3PPP/R1BR2K1 w - - bm Bg5; id "WAC.231"; 1R2rq1k/2p3p1/Q2p1pPp/8/4P3/8/P1r3PP/1R4K1 w - - bm Qb5 Rxe8; id "WAC.232"; 5rk1/p1p2r1p/2pp2p1/4p3/PPPnP3/3Pq1P1/1Q1R1R1P/4NK2 b - - bm Nb3; id "WAC.233"; 2kr1r2/p6p/5Pp1/2p5/1qp2Q1P/7R/PP6/1KR5 w - - bm Rb3; id "WAC.234"; 5r2/1p1RRrk1/4Qq1p/1PP3p1/8/4B3/1b3P1P/6K1 w - - bm Qxf7+ Rxf7+; id "WAC.235"; 1R6/p5pk/4p2p/4P3/8/2r3qP/P3R1b1/4Q1K1 b - - bm Rc1; id "WAC.236"; r5k1/pQp2qpp/8/4pbN1/3P4/6P1/PPr4P/1K1R3R b - - bm Rc1+; id "WAC.237"; 1k1r4/pp1r1pp1/4n1p1/2R5/2Pp1qP1/3P2QP/P4PB1/1R4K1 w - - bm Bxb7; id "WAC.238"; 8/6k1/5pp1/Q6p/5P2/6PK/P4q1P/8 b - - bm Qf1+; id "WAC.239"; 2b4k/p1b2p2/2p2q2/3p1PNp/3P2R1/3B4/P1Q2PKP/4r3 w - - bm Qxc6; id "WAC.240"; 2rq1rk1/pp3ppp/2n2b2/4NR2/3P4/PB5Q/1P4PP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxh7+; id "WAC.241"; r1b1r1k1/pp1nqp2/2p1p1pp/8/4N3/P1Q1P3/1P3PPP/1BRR2K1 w - - bm Rxd7; id "WAC.242"; 1r3r1k/3p4/1p1Nn1R1/4Pp1q/pP3P1p/P7/5Q1P/6RK w - - bm Qe2; id "WAC.243"; r6r/pp3ppp/3k1b2/2pb4/B4Pq1/2P1Q3/P5PP/1RBR2K1 w - - bm Qxc5+; id "WAC.244"; 4rrn1/ppq3bk/3pPnpp/2p5/2PB4/2NQ1RPB/PP5P/5R1K w - - bm Qxg6+; id "WAC.245"; 6R1/4qp1p/ppr1n1pk/8/1P2P1QP/6N1/P4PP1/6K1 w - - bm Qh5+; id "WAC.246"; 2k1r3/1p2Bq2/p2Qp3/Pb1p1p1P/2pP1P2/2P5/2P2KP1/1R6 w - - bm Rxb5; id "WAC.247"; 5r1k/1p4pp/3q4/3Pp1R1/8/8/PP4PP/4Q1K1 b - - bm Qc5+; id "WAC.248"; r4rk1/pbq2pp1/1ppbpn1p/8/2PP4/1P1Q1N2/PBB2PPP/R3R1K1 w - - bm c5 d5; id "WAC.249"; 1b5k/7P/p1p2np1/2P2p2/PP3P2/4RQ1R/q2r3P/6K1 w - - bm Re8+; id "WAC.250"; k7/p4p2/P1q1b1p1/3p3p/3Q4/7P/5PP1/1R4K1 w - - bm Qe5 Qf4; id "WAC.251"; 1rb1r1k1/p1p2ppp/5n2/2pP4/5P2/2QB4/qNP3PP/2KRB2R b - - bm Re2; id "WAC.252"; k5r1/p4b2/2P5/5p2/3P1P2/4QBrq/P5P1/4R1K1 w - - bm Qe8+; id "WAC.253"; r6k/pp3p1p/2p1bp1q/b3p3/4Pnr1/2PP2NP/PP1Q1PPN/R2B2RK b - - bm Nxh3; id "WAC.254"; 3r3r/p4pk1/5Rp1/3q4/1p1P2RQ/5N2/P1P4P/2b4K w - - bm Rfxg6+; id "WAC.255"; 3r1rk1/1pb1qp1p/2p3p1/p7/P2Np2R/1P5P/1BP2PP1/3Q1BK1 w - - bm Nf5; id "WAC.256"; 4r1k1/pq3p1p/2p1r1p1/2Q1p3/3nN1P1/1P6/P1P2P1P/3RR1K1 w - - bm Rxd4; id "WAC.257"; r3brkn/1p5p/2p2Ppq/2Pp3B/3Pp2Q/4P1R1/6PP/5R1K w - - bm Bxg6; id "WAC.258"; r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/2np4/2bN1PN1/2B1P3/3p4/PPP2nPP/R1BQ1K1R w - - bm Qh5; id "WAC.259"; 2r2b1r/p1Nk2pp/3p1p2/N2Qn3/4P3/q6P/P4PP1/1R3K1R w - - bm Qe6+; id "WAC.260"; r5k1/1bp3pp/p2p4/1p6/5p2/1PBP1nqP/1PP3Q1/R4R1K b - - bm Nd4; id "WAC.261"; 6k1/p1B1b2p/2b3r1/2p5/4p3/1PP1N1Pq/P2R1P2/3Q2K1 b - - bm Rh6; id "WAC.262"; rnbqr2k/pppp1Qpp/8/b2NN3/2B1n3/8/PPPP1PPP/R1B1K2R w KQ - bm Qg8+; id "WAC.263"; r2r2k1/1R2qp2/p5pp/2P5/b1PN1b2/P7/1Q3PPP/1B1R2K1 b - - bm Rab8; id "WAC.264"; 2r1k2r/2pn1pp1/1p3n1p/p3PP2/4q2B/P1P5/2Q1N1PP/R4RK1 w k - bm exf6; id "WAC.265"; r3q2r/2p1k1p1/p5p1/1p2Nb2/1P2nB2/P7/2PNQbPP/R2R3K b - - bm Rxh2+; id "WAC.266"; 2r1kb1r/pp3ppp/2n1b3/1q1N2B1/1P2Q3/8/P4PPP/3RK1NR w Kk - bm Nc7+; id "WAC.267"; 2r3kr/ppp2n1p/7B/5q1N/1bp5/2Pp4/PP2RPPP/R2Q2K1 w - - bm Re8+; id "WAC.268"; 2kr2nr/pp1n1ppp/2p1p3/q7/1b1P1B2/P1N2Q1P/1PP1BPP1/R3K2R w KQ - bm axb4; id "WAC.269"; 2r1r1k1/pp1q1ppp/3p1b2/3P4/3Q4/5N2/PP2RPPP/4R1K1 w - - bm Qg4; id "WAC.270"; 2kr4/ppp3Pp/4RP1B/2r5/5P2/1P6/P2p4/3K4 w - - bm Rd6; id "WAC.271"; nrq4r/2k1p3/1p1pPnp1/pRpP1p2/P1P2P2/2P1BB2/1R2Q1P1/6K1 w - - bm Bxc5; id "WAC.272"; 2k4B/bpp1qp2/p1b5/7p/1PN1n1p1/2Pr4/P5PP/R3QR1K b - - bm Ng3+; id "WAC.273"; 8/1p6/p5R1/k7/Prpp4/K7/1NP5/8 w - - bm Rb6; id "WAC.274"; r1b2rk1/1p1n1ppp/p1p2q2/4p3/P1B1Pn2/1QN2N2/1P3PPP/3R1RK1 b - - bm Nxg2 b5; id "WAC.275"; r5k1/pp1RR1pp/1b6/6r1/2p5/B6P/P4qPK/3Q4 w - - bm Qd5+; id "WAC.276"; 1r4r1/p2kb2p/bq2p3/3p1p2/5P2/2BB3Q/PP4PP/3RKR2 b - - bm Rg3 Rxg2; id "WAC.277"; r2qkb1r/pppb2pp/2np1n2/5pN1/2BQP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - bm Bf7+; id "WAC.278"; r7/4b3/2p1r1k1/1p1pPp1q/1P1P1P1p/PR2NRpP/2Q3K1/8 w - - bm Nxf5; id "WAC.279"; r1r2bk1/5p1p/pn4p1/N2b4/3Pp3/B3P3/2q1BPPP/RQ3RK1 b - - bm Bxa3; id "WAC.280"; 2R5/2R4p/5p1k/6n1/8/1P2QPPq/r7/6K1 w - - bm Rxh7+; id "WAC.281"; 6k1/2p3p1/1p1p1nN1/1B1P4/4PK2/8/2r3b1/7R w - - bm Rh8+; id "WAC.282"; 3q1rk1/4bp1p/1n2P2Q/3p1p2/6r1/Pp2R2N/1B4PP/7K w - - bm Ng5; id "WAC.283"; 3r3k/pp4pp/8/1P6/3N4/Pn2P1qb/1B1Q2B1/2R3K1 w - - bm Nf5; id "WAC.284"; 2rr3k/1b2bppP/p2p1n2/R7/3P4/1qB2P2/1P4Q1/1K5R w - - bm Qxg7+; id "WAC.285"; 3r1k2/1p6/p4P2/2pP2Qb/8/1P1KB3/P6r/8 b - - bm Rxd5+; id "WAC.286"; rn3k1r/pp2bBpp/2p2n2/q5N1/3P4/1P6/P1P3PP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - bm Qh5; id "WAC.287"; r1b2rk1/p4ppp/1p1Qp3/4P2N/1P6/8/P3qPPP/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nf6+; id "WAC.288"; 2r3k1/5p1p/p3q1p1/2n3P1/1p1QP2P/1P4N1/PK6/2R5 b - - bm Qe5; id "WAC.289"; 2k2r2/2p5/1pq5/p1p1n3/P1P2n1B/1R4Pp/2QR4/6K1 b - - bm Ne2+; id "WAC.290"; 5r1k/3b2p1/p6p/1pRpR3/1P1P2q1/P4pP1/5QnP/1B4K1 w - - bm h3; id "WAC.291"; 4r3/1Q1qk2p/p4pp1/3Pb3/P7/6PP/5P2/4R1K1 w - - bm d6+; id "WAC.292"; 1nbq1r1k/3rbp1p/p1p1pp1Q/1p6/P1pPN3/5NP1/1P2PPBP/R4RK1 w - - bm Nfg5; id "WAC.293"; 3r3k/1r3p1p/p1pB1p2/8/p1qNP1Q1/P6P/1P4P1/3R3K w - - bm Bf8 Nf5 Qf4; id "WAC.294"; 4r3/p4r1p/R1p2pp1/1p1bk3/4pNPP/2P1K3/2P2P2/3R4 w - - bm Rxd5+; id "WAC.295"; 3r4/1p2k2p/p1b1p1p1/4Q1Pn/2B3KP/4pP2/PP2R1N1/6q1 b - - bm Rd4+ Rf8; id "WAC.296"; 3r1rk1/p3qp1p/2bb2p1/2p5/3P4/1P6/PBQN1PPP/2R2RK1 b - - bm Bxg2 Bxh2+; id "WAC.297"; 3Q4/p3b1k1/2p2rPp/2q5/4B3/P2P4/7P/6RK w - - bm Qh8+; id "WAC.298"; 1n2rr2/1pk3pp/pNn2p2/2N1p3/8/6P1/PP2PPKP/2RR4 w - - bm Nca4; id "WAC.299"; b2b1r1k/3R1ppp/4qP2/4p1PQ/4P3/5B2/4N1K1/8 w - - bm g6; id "WAC.300"; ****End ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 28 Aug 2008 00:45:40 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Tony M <[email protected] > (00:15) schrieb: > I don't think FinalFun 0.1 would be competitive with your program, it > is very basic, with what appears to be a material only evaluation, > with equal moves in order of how they were generated. (I believe, > maybe Simon can confirm this). You got it all right. Actually below the root there is move ordering at all (besides the TT's best move). Since its opening is totally silly, using an external book is mandatory when playing anything that's not POS. And yes, I guess in a match Getclub would win against Finalfun. If Getclub manages to mate it. :-) mfg, simon .... l   Date: 24 Aug 2008 15:43:03 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Tony M <[email protected] > (02:39) schrieb: > Strength matters not a whit to me. After all, my Tony's Chess is only > 1500ish, yet I still enjoy watching it compete in tournaments like > Chesswar and Le System Du Suisse. I'll just as gleefully download the > latest version of, say, POS as I would the latest version of Fruit. OK, if that's the same POS by Folkert van Heusden we are talking about. I posted some matches against it in the past. You can find them in Google Groups. > Being a weak player, I'd rather play a program that might actually > give me the occasional chance to win. Finalfun gives you that chance every time if you find out how to exploit it's silly opening. > A jar would be fine, though source is always nice. You address is working? Can I send about 200kB there or should I send an URL? mfg, simon ....     Date: 24 Aug 2008 17:03:34 From: Tony M Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:43:03 +0200, Simon Krahnke <[email protected] > wrote: >* Tony M <[email protected]> (02:39) schrieb: > >> Strength matters not a whit to me. After all, my Tony's Chess is only >> 1500ish, yet I still enjoy watching it compete in tournaments like >> Chesswar and Le System Du Suisse. I'll just as gleefully download the >> latest version of, say, POS as I would the latest version of Fruit. > >OK, if that's the same POS by Folkert van Heusden we are talking about. >I posted some matches against it in the past. You can find them in >Google Groups. > That would be the same POS, yes. I mentioned it because it's been posted about in this newsgroup, and it's at or near the bottom of most rating lists. It's kind of an experimental program, it doesn't even have an alpha-beta based search. >> Being a weak player, I'd rather play a program that might actually >> give me the occasional chance to win. > >Finalfun gives you that chance every time if you find out how to >exploit it's silly opening. > >> A jar would be fine, though source is always nice. > >You address is working? Can I send about 200kB there or should I send an >URL? > The address should be working, and Yahoo allows up to, I believe, 10MB per message. Thanks Simon. >mfg, simon .... Tony   Date: 24 Aug 2008 15:11:38 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Guest <[email protected] > (02:31) schrieb: >>>>> But some people don't feel it's a good judge of a good position. Good >>>>> positions have good mobility because they are good positions. Not: >>>>> good positions are good positions because they have good mobility. >>>> >>>> But that actually doesn't matter when all you need is a correlation. >>> >>> The issue is the extra time it takes to do the mobility scoring. >>> >>> Some feel that the time is better spent doing other things. Things that >>> actually measure the 'good position' aspect. >> >> Sure, but that's got nothing too do with the above misconception. > > You were saying "Mobility is good enough because there is a correlation." Well, if there is a correlation. It might be that some bad position show good mobility, too. > I was saying, "So what? It's too expensive to be worth it. Many feel its > better to spend the time doing other stuff instead." That's the difference between not effective and not efficient enough. It easy to step out and proudly declare it's not worth the time. A researcher would benchmark it. :-) >>> I haven't checked to see what the top open source programs do. >>> >>> Pesonally, I don't want to do mobility simply because of the extra time. >>> But I'm rarely concerned about how well my program actually plays. I had >>> more fun just programming it. >> >> Yes, we probably can't beat Rybka and Co. Or even Crafty. So why try. :-) > > If it makes us feel any better, Hyatt can't beat Rybka either. > > He's been doing computer chess 40 years now. He runs on much more extreme > hardware. And he still can't match Rybka etc. > Hyatt has spent so much time doing computer chess, it's a wonder he's found > time to become a professor and actually teach and have a family. I guess that somehow helps him teaching. :-) mfg, simon .... l   Date: 24 Aug 2008 01:37:42 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Guest <[email protected] > (17:49) schrieb: > "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> >>> I've never actually run them or even looked at them. (I don't have a >>> current program, so... (shrug)) >> >> Do you think about starting one? > > I did a couple chess a few years ago, but I 'burned out' on it. > > I reached a point where I didn't want to even think about computer chess. > > Lately, my interest is starting to come back, but I'm not sure if I would > have enough long term interest to actually start from scratch. > > I might take an old one and gut it and refactor it, etc. > > I don't know yet. I've got another project going and I should probably get > done with it before starting anything new. > > >>>> Actually the move Bh2+ is found at depth 3/5 with a score of 1.99 >>>> (there's that error again). >>> >>> Are you using floating point to hold the score? >> >> Of course not. I actually read that thread recently. Too late to add my >> comment to it. :-( > > I was just curious, because some people do prefer to use a float. They more > easily think of adding a quarter pawn as .25. But then there is no centipawn alias 0.01. > There aren't many advantages, though. I'd say there are none. > I guess one of the few is that you can set a score to NaN and some of > the other floating point constants. Not a huge advantage though. You could just as well use special integer values. >>> 3) pawn based mobility. (As if there were only pawns on the board.) >> >> Aka blocked and passed pawns? > > Just pawns in general. As if the board contained only the pawns and the one > piece you are counting the moves for at that particular time. Ah, pawns *and* the piece you are testing. > The idea is that pawns move so rarely that they are the biggest influence in > how many squares a piece can move to. All the other pieces are likely to > move instead of being captured. > > (shrug) > > I have no idea which would be 'best'. Just that a lot of things have been > tried. > > >> >>> But some people don't feel it's a good judge of a good position. Good >>> positions have good mobility because they are good positions. Not: good >>> positions are good positions because they have good mobility. >> >> But that actually doesn't matter when all you need is a correlation. > > The issue is the extra time it takes to do the mobility scoring. > > Some feel that the time is better spent doing other things. Things that > actually measure the 'good position' aspect. Sure, but that's got nothing too do with the above misconception. > I haven't checked to see what the top open source programs do. > > Pesonally, I don't want to do mobility simply because of the extra time. > But I'm rarely concerned about how well my program actually plays. I had > more fun just programming it. Yes, we probably can't beat Rybka and Co. Or even Crafty. So why try. :-) > I'm sure a random number generator isn't going to help a program with a good > evaluator. But if you have a very poor eval (such as just material and a > few minor things), maybe it would help. If you start fresh you usually have no evaluation at all, so it's surely worth a try. You can later do regression test on that. It won't work with mtd(f), but that doesn't work so well in chess anyway. Time to try pvs. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 23 Aug 2008 19:31:16 From: Guest Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (17:49) schrieb: > >> I was just curious, because some people do prefer to use a float. They >> more >> easily think of adding a quarter pawn as .25. > > But then there is no centipawn alias 0.01. Not everybody works in centipawns. Some people do pawns as a value of 64 instead of 100. So binary fractions work well for them. >> There aren't many advantages, though. > > I'd say there are none. > >> I guess one of the few is that you can set a score to NaN and some of >> the other floating point constants. Not a huge advantage though. > > You could just as well use special integer values. True. But the advantages of NaN etc. is that it stays NaN no matter what you do to it. Not a big advantage no, but it can be useful for setting error conditions or error values and so on. Maybe that's my numerical background showing, though. >>>> But some people don't feel it's a good judge of a good position. Good >>>> positions have good mobility because they are good positions. Not: >>>> good >>>> positions are good positions because they have good mobility. >>> >>> But that actually doesn't matter when all you need is a correlation. >> >> The issue is the extra time it takes to do the mobility scoring. >> >> Some feel that the time is better spent doing other things. Things that >> actually measure the 'good position' aspect. > > Sure, but that's got nothing too do with the above misconception. You were saying "Mobility is good enough because there is a correlation." I was saying, "So what? It's too expensive to be worth it. Many feel its better to spend the time doing other stuff instead." >> I haven't checked to see what the top open source programs do. >> >> Pesonally, I don't want to do mobility simply because of the extra time. >> But I'm rarely concerned about how well my program actually plays. I had >> more fun just programming it. > > Yes, we probably can't beat Rybka and Co. Or even Crafty. So why try. :-) If it makes us feel any better, Hyatt can't beat Rybka either. He's been doing computer chess 40 years now. He runs on much more extreme hardware. And he still can't match Rybka etc. Hyatt has spent so much time doing computer chess, it's a wonder he's found time to become a professor and actually teach and have a family. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 24 Aug 2008 01:43:49 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Tony M <[email protected] > (18:16) schrieb: > On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:30:24 +0200, Simon Krahnke <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Finalfun is a Java program. > > Hi Simon, is Finalfun available for download? I wouldn't mind giving > it a try. Why? It's not really worth the time. Need the source or just the jar file? Everyone wants to have my programs. When I mentioned my simple raytracer over in comp.lang.ruby two people were after it. Must be a star programmer. :- > mfg, simon .... l     Date: 28 Aug 2008 08:48:13 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. On Aug 28, 8:17=A0pm, Tony M <[email protected] > wrote: > On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:16:27 GMT, Tony M <[email protected]> wrote: > >Liectenstein > > Grr, Liechtenstein. =A0I *really* need sleep. Good night and sweet dreams. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 24 Aug 2008 00:39:30 From: Tony M Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:43:49 +0200, Simon Krahnke <[email protected] > wrote: >* Tony M <[email protected]> (18:16) schrieb: > >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:30:24 +0200, Simon Krahnke <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Finalfun is a Java program. >> >> Hi Simon, is Finalfun available for download? I wouldn't mind giving >> it a try. > >Why? It's not really worth the time. Need the source or just the jar file? > >Everyone wants to have my programs. When I mentioned my simple raytracer >over in comp.lang.ruby two people were after it. Must be a star >programmer. :-> > >mfg, simon .... l Strength matters not a whit to me. After all, my Tony's Chess is only 1500ish, yet I still enjoy watching it compete in tournaments like Chesswar and Le System Du Suisse. I'll just as gleefully download the latest version of, say, POS as I would the latest version of Fruit. Being a weak player, I'd rather play a program that might actually give me the occasional chance to win. A jar would be fine, though source is always nice. Tony   Date: 23 Aug 2008 15:03:36 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Guest <[email protected] > (05:29) schrieb: >> I think Finalfun scores nada on silent but deadly. > > With just material, I'm not surprised. I didn't actually test that through, so it just means we think the same about that. > I don't know what would be needed for that one, but I'd expect it'd be more > than mobility and a little pawn knowledge. Maybe a few piece square tables? Piece/square tables are actually the simplest thing to do (though hard to do right). We did them in Basicfun at the university course. > I've never actually run them or even looked at them. (I don't have a > current program, so... (shrug)) Do you think about starting one? >>> Most of the mates are shallow enough they'll be solved instantly. Even a >>> Java programs shouldn't need 30 seconds. >> >> Finalfun is a Java program. > > Maybe you ought to offer it to Sanny.... :-) Well, there's Jester. I never looked at it. >> Of course. Finalfun doesn't do *any* reductions (not even null move). So >> that means 3 fully searched plies. > > Because of how you do king captures & check's, you might be detecting it a > move earlier though. > > With the "Wait until the king is captured" method, it can take one extra > plain ply. Only a q-search ply, because it's a capture. > (Check extensions mean you'll still see it, but it'll be counted > as one more ply.) Yeah, but that's the second number. >> Actually the move Bh2+ is found at depth 3/5 with a score of 1.99 >> (there's that error again). > > Are you using floating point to hold the score? Of course not. I actually read that thread recently. Too late to add my comment to it. :-( >> There wasn't even a time limit :-). One game I operated we both had >> implemented XBoard, so the game could run automatically. That was good >> because the other engine took minutes for each move. > > Well then heck, you should have let it run for a full day between moves! 1. No, there some kind of implied time limit. Some thing like "reasonable". 2. That actually doesn't help much in a simple program, the bf is too high. > The Russians weren't happy with the way their program wasn't beating the US > program, so they expanded the search width to full width and let it think > for much longer. The result being their program then won. So much for selective search. :-) >> The only thing I remember about the Smalltalk program is its annoying >> way to enter move. Our own interface had drag&drop. They had a pop-up >> window that asked for name of the start square, then a second window >> popped up, asking for the target square, then a third pop-up window asked >> for confirmation of that move. > > (shudder) > > I guess whoever programed it didn't actually put much thought in playing it. And probably didn't play it much. I did only watch my partners operate it, showing me how annoying it was. > Actually there are several definitions of 'mobility'. > > 1) Legal mobility. > > 2) pseudo-legal mobility. Which kind you use probably is the same as your usual generator. > 3) pawn based mobility. (As if there were only pawns on the board.) Aka blocked and passed pawns? > But some people don't feel it's a good judge of a good position. Good > positions have good mobility because they are good positions. Not: good > positions are good positions because they have good mobility. But that actually doesn't matter when all you need is a correlation. > A few days ago I was going through the forums, saving interesting threads to > my drive and I happened to see it. > > http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=205916&t=22731 Thanks! I might try that some day. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 23 Aug 2008 10:49:34 From: Guest Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > >> I've never actually run them or even looked at them. (I don't have a >> current program, so... (shrug)) > > Do you think about starting one? I did a couple chess a few years ago, but I 'burned out' on it. I reached a point where I didn't want to even think about computer chess. Lately, my interest is starting to come back, but I'm not sure if I would have enough long term interest to actually start from scratch. I might take an old one and gut it and refactor it, etc. I don't know yet. I've got another project going and I should probably get done with it before starting anything new. >>> Actually the move Bh2+ is found at depth 3/5 with a score of 1.99 >>> (there's that error again). >> >> Are you using floating point to hold the score? > > Of course not. I actually read that thread recently. Too late to add my > comment to it. :-( I was just curious, because some people do prefer to use a float. They more easily think of adding a quarter pawn as .25. And as long as you work in fractional binary, it'll still be accurate. There aren't many advantages, though. I guess one of the few is that you can set a score to NaN and some of the other floating point constants. Not a huge advantage though. >> The Russians weren't happy with the way their program wasn't beating the >> US >> program, so they expanded the search width to full width and let it think >> for much longer. The result being their program then won. > > So much for selective search. :-) Selective Search was pretty niave back then. There have been a few major selective search programs over the years, but to my knowledge only 4 of them have stood out among their peers at the time. MacHack VI, by Greenblatt of course. Chess 3.6, by Slate & Atkin. Awit by Tony Marsland. Chaos by Swartz & Alexander. Awit & Chaos were the only ones still around in the mid 80's. They weren't massive successes, but they usually did 'middle of the pack' among the other programs. >> 3) pawn based mobility. (As if there were only pawns on the board.) > > Aka blocked and passed pawns? Just pawns in general. As if the board contained only the pawns and the one piece you are counting the moves for at that particular time. The idea is that pawns move so rarely that they are the biggest influence in how many squares a piece can move to. All the other pieces are likely to move instead of being captured. (shrug) I have no idea which would be 'best'. Just that a lot of things have been tried. > >> But some people don't feel it's a good judge of a good position. Good >> positions have good mobility because they are good positions. Not: good >> positions are good positions because they have good mobility. > > But that actually doesn't matter when all you need is a correlation. The issue is the extra time it takes to do the mobility scoring. Some feel that the time is better spent doing other things. Things that actually measure the 'good position' aspect. I haven't checked to see what the top open source programs do. Pesonally, I don't want to do mobility simply because of the extra time. But I'm rarely concerned about how well my program actually plays. I had more fun just programming it. >> A few days ago I was going through the forums, saving interesting threads >> to >> my drive and I happened to see it. >> >> http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=205916&t=22731 > > Thanks! I might try that some day. It is really odd. It's something that you would first think couldn't possibly work, but after you read the details and you think about it, you really start to wonder. I guess that's the mark of a researcher. Get a strange idea and actually try it instead of assuming it couldn't work. I wish I had Don Beal's original paper. I suppose I could email him and ask for a copy, but... I'm sure a random number generator isn't going to help a program with a good evaluator. But if you have a very poor eval (such as just material and a few minor things), maybe it would help. Interesting though. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 23 Aug 2008 13:27:25 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you * Sanny <[email protected] > (08:35) schrieb: > Though after improvement GetClub scored 44% it missed some Mate > Positions So I revert back to original. > > I will again test in the evening to see if the new score. > > Beginner Solving 39% is good enough. It means Easy Level will sove > arround 60% of them. But that's just a guess, right? You never know, until you test. mfg, simon .... l   Date: 23 Aug 2008 13:24:54 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Guest <[email protected] > (05:41) schrieb: > The catch is, that if between the repetition positions, your castling > ability changes, like you are in check but you block it instead of moving > your king, then technically your castling rights changed. > > There was a period there where you could not castle. > > It's temporary, but still your rights had changed. Ah, now I get it. mfg, simon .... l   Date: 23 Aug 2008 05:17:34 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Guest <[email protected] > (03:37) schrieb: > Also, some time back there was a discussion about the wording of the draw by > repetition when castling status changes were involved. Here by castling status you mean what the castling field in FEN specifies. > The way its worded can make it sound like if your castling status changes > even briefly, then it wont be an exact repetition. > > That's occured in a few tournaments too. I guy I know sent me a link about > that. The TD agreed the wording of the rules does certainly make it sound > that way, and that if you interpret it literally then it would be, but that > traditionally chess isn't played that way, so temporary castling status > changes don't effect repetition. So that way you have to ignore castling rights for repetition? > Other TD's can rule their own way, though. If they are more literal minded, > then... I guess most engine programmers are more literally minded on this. After all, it's nice to use the same key for repetition detection and for transposition table lookup. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 22 Aug 2008 22:41:41 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (03:37) schrieb: > >> Also, some time back there was a discussion about the wording of the draw >> by >> repetition when castling status changes were involved. > > Here by castling status you mean what the castling field in FEN specifies. No. Actual castling rights during a game. > >> The way its worded can make it sound like if your castling status changes >> even briefly, then it wont be an exact repetition. >> >> That's occured in a few tournaments too. I guy I know sent me a link >> about >> that. The TD agreed the wording of the rules does certainly make it >> sound >> that way, and that if you interpret it literally then it would be, but >> that >> traditionally chess isn't played that way, so temporary castling status >> changes don't effect repetition. > > So that way you have to ignore castling rights for repetition? Right. At least in between the moves. The thing is, apparently the way the rules are worded is something like this: (I'm going from memory here, so this might not be exact.) Draw by repetition requires that a position to have previously occured with the same position, side to move, and rights. In other words, you have to still be able to castle. The catch is, that if between the repetition positions, your castling ability changes, like you are in check but you block it instead of moving your king, then technically your castling rights changed. There was a period there where you could not castle. It's temporary, but still your rights had changed. The way the rules are supposedly worded is that can be taken to mean even temporary changes in your castling status can void a repeition claim. And apparently the issue has actually come up in some tournaments. Somebody had claimed a repetition but the other person pointed out the castling issue. The one link I was shown said the Tournament Director did rule in favor of the reptition. He agreed that the rules did indeed say that, but that wasn't what it was supposed to mean and that wasn't how chess was normally done. That by tradition, it was a repetition in spite of the wording of the rules. (shrug) Fortunately most of my programs never put that much effort into following the rules. I was always more concerned about having fun programming than getting every single rule exactly right. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 23 Aug 2008 04:30:24 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Guest <[email protected] > (00:44) schrieb: > There are testing suites with much more emphesis on positional abilities, > but he's not ready for that. I think Finalfun scores nada on silent but deadly. >> I ran Finalfun 5s on every of the 300 positions and it score 188/300 = >> 62.7%. >> >> 188 of 300 matching moves >> 2008-08-22 22:40:48, Total time: 00:31:22 >> Rated time: 10:31 = 631 Seconds >> >> It spent rarely any time on the hits, they were mostly solved in less than >> 1s. > > Most of the mates are shallow enough they'll be solved instantly. Even a > Java programs shouldn't need 30 seconds. Finalfun is a Java program. > Many of the others are materialistic enough they'll at least get the right > answer without too much effort. > > That leaves a hundred or so that requires some effort. That's obviously the 112 ones Finalfun couldn't solve. :-) >>> You shouldn't be missing any mate-in-2 positions. None. >> >> Finalfun finds them at depth 3. > > Depends on how you count & report them. Of course. Finalfun doesn't do *any* reductions (not even null move). So that means 3 fully searched plies. > Depending on the kind of search extensions you have, some programs can find > mate at a much shallower iterative search depth than others. Some mates end in captures. One can find them in q-search. >> Position 9 is a mate in 5 (Finalfun says so), it's found in 4s at depth >> 5/9. > > Yup. Actually the move Bh2+ is found at depth 3/5 with a score of 1.99 (there's that error again). > I wouldn't expect GC's beginner level to get that or #8, which is mate in 7. > >> Mmpf, all the other engines tell me it's a mate in 4. > > Depends on how it's counted & reported. > > Not all programs even find the shortest mate. Because of the way they > search, they sometimes just find *a* mate rather than the closest one. Yeah, Finalfun obviously missed a shorter mate here. But it found it at depth 5, I would expect an accurate mate score at depth 8. I'm just now trying that. It took 6s now, a video stream in the background in the background probably slows it down :-). But that shows again how timing matters. With the 5s limit it wouldn't reach depth 5 under this conditions. It's too damn slow. I just interrupted and cheat by saying "go infinite searchmoves Bh2+" in the arena debug window. It's much faster now only searching the right move. But it's still at +M5 at depth 9/19. Mmpf. So depth 10/22. Still at +M5. Stop. But what am I hunting? Rerun Shredder 8 on it: +M4, but just 2 plies pv. Let's play them. Still +M4. Wtf? Now it gives a complete pv exactly identical to Finalfun's. Cheater. Now all the engines agree it's a mate in 5.     Date: 28 Aug 2008 23:51:44 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Tony M <[email protected] > (16:33) schrieb: > I didn't implement analysis mode yet, sorry. The program does not > check for keyboard input during the search. Ah, of course. I do the search in an extra thread. It's quite easy to do in Java. > BookThinker is a utility that comes with the chess engine Thinker. Thanks. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 28 Aug 2008 23:39:07 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Tony M <[email protected] > (17:16) schrieb: > Sorry, Simon, I missed your first question. No sleep last night. :) > I'm from Vancouver, BC, Canada. Nearly everyone seems to be from the american west coast here. :-) > I actually was going to ask you the same thing, one of your addresses > says Germany, and the other says Liectenstein. Germany is right, Hamburg to be exact. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 23 Aug 2008 16:16:42 From: Tony M Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:30:24 +0200, Simon Krahnke <[email protected] > wrote: >* Guest <[email protected]> (00:44) schrieb: > >> There are testing suites with much more emphesis on positional abilities, >> but he's not ready for that. > >I think Finalfun scores nada on silent but deadly. > >>> I ran Finalfun 5s on every of the 300 positions and it score 188/300 = >>> 62.7%. >>> >>> 188 of 300 matching moves >>> 2008-08-22 22:40:48, Total time: 00:31:22 >>> Rated time: 10:31 = 631 Seconds >>> >>> It spent rarely any time on the hits, they were mostly solved in less than >>> 1s. >> >> Most of the mates are shallow enough they'll be solved instantly. Even a >> Java programs shouldn't need 30 seconds. > >Finalfun is a Java program. > Hi Simon, is Finalfun available for download? I wouldn't mind giving it a try. Tony     Date: 22 Aug 2008 22:29:41 From: Guest Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (00:44) schrieb: > >> There are testing suites with much more emphesis on positional abilities, >> but he's not ready for that. > > I think Finalfun scores nada on silent but deadly. With just material, I'm not surprised. I don't know what would be needed for that one, but I'd expect it'd be more than mobility and a little pawn knowledge. Maybe a few piece square tables? I've never actually run them or even looked at them. (I don't have a current program, so... (shrug)) >> Most of the mates are shallow enough they'll be solved instantly. Even a >> Java programs shouldn't need 30 seconds. > > Finalfun is a Java program. Maybe you ought to offer it to Sanny.... There are a number of Java chess programs he could have looked at first. I still wonder about the structure of his program and the algorithms it uses. I bet right about now, he's feeling pretty bummed out about his program's performance. It went from a 2800 rating to being unable to detect mating positions in a test suite. That's got to be a bit of an ego deflater. >>>> You shouldn't be missing any mate-in-2 positions. None. >>> >>> Finalfun finds them at depth 3. >> >> Depends on how you count & report them. > > Of course. Finalfun doesn't do *any* reductions (not even null move). So > that means 3 fully searched plies. Because of how you do king captures & check's, you might be detecting it a move earlier though. With the "Wait until the king is captured" method, it can take one extra plain ply. (Check extensions mean you'll still see it, but it'll be counted as one more ply.) > Actually the move Bh2+ is found at depth 3/5 with a score of 1.99 > (there's that error again). Are you using floating point to hold the score? That'd do it. Just a little round-off error. Converting to/from centipawns could cause that maybe. >> At least they didn't make you follow all the rules, exactly. > > There wasn't even a time limit :-). One game I operated we both had > implemented XBoard, so the game could run automatically. That was good > because the other engine took minutes for each move. Well then heck, you should have let it run for a full day between moves! I remember reading that's what the Russian team did way back in the 60's with the ITEP vs. Kotok-McCarthy program. Both were selective search programs and they only ran a few minutes search. The moves were phoned back & forth every day. The Russians weren't happy with the way their program wasn't beating the US program, so they expanded the search width to full width and let it think for much longer. The result being their program then won. > The only thing I remember about the Smalltalk program is its annoying > way to enter move. Our own interface had drag&drop. They had a pop-up > window that asked for name of the start square, then a second window > popped up, asking for the target square, then a third pop-up window asked > for confirmation of that move. (shudder) I guess whoever programed it didn't actually put much thought in playing it. >> Not everybody does mobility though. It's fairly time consuming and many >> feel it doesn't actually provide enough for the cost. > > I actually have no idea on how to implement that. Isn't that a move > generator that doesn't generate moves? Pretty much. Actually there are several definitions of 'mobility'. 1) Legal mobility. 2) pseudo-legal mobility. 3) pawn based mobility. (As if there were only pawns on the board.) 4) distinct square mobility. (If two of your pieces can move to the same square, it's only counted once.) And there are probably others. #4 is actually pretty easy to do with bitboards. You can use the Kogge-Stone (spelling?) method to find all the moves for all the pieces of the same type. OR them together and then do a bitcount. The K-S method takes a full 64 bit bitboard and shifts & ands them around until it's 'moved' to all the squares. The bitboard stuff has really gotten interesting the past few years. Far more interesting than the old rotated method. But some people don't feel it's a good judge of a good position. Good positions have good mobility because they are good positions. Not: good positions are good positions because they have good mobility. Me... (shrug) Mobility does slow things down, but I haven't tried #4 with the bitboard methods so it might be okay. >> Speaking of mobility, I was reading one of the testing threads by Hyatt >> recently and he mentioned that you can actually use a random number >> generator for the mobility score! [...] > > Interesting. Can you give a pointer to that? The recent testing threads > on Talkchess are really huge. I know!! There's more than 100 pages worth. I got lost in them. I finally just gave up and am waiting for him to post results of his new tests. (He's finally getting reliable testing results. Now he's trying to bring the testing size down to something that's more easily managed but yet sensitive enough to detect small changes in the program's playing ability.) A few days ago I was going through the forums, saving interesting threads to my drive and I happened to see it. http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=205916&t=22731 I email regularly with a couple people who are also interested in computer chess and follow the forum, and they too were surprised by this. They had missed it and I had to give them the link so they could read it for themselves. Once you actually start thinking about it, it does make a bit of sense. It's not going to have the reliability of a real mobility score, but if you random generator is good, then.... Unfortunately I don't have Don Beal's original paper, so I don't know any real results. Just what Hyatt is repeating. In another thread, he says "5. Beal even found that random evaluation was enough to let a full-width search play reasonably. Nobody had thought that prior to his experiment" I guess that just goes back to "If you don't test, you don't know". I'm not so sure I'd trust it in a real program, but it would be interesting to see some test results about it. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---       Date: 23 Aug 2008 17:26:25 From: Andy Walker Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. In article <[email protected] >, Guest <[email protected]> wrote: [mobility:] >But some people don't feel it's a good judge of a good position. Good >positions have good mobility because they are good positions. Not: good >positions are good positions because they have good mobility. Right. In the early days of computer chess, mobility was often thought of as Very Important, because it was an important part of human positional estimation, and because it seemed to correlate strongly with whether positions were good or bad. The impression I have is that it was eventually dropped, because it wasn't really telling you anything new [eg, more material usually means more mobility, but its the extra material that's good not the extra mobility] and because in the end it only counts if it leads to tactics [eg, more mobility means I can perhaps switch my attack faster than you can switch your defence, but that only matters if the attack wins something, which shows up in the tactics]. For humans, it's a useful guide near the root of the tree, but computers do their evaluations at the leaves. If it's making a comeback, that's Quite Interesting in its own right, and one wonders what the reasons are. >>> Speaking of mobility, I was reading one of the testing threads by Hyatt >>> recently and he mentioned that you can actually use a random number >>> generator for the mobility score! [...] >Unfortunately I don't have Don Beal's original paper, so I don't know any >real results. Just what Hyatt is repeating. [...] >In another thread, he says "5. Beal even found that random evaluation was >enough to let a full-width search play reasonably. Nobody had thought that >prior to his experiment" I guess that just goes back to "If you don't >test, you don't know". I think some of the claims made "on behalf of" Don's results go way beyond what Don himself claimed or measured. A random evaluation correlates [after minimaxing] quite strongly with number of moves and so with material, and so plays much better than mere random moves. Further, such a program still reliably detects mates and stalemates within the tree, and so will play or avoid any forced [stale]mate in the same way as [but faster than, because of the simple evaluation!] any other chess engine. The result was that a random engine searching [say] to depth 10 heavily defeated the same engine searching to depth 9, and produced *some* quite intelligent play [eg "trying" not to lose its own queen but to win the opponent's]. Don never claimed that the play was good, merely that it was better than you might expect. [I discussed this fairly extensively with Don at the time, and eventually set an exam question on the topic, which stirred up the external examiner (Jon Mestel, by some sort of serendipity) more than the students ....] -- Andy Walker Nottingham         Date: 23 Aug 2008 13:06:39 From: Guest Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. "Andy Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > In article <[email protected]>, Guest <[email protected]> wrote: > [mobility:] >>But some people don't feel it's a good judge of a good position. Good >>positions have good mobility because they are good positions. Not: good >>positions are good positions because they have good mobility. > > Right. In the early days of computer chess, mobility was often > thought of as Very Important, because it was an important part of human > positional estimation, and because it seemed to correlate strongly with > whether positions were good or bad. The impression I have is that it > was eventually dropped, because it wasn't really telling you anything > new [eg, more material usually means more mobility, but its the extra That and the cost involved. In older programs it took quite a bit of time to get the mobility. With some of the newer ways to compute mobility, the cost is much less. Cheap enough that you could do it if you want to. > If it's making a comeback, that's Quite Interesting in its > own right, and one wonders what the reasons are. I don't know if top programs do it. I don't look at their source or ask. To be honest, I doubt it though. But some mid level and low level programs do it because it's a classic idea and it's so easy to do these days. The big disadvantage before was the cost involved. Without that penalty there's no great reason to avoid it. Whether it actually helps or not, I cna't say. Might be worth testing publicly though. > I think some of the claims made "on behalf of" Don's results > go way beyond what Don himself claimed or measured. A random Hyatt isn't saying it played well. Just that it played better than expected and better than just material alone. That it played better than you'd expect. That it was a somewhat cheap way to do a fake form of mobility scoring. Naturally you wouldn't expect any program that does just material and mobility (fake or real) to play great. My big question is: Does the error rate of a random mobility score (and the extra nodes involved) outweigh the benefit of a faster eval. With real mobility scoring, it's slow enough that it hurts your searching speed so you don't search as deep. With the random one, it's fast enough there's little effect on speed, so you can still search very fast. But you may have to search more nodes because of the random factor. So which would be better? That's what I want to know. Since neither one would be able to handle openings or end games, you'd have to start at a middle game and do a fixed number of moves and then run the position through a judging program to see who was really ahead. Repeat that a few thousand times to get reliable results. Then, what about a little bit of knowledge, such as pawns. Would the random mobility still be useful or would it interfere. I don't know if Beal tested those kinds of things or not. If not, real tests would have to be done. Assuming anybody is truely interested in this beyond the novelty factor. I'm not planning to do these tets, but I think it might be interesting. > the opponent's]. Don never claimed that the play was good, merely > that it was better than you might expect. Right. I didn't say it was great play and Hyatt didn't either. I don't think anybody would expect it be great. Just a quick way to pretend to do mobility scoring. > [I discussed this fairly extensively with Don at the time, > and eventually set an exam question on the topic, which stirred up > the external examiner (Jon Mestel, by some sort of serendipity) > more than the students ....] Thanks for the personal / direct info. Always nice to hear info from somebody close to the source. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 23 Aug 2008 01:58:53 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Guest <[email protected] > (00:25) schrieb: > "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> The castling doesn't reset the 50 move rule counter. > > Apparently not. > > I haven't read the FIDE rules in years, but I used to think it did (and so > did some other authors.) Any irreversible move resets the counter. The engines I tested in Arena preferred 0-0 too, not getting the half move clock. > I guess we read wrong. > > The FIDE rules are actually a little fuzzy in some areas. Not here: It explicitly mentions captures and pawn moves. The concept of irreversiblity (sp?) is obviously behind that, but is not mentioned. > However, even if Alex & the others were wrong, it's still a great test > position because a lot of programs just don't pay attention to the 50 move > rule part when entering a FEN position. I guess my Finalfun reads that in correctly but doesn't care about the 50 rule. I know I never implemented repetition. > Even Winboard / XBoard ignores it and doesn't even pass it to engines. Arena too. >> So the above the above board will drawn after both players make a move >> and black claims draw. > > Yup. > > Actually, since this is 50 move rule, I'm not sure he has to make the claim. > I think it's automatic. (As I said, some areas of the rules are fuzzy.) > But claiming it wont hurt. 50 move and repetition aren't automatic, you have too claim them. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 22 Aug 2008 20:37:58 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (00:25) schrieb: > >> I guess we read wrong. >> >> The FIDE rules are actually a little fuzzy in some areas. > > Not here: It explicitly mentions captures and pawn moves. The concept of > irreversiblity (sp?) is obviously behind that, but is not mentioned. That's how I had always heard it explained. Apparently a lot of people got it that way. >> Actually, since this is 50 move rule, I'm not sure he has to make the >> claim. >> I think it's automatic. (As I said, some areas of the rules are fuzzy.) >> But claiming it wont hurt. > > 50 move and repetition aren't automatic, you have too claim them. Okay. I always claim it anyway. (Even claiming a draw has to be done carefully if you are doing it computer vs. computer. The xboard protocol doesn't give you wa to do it like normal, so you have to do it differently under xboard than if you do it with a human.) Insufficient material, such as lone king, is automatic though. There's been some discussion recently about that. Also, some time back there was a discussion about the wording of the draw by repetition when castling status changes were involved. The way its worded can make it sound like if your castling status changes even briefly, then it wont be an exact repetition. That's occured in a few tournaments too. I guy I know sent me a link about that. The TD agreed the wording of the rules does certainly make it sound that way, and that if you interpret it literally then it would be, but that traditionally chess isn't played that way, so temporary castling status changes don't effect repetition. Other TD's can rule their own way, though. If they are more literal minded, then... > > mfg, simon .... l ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 22 Aug 2008 23:50:29 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Guest <[email protected] > (22:42) schrieb: > 1rk4B/6N1/8/8/8/3p1p1p/3P1P1P/4K2R w K - 98 150 > > "A lot of engines I tested evaluate this position as won by White, even > Rybka The two possible involved bugs are: missing reading of 50-move count > from FEN, and treatment of castling move as an irreversible move which > resets 50-move count. Alex" Do I understand that right: Once the half move clock reaches 100 one can claim a draw, so black and white each have exactly one chance to avoid draw? All the pawns are blocked and there are no immediately playable captures. The castling doesn't reset the 50 move rule counter. So the above the above board will drawn after both players make a move and black claims draw. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 22 Aug 2008 17:25:13 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (22:42) schrieb: > >> 1rk4B/6N1/8/8/8/3p1p1p/3P1P1P/4K2R w K - 98 150 >> >> "A lot of engines I tested evaluate this position as won by White, even >> Rybka The two possible involved bugs are: missing reading of 50-move >> count >> from FEN, and treatment of castling move as an irreversible move which >> resets 50-move count. Alex" > > Do I understand that right: Once the half move clock reaches 100 one can > claim a draw, so black and white each have exactly one chance to avoid > draw? That's the 50 move rule. Many people (including my old program) get the halfmove & full move clock wrong or just ignore it when entering a position. I ignored it because I thought it didn't matter. Laziness on my part. But it does matter. (And in fact, some programs actually use a FEN string (or similar) to save its position as game state for resuming games. For them, it obviously would matter.) And acording to Alex (and some of the posts that replied to his message), a lot of programs actually got it wrong. It's just one of those interesting positions that aren't likely to be encountered in real games, but are great debugging positions. > All the pawns are blocked and there are no immediately playable Right. So technically a draw even though it looks like it'd be a win for White. > captures. The castling doesn't reset the 50 move rule counter. Apparently not. I haven't read the FIDE rules in years, but I used to think it did (and so did some other authors.) Any irreversible move resets the counter. I guess we read wrong. The FIDE rules are actually a little fuzzy in some areas. However, even if Alex & the others were wrong, it's still a great test position because a lot of programs just don't pay attention to the 50 move rule part when entering a FEN position. Even Winboard / XBoard ignores it and doesn't even pass it to engines. > > So the above the above board will drawn after both players make a move > and black claims draw. Yup. Actually, since this is 50 move rule, I'm not sure he has to make the claim. I think it's automatic. (As I said, some areas of the rules are fuzzy.) But claiming it wont hurt. > > mfg, simon .... l > ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 22 Aug 2008 23:07:46 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Guest <[email protected] > (19:39) schrieb: > I'm only looking at the first 20 positions at the moment... I've gone through the first 10 positions of wac with my Finalfun. It finds all of them except the seconds. Rybka and Toga II solve that at depth 14. A little odd among all that Mate-in-x. I ran Finalfun 5s on every of the 300 positions and it score 188/300 = 62.7%. 188 of 300 matching moves 2008-08-22 22:40:48, Total time: 00:31:22 Rated time: 10:31 = 631 Seconds It spent rarely any time on the hits, they were mostly solved in less than 1s. > You shouldn't be missing any mate-in-2 positions. None. Finalfun finds them at depth 3. > I can accept that a beginner wouldn't be able to find a mate in 5 or mate in > 7, etc. I don't mind a beginner level in a program missing those. Position 9 is a mate in 5 (Finalfun says so), it's found in 4s at depth 5/9. Mmpf, all the other engines tell me it's a mate in 4. > The best positional play in the world doesn't mean anything if you miss > major tactical issues. After all, checkmating your opponent is the object > of the game. I remember when we were programming our first chess program at a university course. The was a tournament at the end the semester where all team's programs were to play all the others twice. The rules said that not accepting a legal or generating an illegal move was a loss for that program. So our objective was to let it play legal chess, with all the castling, en-passant and under-promotion stuff. Then came piece/square tables and some opening patches so that it could play a real game. And the we took care that it could it actually win an end game by finding mates. With my own engine FInalfun I even reversed it: It can't play any real game because of its pure materialistic view nearly all position look the same. But it does find some mates. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 28 Aug 2008 15:03:42 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Tony M <[email protected] > (09:11) schrieb: Where are you from, Tony? > You can download my program at http://tmokonen.110mb.com/tonyschess/ > if you want to try it out or test against it. Thanks. Why is there no analysis mode? It's far easier to implement than time controls. What is a BookThinker? mfg, simon .... l       Date: 28 Aug 2008 15:16:27 From: Tony M Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:03:42 +0200, Simon Krahnke <[email protected] > wrote: >* Tony M <[email protected]> (09:11) schrieb: > >Where are you from, Tony? > >> You can download my program at http://tmokonen.110mb.com/tonyschess/ >> if you want to try it out or test against it. > >Thanks. Why is there no analysis mode? It's far easier to implement than >time controls. > >What is a BookThinker? > >mfg, simon .... l Sorry, Simon, I missed your first question. No sleep last night. :) I'm from Vancouver, BC, Canada. I actually was going to ask you the same thing, one of your addresses says Germany, and the other says Liectenstein.         Date: 28 Aug 2008 15:17:29 From: Tony M Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:16:27 GMT, Tony M <[email protected] > wrote: >Liectenstein Grr, Liechtenstein. I *really* need sleep.       Date: 28 Aug 2008 14:33:44 From: Tony M Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:03:42 +0200, Simon Krahnke <[email protected] > wrote: >* Tony M <[email protected]> (09:11) schrieb: > >Where are you from, Tony? > >> You can download my program at http://tmokonen.110mb.com/tonyschess/ >> if you want to try it out or test against it. > >Thanks. Why is there no analysis mode? It's far easier to implement than >time controls. > >What is a BookThinker? > >mfg, simon .... l I didn't implement analysis mode yet, sorry. The program does not check for keyboard input during the search. It sort of works with time controls, but incremental time controls remain a problem. Increasing the movesleft parameter in the .ini file decreases the amount of time used. BookThinker is a utility that comes with the chess engine Thinker. http://www.geocities.com/thechessthinker/download.html Basically, it provides opening book functionality for engines that don't have a book, to run in GUIs that don't have a native book format (eg Winboard). The download for Thinker doesn't come with a book, but it does come with a utility to make books from PGN files. I can send you a book that I made myself, it's given me decent results so far. I usually use native Arena books without a problem. I hope to have an own book with the next release of Tony's Chess, when I get off my lazy butt to do it :). Tony     Date: 28 Aug 2008 14:57:10 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. * Sanny <[email protected] > (09:21) schrieb: > 74 moves game !!! > > It means Tiny and GetClub are nearly equal. But GetClub is taking 15 > sec/ move and Tony taking 8 sec / move. > > Just a moment ago the game was improved a bit. I don't know the above > game was played after the improvement or befire that. > > If this game was played before the improvement. Then Tony will find it > much difficult to win new games. But if the game was played after the > improvement, Then Both programs are equal. A match lost isn't an indicator of equalness. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 28 Aug 2008 00:21:45 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. 74 moves game !!! It means Tiny and GetClub are nearly equal. But GetClub is taking 15 sec/ move and Tony taking 8 sec / move. Just a moment ago the game was improved a bit. I don't know the above game was played after the improvement or befire that. If this game was played before the improvement. Then Tony will find it much difficult to win new games. But if the game was played after the improvement, Then Both programs are equal. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 22 Aug 2008 17:44:40 From: Guest Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (19:39) schrieb: > >> I'm only looking at the first 20 positions at the moment... > > I've gone through the first 10 positions of wac with my Finalfun. It > finds all of them except the seconds. Rybka and Toga II solve that at > depth 14. A little odd among all that Mate-in-x. Yeah. But I didn't write the book. That's also why WAC is not used for major engine testing. But it does make a decent beginning test. It's a decent first testing suite for Sanny. A little bit of positional, a lot of tactical, and a lot of mates. There are testing suites with much more emphesis on positional abilities, but he's not ready for that. > > I ran Finalfun 5s on every of the 300 positions and it score 188/300 = > 62.7%. > > 188 of 300 matching moves > 2008-08-22 22:40:48, Total time: 00:31:22 > Rated time: 10:31 = 631 Seconds > > It spent rarely any time on the hits, they were mostly solved in less than > 1s. Most of the mates are shallow enough they'll be solved instantly. Even a Java programs shouldn't need 30 seconds. Many of the others are materialistic enough they'll at least get the right answer without too much effort. That leaves a hundred or so that requires some effort. >> You shouldn't be missing any mate-in-2 positions. None. > > Finalfun finds them at depth 3. Depends on how you count & report them. Depending on the kind of search extensions you have, some programs can find mate at a much shallower iterative search depth than others. A lot of programs actually report different depths. I don't worry too much about it. > >> I can accept that a beginner wouldn't be able to find a mate in 5 or mate >> in >> 7, etc. I don't mind a beginner level in a program missing those. > > Position 9 is a mate in 5 (Finalfun says so), it's found in 4s at depth > 5/9. Yup. I wouldn't expect GC's beginner level to get that or #8, which is mate in 7. > > Mmpf, all the other engines tell me it's a mate in 4. Depends on how it's counted & reported. Not all programs even find the shortest mate. Because of the way they search, they sometimes just find *a* mate rather than the closest one. > >> The best positional play in the world doesn't mean anything if you miss >> major tactical issues. After all, checkmating your opponent is the >> object >> of the game. > > I remember when we were programming our first chess program at a > university course. The was a tournament at the end the semester where > all team's programs were to play all the others twice. The rules said > that not accepting a legal or generating an illegal move was a loss for > that program. So our objective was to let it play legal chess, with all > the castling, en-passant and under-promotion stuff. Then came > piece/square tables and some opening patches so that it could play a real > game. And the we took care that it could it actually win an end game by > finding mates. At least they didn't make you follow all the rules, exactly. It's amazing how many of the rules are a such a pain to program. > > With my own engine FInalfun I even reversed it: It can't play any real > game because of its pure materialistic view nearly all position look the > same. But it does find some mates. Adding a little mobility would help. And piece square tables. Not everybody does mobility though. It's fairly time consuming and many feel it doesn't actually provide enough for the cost. Speaking of mobility, I was reading one of the testing threads by Hyatt recently and he mentioned that you can actually use a random number generator for the mobility score! The idea is that positions with a higher number of children positions (who gets scored) has a higher chance of getting a high random number pseuo-mobility score. Positions with fewer childred to get scored tend to get a lower random number because there are fewer chances to get a high number. It's just probabilities. I haven't tried it, but one of these years I might dig out my program and try just material & a random number generator and see how well it does on some tests. > > mfg, simon .... l ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---       Date: 26 Aug 2008 22:05:16 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. Guest <[email protected] > wrote: > Speaking of mobility, I was reading one of the testing threads by > Hyatt recently and he mentioned that you can actually use a random > number generator for the mobility score! > > The idea is that positions with a higher number of children > positions (who gets scored) has a higher chance of getting a high > random number pseuo-mobility score. You can go even further and use a random number generator for the entire evaluation function! As you say, a node with a large number of children has a higher chance of getting a high random evaluation. And, also, a large number of children implies high mobility, which generally implies lots of material. So a completely random evaluation function tends to reward material and mobility, which correlate to good positions. :-) Dave. -- David Richerby Salted Painting (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Renaissance masterpiece but it's covered in salt!         Date: 26 Aug 2008 22:07:52 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > Guest <[email protected]> wrote: >> Speaking of mobility, I was reading one of the testing threads by >> Hyatt recently and he mentioned that you can actually use a random >> number generator for the mobility score! > > You can go even further and use a random number generator for the > entire evaluation function! Oops. I now see that you'd already said this by the time I posted. I'd skim-read the next couple of articles in the thread but hadn't noticed it. Apologies for the repetition. Dave. -- David Richerby Transparent Book (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ romantic novel but you can see right through it!   Date: 22 Aug 2008 21:43:25 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Guest <[email protected] > (03:37) schrieb: > "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >>* Guest <[email protected]> (00:00) schrieb: >> >> Thanks for the detailed explanations. >> >>> That was due to my move sorting. I had accidently changed things so >>> likely >>> captures would be tried first. The king wasn't considered 'likely' to be >>> captured so sometimes it would never get around to noticing the king >>> could >>> be captured. It'd just go ahead and search the position as if it was >>> legal. >> >> I did that king capture checking in move generation. Someone told me >> that way the code gets executed too often. How do you ensure the king >> capture is found before some beta cut? > > Simply do the king first. OK. I can safely try my best move, since I wouldn't have one if this position was illegal. Then I generate and score my captures. I iterate through them looking for a king capture score. Then I know if the board is illegal and if not I can go for the rest of the moves. > Some people do indeed explicit checks in the move generator. There are two > variations. > > The first is that it never generates an illegal move. It makes the search > easy, but it takes time to verify though. I've thought about that. You have to check every king move target square for attacks, know which pieces are pinned, know about double check, know which squares stop the check when occupied by one of my pieces that can go there. > Others go ahead and generate pseudo-legal moves, but if the king is > ever captured, then it aborts and returns an invalid flag. That's what I did. Thanks for all the input. >> My lame engine has a strange bug: In material only evaluation it >> sometimes has an evaluation of 1 centipawn. I'm not the mood to check >> that out. > > Not being familiar with your engine, I can't even guess. I'm not expecting you to. > I'd put some debugging code into the eval and dump the board whenever it > happens. I can't be the eval. It would never return a score like that. > Then put a few more checks into the search to catch other spots. It must be some artefact of the search. I think I'll see if my next engine reproduces the bug and track it down there and fix it back. That will keep my Java involvement at a minimum :-) > Not the low level diagnostic kind of stuff most beginners need. One could compile the mating from the usual test position suites. en-passant and promotion are probably best made up or from the basic literature. Same for stalemate. And Can't one search for repetition and 50 move rule in real game collections and go from there? mfg, simon .... l     Date: 22 Aug 2008 15:42:06 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (03:37) schrieb: > >> Simply do the king first. > > OK. I can safely try my best move, since I wouldn't have one if this > position was illegal. Then I generate and score my captures. I iterate > through them looking for a king capture score. Then I know if the board > is illegal and if not I can go for the rest of the moves. Right. If the king is in the move list, then you know that position was illegal, the result of being in check. So you back up a score appropriately. You'll need to check for that being the 'best move' returned and then decide if it was mate or just stalemate. But you probably do something similar already. >> The first is that it never generates an illegal move. It makes the >> search >> easy, but it takes time to verify though. > > I've thought about that. You have to check every king move target square > for attacks, know which pieces are pinned, know about double check, know > which squares stop the check when occupied by one of my pieces that can > go there. It supposedly can be done somewhat efficiently. With some of the advanced data structures that some people do, there's so much data already that such things can be done without too much effort for each generated move. (At least as not as much as a niave way that most people would do it.) The catch is that most moves generated will never actually be made. So every little bit of extra effort you do will be wasted. So most people just don't do it that way. It does make the search a little easier, and it's the more obvious way for beginners. It just isn't the fastest way. >> Others go ahead and generate pseudo-legal moves, but if the king is >> ever captured, then it aborts and returns an invalid flag. > > That's what I did. Thanks for all the input. No problem. If there's an interesting conversation going on, I don't mind helping. You probably would get more info from the TalkChess forum, though. >> Not the low level diagnostic kind of stuff most beginners need. > > One could compile the mating from the usual test position suites. > en-passant and promotion are probably best made up or from the basic > literature. Same for stalemate. And Can't one search for repetition and > 50 move rule in real game collections and go from there? You can collect quite a few debugging positions that way. I've got a few. It's just that nobody has done all the work and released them. Everybody has to redo the same effort or just grow past it. But most really clever debug positions wont show up in real games, or at least not very often. How often do you actually encounter an enpassant mating move, for example? Good debuging positions are usually created. I haven't done chess programming in several years, so all my stuff is packed away in the basement. But I didn't have a major collection, though. I had a few simple ones and I struggled through debugging stages with that and effort. Occasionally I'll find interesting test positions and sometimes I'll keep them, but I usually don't bother. This one, for example was posted in Feb 2007. 1rk4B/6N1/8/8/8/3p1p1p/3P1P1P/4K2R w K - 98 150 "A lot of engines I tested evaluate this position as won by White, even Rybka The two possible involved bugs are: missing reading of 50-move count from FEN, and treatment of castling move as an irreversible move which resets 50-move count. Alex" I happened to save that one from the TalkChess forums, before they deleted it. (For a while they routinely deleted old threads because of space. So many months of messages were destroyed.) ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 22 Aug 2008 08:51:53 From: Sanny Subject: GetClub Updated Results. A few things were changed at GetClub. Here us the result after Changes. I am not clear that the modifications are good or bad as for some positions it gave correct move while for others it gave wrong result. Position Best Move by GetClub Beginner Level 2rr3k/pp3pp1/1nnqbN1p/3pN3/2pP4/2P3Q1/PPB4P/R4RK1 w - - bm Qg6; id WAC. 001 N-h5,Score:-0.55 8/7p/5k2/5p2/p1p2P2/Pr1pPK2/1P1R3P/8 b - - bm Rxb2; id WAC.002 P- c3,Score:2.19 5rk1/1ppb3p/p1pb4/6q1/3P1p1r/2P1R2P/PP1BQ1P1/5RKN w - - bm Rg3; id WAC. 003 R-g3,Score:2.79 r1bq2rk/pp3pbp/2p1p1pQ/7P/3P4/2PB1N2/PP3PPR/2KR4 w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC.004 Q-h7,Score:94.65 5k2/6pp/p1qN4/1p1p4/3P4/2PKP2Q/PP3r2/3R4 b - - bm Qc4 ; id WAC.005 Q- d6,Score:2.28 7k/p7/1R5K/6r1/6p1/6P1/8/8 w - - bm Rb7; id WAC.006 R-b7,Score: 5.85 rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/8/4P3/6n1/7P/PPPNPPP1/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - bm Ne3; id WAC.007 N-f2,Score:1.43 r4q1k/p2bR1rp/2p2Q1N/5p2/5p2/2P5/PP3PPP/R5K1 w - - bm Rf7; id WAC.008 R-f7,Score:9.71 3q1rk1/p4pp1/2pb3p/3p4/6Pr/1PNQ4/P1PB1PP1/4RRK1 b - - bm Bh2 ; id WAC. 009 Q-b6,Score:-2.25 2br2k1/2q3rn/p2NppQ1/2p1P3/Pp5R/4P3/1P3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Rxh7; id WAC. 010 R-h7,Score:5.77 r1b1kb1r/3q1ppp/pBp1pn2/8/Np3P2/5B2/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - bm Bxc6; id WAC.011 B-c5,Score:1.07 4k1r1/2p3r1/1pR1p3/3pP2p/3P2qP/P4N2/1PQ4P/5R1K b - - bm Qxf3 ; id WAC. 012 Q-f3,Score:82.14 5rk1/pp4p1/2n1p2p/2Npq3/2p5/6P1/P3P1BP/R4Q1K w - - bm Qxf8 ; id WAC. 013 B-f3,Score:-1.63 r2rb1k1/pp1q1p1p/2n1p1p1/2bp4/5P2/PP1BPR1Q/1BPN2PP/R5K1 w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC.014 B-f6,Score:2.62 1R6/1brk2p1/4p2p/p1P1Pp2/P7/6P1/1P4P1/2R3K1 w - - bm Rxb7; id WAC.015 K-f2,Score:2.42 r4rk1/ppp2ppp/2n5/2bqp3/8/P2PB3/1PP1NPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - bm Nc3; id WAC. 016 N-c3,Score:3.05 1k5r/pppbn1pp/4q1r1/1P3p2/2NPp3/1QP5/P4PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - bm Ne5; id WAC.017 B-f4,Score:-0.79 R7/P4k2/8/8/8/8/r7/6K1 w - - bm Rh8; id WAC.018 K-f1,Score:2.32 r1b2rk1/ppbn1ppp/4p3/1QP4q/3P4/N4N2/5PPP/R1B2RK1 w - - bm c6; id WAC. 019 P-c6,Score:0.56 r2qkb1r/1ppb1ppp/p7/4p3/P1Q1P3/2P5/5PPP/R1B2KNR b kq - bm Bb5; id WAC. 020 B-e6,Score:3.57 5rk1/1b3p1p/pp3p2/3n1N2/1P6/P1qB1PP1/3Q3P/4R1K1 w - - bm Qh6; id WAC. 021 Q-c3,Score:2.24 r1bqk2r/ppp1nppp/4p3/n5N1/2BPp3/P1P5/2P2PPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - bm Ba2 Nxf7; id WAC.022 B-b5,Score:0.45 r3nrk1/2p2p1p/p1p1b1p1/2NpPq2/3R4/P1N1Q3/1PP2PPP/4R1K1 w - - bm g4; id WAC.023 Q-d2,Score:3.67 6k1/1b1nqpbp/pp4p1/5P2/1PN5/4Q3/P5PP/1B2B1K1 b - - bm Bd4; id WAC.024 B-d4,Score:7.12 3R1rk1/8/5Qpp/2p5/2P1p1q1/P3P3/1P2PK2/8 b - - bm Qh4 ; id WAC.025 Q- h4,Score:11.17 3r2k1/1p1b1pp1/pq5p/8/3NR3/2PQ3P/PP3PP1/6K1 b - - bm Bf5; id WAC.026 Q- b2,Score:-0.09 7k/pp4np/2p3p1/3pN1q1/3P4/Q7/1r3rPP/2R2RK1 w - - bm Qf8 ; id WAC.027 Q- f8,Score:85.58 1r1r2k1/4pp1p/2p1b1p1/p3R3/RqBP4/4P3/1PQ2PPP/6K1 b - - bm Qe1 ; id WAC. 028 Q-e1,Score:2.59 r2q2k1/pp1rbppp/4pn2/2P5/1P3B2/6P1/P3QPBP/1R3RK1 w - - bm c6; id WAC. 029 P-c6,Score:3.73 1r3r2/4q1kp/b1pp2p1/5p2/pPn1N3/6P1/P3PPBP/2QRR1K1 w - - bm Nxd6; id WAC.030 N-g5,Score:1.62 rb3qk1/pQ3ppp/4p3/3P4/8/1P3N2/1P3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxa8 d6 dxe6 g3; id WAC.031 P-e6,Score:6.36 6k1/p4p1p/1p3np1/2q5/4p3/4P1N1/PP3PPP/3Q2K1 w - - bm Qd8 ; id WAC.032 Q-d8,Score:2.03 8/p1q2pkp/2Pr2p1/8/P3Q3/6P1/5P1P/2R3K1 w - - bm Qe5 Qf4; id WAC.033 R- c5,Score:2.89 7k/1b1r2p1/p6p/1p2qN2/3bP3/3Q4/P5PP/1B1R3K b - - bm Bg1; id WAC.034 B- g1,Score:2.53 r3r2k/2R3pp/pp1q1p2/8/3P3R/7P/PP3PP1/3Q2K1 w - - bm Rxh7 ; id WAC.035 Q-c1,Score:1.9 3r4/2p1rk2/1pQq1pp1/7p/1P1P4/P4P2/6PP/R1R3K1 b - - bm Re1 ; id WAC.036 R-e1,Score:2.52 2r5/2rk2pp/1pn1pb2/pN1p4/P2P4/1N2B3/nPR1KPPP/3R4 b - - bm Nxd4 ; id WAC.037 N-d4,Score:1.62 4k3/p4prp/1p6/2b5/8/2Q3P1/P2R1PKP/4q3 w - - bm Rd8 Qd3; id WAC.038 R- d8,Score:0.97 r1br2k1/pp2bppp/2nppn2/8/2P1PB2/2N2P2/PqN1B1PP/R2Q1R1K w - - bm Na4; id WAC.039 N-a4,Score:1.15 3r1r1k/1p4pp/p4p2/8/1PQR4/6Pq/P3PP2/2R3K1 b - - bm Rc8; id WAC.040 R- c8,Score:4.18 1k6/5RP1/1P6/1K6/6r1/8/8/8 w - - bm Ka5 Kc5 b7; id WAC.041 P-b7,Score: 5.71 r1b1r1k1/pp1n1pbp/1qp3p1/3p4/1B1P4/Q3PN2/PP2BPPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Ba5; id WAC.042 B-d3,Score:0.66 r2q3k/p2P3p/1p3p2/3QP1r1/8/B7/P5PP/2R3K1 w - - bm Be7 Qxa8; id WAC.043 B-e7,Score:6.27 3rb1k1/pq3pbp/4n1p1/3p4/2N5/2P2QB1/PP3PPP/1B1R2K1 b - - bm dxc4; id WAC.044 B-b5,Score:-1.76 7k/2p1b1pp/8/1p2P3/1P3r2/2P3Q1/1P5P/R4qBK b - - bm Qxa1; id WAC.045 Q- a1,Score:5.36 r1bqr1k1/pp1nb1p1/4p2p/3p1p2/3P4/P1N1PNP1/1PQ2PP1/3RKB1R w K - bm Nb5; id WAC.046 R-c1,Score:1.55 r1b2rk1/pp2bppp/2n1pn2/q5B1/2BP4/2N2N2/PP2QPPP/2R2RK1 b - - bm Nxd4; id WAC.047 N-d4,Score:-1.43 1rbq1rk1/p1p1bppp/2p2n2/8/Q1BP4/2N5/PP3PPP/R1B2RK1 b - - bm Rb4; id WAC.048 R-b4,Score:2.04 2b3k1/4rrpp/p2p4/2pP2RQ/1pP1Pp1N/1P3P1P/1q6/6RK w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC. 049 N-g2,Score:-0.01 k4r2/1R4pb/1pQp1n1p/3P4/5p1P/3P2P1/r1q1R2K/8 w - - bm Rxb6 ; id WAC. 050 R-g7,Score:0.31 r1bq1r2/pp4k1/4p2p/3pPp1Q/3N1R1P/2PB4/6P1/6K1 w - - bm Rg4 ; id WAC. 051 R-f3,Score:1.11 r1k5/1p3q2/1Qpb4/3N1p2/5Pp1/3P2Pp/PPPK3P/4R3 w - - bm Re7 c4; id WAC. 052 N-b4,Score:1.35 6k1/6p1/p7/3Pn3/5p2/4rBqP/P4RP1/5QK1 b - - bm Re1; id WAC.053 R- e1,Score:6.17 r3kr2/1pp4p/1p1p4/7q/4P1n1/2PP2Q1/PP4P1/R1BB2K1 b q - bm Qh1 ; id WAC. 054 Q-c5,Score:-0.96 r3r1k1/pp1q1pp1/4b1p1/3p2B1/3Q1R2/8/PPP3PP/4R1K1 w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC.055 R-e3,Score:1.89 r1bqk2r/pppp1ppp/5n2/2b1n3/4P3/1BP3Q1/PP3PPP/RNB1K1NR b KQkq - bm Bxf2 ; id WAC.056 P-d6,Score:1.15 r3q1kr/ppp5/3p2pQ/8/3PP1b1/5R2/PPP3P1/5RK1 w - - bm Rf8 ; id WAC.057 R- f8,Score:90.92 8/8/2R5/1p2qp1k/1P2r3/2PQ2P1/5K2/8 w - - bm Qd1 ; id WAC.058 Q- f3,Score:2.34 r1b2rk1/2p1qnbp/p1pp2p1/5p2/2PQP3/1PN2N1P/PB3PP1/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nd5; id WAC.059 N-d5,Score:9.05 rn1qr1k1/1p2np2/2p3p1/8/1pPb4/7Q/PB1P1PP1/2KR1B1R w - - bm Qh8 ; id WAC.060 Q-h7,Score:-0.55 3qrbk1/ppp1r2n/3pP2p/3P4/2P4P/1P3Q2/PB6/R4R1K w - - bm Qf7 ; id WAC. 061 Q-f7,Score:93.69 6r1/3Pn1qk/p1p1P1rp/2Q2p2/2P5/1P4P1/P3R2P/5RK1 b - - bm Rxg3 ; id WAC. 062 R-g5,Score:-4.75 r1brnbk1/ppq2pp1/4p2p/4N3/3P4/P1PB1Q2/3B1PPP/R3R1K1 w - - bm Nxf7; id WAC.063 N-f7,Score:3.72 8/6pp/3q1p2/3n1k2/1P6/3NQ2P/5PP1/6K1 w - - bm g4 ; id WAC.064 P- g4,Score:92.79 1r1r1qk1/p2n1p1p/bp1Pn1pQ/2pNp3/2P2P1N/1P5B/P6P/3R1RK1 w - - bm Ne7 ; id WAC.065 N-e7,Score:2.05 1k1r2r1/ppq5/1bp4p/3pQ3/8/2P2N2/PP4P1/R4R1K b - - bm Qxe5; id WAC.066 Q-e5,Score:5.47 3r2k1/p2q4/1p4p1/3rRp1p/5P1P/6PK/P3R3/3Q4 w - - bm Rxd5; id WAC.067 R- d5,Score:2.35 6k1/5ppp/1q6/2b5/8/2R1pPP1/1P2Q2P/7K w - - bm Qxe3; id WAC.068 Q- d3,Score:1.75 2k5/pppr4/4R3/4Q3/2pp2q1/8/PPP2PPP/6K1 w - - bm f3 h3; id WAC.069 P- f3,Score:2.91 2kr3r/pppq1ppp/3p1n2/bQ2p3/1n1PP3/1PN1BN1P/1PP2PP1/2KR3R b - - bm Na2 ; id WAC.070 N-a2,Score:4.48 2kr3r/pp1q1ppp/5n2/1Nb5/2Pp1B2/7Q/P4PPP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Nxa7 ; id WAC. 071 Q-f3,Score:0.12 r3r1k1/pp1n1ppp/2p5/4Pb2/2B2P2/B1P5/P5PP/R2R2K1 w - - bm e6; id WAC. 072 P-e6,Score:2.6 r1q3rk/1ppbb1p1/4Np1p/p3pP2/P3P3/2N4R/1PP1Q1PP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qd2; id WAC.073 N-d5,Score:0.76 5r1k/pp4pp/2p5/2b1P3/4Pq2/1PB1p3/P3Q1PP/3N2K1 b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC. 074 P-b5,Score:6.03 r3r1k1/pppq1ppp/8/8/1Q4n1/7P/PPP2PP1/RNB1R1K1 b - - bm Qd6; id WAC.075 R-e1,Score:-2.61 r1b1qrk1/2p2ppp/pb1pnn2/1p2pNB1/3PP3/1BP5/PP2QPPP/RN1R2K1 w - - bm Bxf6; id WAC.076 B-f6,Score:3.05 3r2k1/ppp2ppp/6q1/b4n2/3nQB2/2p5/P4PPP/RN3RK1 b - - bm Ng3; id WAC.077 Q-a6,Score:2.53 r2q3r/ppp2k2/4nbp1/5Q1p/2P1NB2/8/PP3P1P/3RR1K1 w - - bm Ng5 ; id WAC. 078 R-d8,Score:3.99 r3k2r/pbp2pp1/3b1n2/1p6/3P3p/1B2N1Pq/PP1PQP1P/R1B2RK1 b kq - bm Qxh2 ; id WAC.079 P-g3,Score:2.49 r4rk1/p1B1bpp1/1p2pn1p/8/2PP4/3B1P2/qP2QP1P/3R1RK1 w - - bm Ra1; id WAC.080 P-d5,Score:1.65 r4rk1/1bR1bppp/4pn2/1p2N3/1P6/P3P3/4BPPP/3R2K1 b - - bm Bd6; id WAC. 081 B-g2,Score:-0.35 3rr1k1/pp3pp1/4b3/8/2P1B2R/6QP/P3q1P1/5R1K w - - bm Bh7 ; id WAC.082 Q- f4,Score:-1.63 3rr1k1/ppqbRppp/2p5/8/3Q1n2/2P3N1/PPB2PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxd7; id WAC. 083 Q-d7,Score:6.01 r2q1r1k/2p1b1pp/p1n5/1p1Q1bN1/4n3/1BP1B3/PP3PPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Qg8 ; id WAC.084 N-e4,Score:2.12 kr2R3/p4r2/2pq4/2N2p1p/3P2p1/Q5P1/5P1P/5BK1 w - - bm Na6; id WAC.085 R- b8,Score:2.92 8/p7/1ppk1n2/5ppp/P1PP4/2P1K1P1/5N1P/8 b - - bm Ng4 ; id WAC.086 N- g4,Score:1.28 8/p3k1p1/4r3/2ppNpp1/PP1P4/2P3KP/5P2/8 b - - bm Rxe5; id WAC.087 P- b4,Score:3.03 r6k/p1Q4p/2p1b1rq/4p3/B3P3/4P3/PPP3P1/4RRK1 b - - bm Rxg2 ; id WAC.088 Q-g5,Score:-2.51 1r3b1k/p4rpp/4pp2/3q4/2ppbPPQ/6RK/PP5P/2B1NR2 b - - bm g5; id WAC.089 B-d6,Score:7.15 3qrrk1/1pp2pp1/1p2bn1p/5N2/2P5/P1P3B1/1P4PP/2Q1RRK1 w - - bm Nxg7; id WAC.090 R-f4,Score:1.77 2qr2k1/4b1p1/2p2p1p/1pP1p3/p2nP3/PbQNB1PP/1P3PK1/4RB2 b - - bm Be6; id WAC.091 N-c2,Score:1.85 r4rk1/1p2ppbp/p2pbnp1/q7/3BPPP1/2N2B2/PPP4P/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm Bxg4; id WAC.092 B-c4,Score:-0.51 r1b1k1nr/pp3pQp/4pq2/3pn3/8/P1P5/2P2PPP/R1B1KBNR w KQkq - bm Bh6; id WAC.093 B-h6,Score:2.77 8/k7/p7/3Qp2P/n1P5/3KP3/1q6/8 b - - bm e4 ; id WAC.094 Q-b3,Score: 2.46 2r5/1r6/4pNpk/3pP1qp/8/2P1QP2/5PK1/R7 w - - bm Ng4 ; id WAC.095 Q- g5,Score:-1.55 r1b4k/ppp2Bb1/6Pp/3pP3/1qnP1p1Q/8/PPP3P1/1K1R3R w - - bm Qd8 ; id WAC. 096 Q-d8,Score:5.49 6k1/5p2/p5np/4B3/3P4/1PP1q3/P3r1QP/6RK w - - bm Qa8 ; id WAC.097 Q- d5,Score:1.07 1r3rk1/5pb1/p2p2p1/Q1n1q2p/1NP1P3/3p1P1B/PP1R3P/1K2R3 b - - bm Nxe4; id WAC.098 N-e4,Score:6.38 r1bq1r1k/1pp1Np1p/p2p2pQ/4R3/n7/8/PPPP1PPP/R1B3K1 w - - bm Rh5; id WAC. 099 R-e4,Score:2.87 8/k1b5/P4p2/1Pp2p1p/K1P2P1P/8/3B4/8 w - - bm b6 Be3; id WAC.100 B- e3,Score:2.95 5rk1/p5pp/8/8/2Pbp3/1P4P1/7P/4RN1K b - - bm Bc3; id WAC.101 P-g6,Score: 0.01 2Q2n2/2R4p/1p1qpp1k/8/3P3P/3B2P1/5PK1/r7 w - - bm Qxf8 ; id WAC.102 R- f7,Score:5.49 6k1/2pb1r1p/3p1PpQ/p1nPp3/1q2P3/2N2P2/PrB5/2K3RR w - - bm Qxg6 ; id WAC.103 Q-g6,Score:86.64 b4r1k/pq2rp2/1p1bpn1p/3PN2n/2P2P2/P2B3K/1B2Q2N/3R2R1 w - - bm Qxh5; id WAC.104 Q-h5,Score:9.51 r2r2k1/pb3ppp/1p1bp3/7q/3n2nP/PP1B2P1/1B1N1P2/RQ2NRK1 b - - bm Qxh4 Bxg3; id WAC.105 N-c6,Score:4.17 4rrk1/pppb4/7p/3P2pq/3Qn3/P5P1/1PP4P/R3RNNK b - - bm Nf2 ; id WAC.106 Q-g6,Score:-1.01 5n2/pRrk2p1/P4p1p/4p3/3N4/5P2/6PP/6K1 w - - bm Nb5; id WAC.107 N- b5,Score:2.41 r5k1/1q4pp/2p5/p1Q5/2P5/5R2/4RKPP/r7 w - - bm Qe5; id WAC.108 Q- e5,Score:4.93 rn2k1nr/pbp2ppp/3q4/1p2N3/2p5/QP6/PB1PPPPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - bm c3; id WAC.109 P-c3,Score:-1.44 2kr4/bp3p2/p2p2b1/P7/2q5/1N4B1/1PPQ2P1/2KR4 b - - bm Be3; id WAC.110 B- e4,Score:1.37 6k1/p5p1/5p2/2P2Q2/3pN2p/3PbK1P/7P/6q1 b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.111 Q- f1,Score:5.41 r4kr1/ppp5/4bq1b/7B/2PR1Q1p/2N3P1/PP3P1P/2K1R3 w - - bm Rxe6; id WAC. 112 R-e6,Score:6.33 rnbqkb1r/1p3ppp/5N2/1p2p1B1/2P5/8/PP2PPPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - bm Qxf6; id WAC.113 P-f6,Score:-4.99 r1b1rnk1/1p4pp/p1p2p2/3pN2n/3P1PPq/2NBPR1P/PPQ5/2R3K1 w - - bm Bxh7 ; id WAC.114 N-c6,Score:1.46 4N2k/5rpp/1Q6/p3q3/8/P5P1/1P3P1P/5K2 w - - bm Nd6; id WAC.115 N- d6,Score:-1.29 r2r2k1/2p2ppp/p7/1p2P1n1/P6q/5P2/1PB1QP1P/R5RK b - - bm Rd2; id WAC. 116 N-h3,Score:0.76 3r1rk1/q4ppp/p1Rnp3/8/1p6/1N3P2/PP3QPP/3R2K1 b - - bm Ne4; id WAC.117 N-e4,Score:6.11 r5k1/pb2rpp1/1p6/2p4q/5R2/2PB2Q1/P1P3PP/5R1K w - - bm Rh4; id WAC.118 P-c4,Score:0.19 r2qr1k1/p1p2ppp/2p5/2b5/4nPQ1/3B4/PPP3PP/R1B2R1K b - - bm Qxd3; id WAC. 119 N-f2,Score:1.65 r4rk1/1bn2qnp/3p1B1Q/p2P1pP1/1pp5/5N1P/PPB2P2/2KR3R w - - bm g6 Rhg1; id WAC.120 B-g7,Score:3.23 6k1/5p1p/2bP2pb/4p3/2P5/1p1pNPPP/1P1Q1BK1/1q6 b - - bm Bxf3 ; id WAC. 121 P-e4,Score:2.38 1k6/ppp4p/1n2pq2/1N2Rb2/2P2Q2/8/P4KPP/3r1B2 b - - bm Rxf1 ; id WAC.122 Q-d8,Score:3.31 6k1/1b2rp2/1p4p1/3P4/PQ4P1/2N2q2/5P2/3R2K1 b - - bm Bxd5 Rc7 Re6; id WAC.123 R-c7,Score:4.37 6k1/3r4/2R5/P5P1/1P4p1/8/4rB2/6K1 b - - bm g3; id WAC.124 R-d1,Score: 0.37 r1bqr1k1/pp3ppp/1bp5/3n4/3B4/2N2P1P/PPP1B1P1/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm Bxd4 ; id WAC.125 N-e3,Score:1.71 r5r1/pQ5p/1qp2R2/2k1p3/4P3/2PP4/P1P3PP/6K1 w - - bm Rxc6 ; id WAC.126 Q-f7,Score:3.34 2k4r/1pr1n3/p1p1q2p/5pp1/3P1P2/P1P1P3/1R2Q1PP/1RB3K1 w - - bm Rxb7; id WAC.127 Q-f1,Score:2.22 6rk/1pp2Qrp/3p1B2/1pb1p2R/3n1q2/3P4/PPP3PP/R6K w - - bm Qg6; id WAC. 128 P-c3,Score:-0.29 3r1r1k/1b2b1p1/1p5p/2p1Pp2/q1B2P2/4P2P/1BR1Q2K/6R1 b - - bm Bf3; id WAC.129 Q-e8,Score:1.23 6k1/1pp3q1/5r2/1PPp4/3P1pP1/3Qn2P/3B4/4R1K1 b - - bm Qh6 Qh8; id WAC. 130 R-h6,Score:-1.83 2rq1bk1/p4p1p/1p4p1/3b4/3B1Q2/8/P4PpP/3RR1K1 w - - bm Re8; id WAC.131 B-f6,Score:-0.2 4r1k1/5bpp/2p5/3pr3/8/1B3pPq/PPR2P2/2R2QK1 b - - bm Re1; id WAC.132 Q- f1,Score:3.59 r1b1k2r/1pp1q2p/p1n3p1/3QPp2/8/1BP3B1/P5PP/3R1RK1 w kq - bm Bh4; id WAC.133 R-f3,Score:3.09 3r2k1/p6p/2Q3p1/4q3/2P1p3/P3Pb2/1P3P1P/2K2BR1 b - - bm Rd1 ; id WAC. 134 R-d1,Score:3.77 3r1r1k/N2qn1pp/1p2np2/2p5/2Q1P2N/3P4/PP4PP/3R1RK1 b - - bm Nd4; id WAC. 135 N-d4,Score:1.61 6kr/1q2r1p1/1p2N1Q1/5p2/1P1p4/6R1/7P/2R3K1 w - - bm Rc8 ; id WAC.136 Q- f5,Score:4.9 3b1rk1/1bq3pp/5pn1/1p2rN2/2p1p3/2P1B2Q/1PB2PPP/R2R2K1 w - - bm Rd7; id WAC.137 P-f4,Score:0.26 r1bq3r/ppppR1p1/5n1k/3P4/6pP/3Q4/PP1N1PP1/5K1R w - - bm h5; id WAC.138 Q-e3,Score:0.07 rnb3kr/ppp2ppp/1b6/3q4/3pN3/Q4N2/PPP2KPP/R1B1R3 w - - bm Nf6 ; id WAC. 139 Q-e7,Score:-1.62 r2b1rk1/pq4p1/4ppQP/3pB1p1/3P4/2R5/PP3PP1/5RK1 w - - bm Rc7 Bc7; id WAC.140 R-c7,Score:13.09 4r1k1/p1qr1p2/2pb1Bp1/1p5p/3P1n1R/1B3P2/PP3PK1/2Q4R w - - bm Qxf4; id WAC.141 K-f1,Score:-2.39 r2q3n/ppp2pk1/3p4/5Pr1/2NP1Qp1/2P2pP1/PP3K2/4R2R w - - bm Re8 f6 ; id WAC.142 R-h4,Score:3.8 5b2/pp2r1pk/2pp1pRp/4rP1N/2P1P3/1P4QP/P3q1P1/5R1K w - - bm Rxh6 ; id WAC.143 Q-f3,Score:-0.35 r2q1rk1/pp3ppp/2p2b2/8/B2pPPb1/7P/PPP1N1P1/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm d3; id WAC. 144 B-e2,Score:2.66 r1bq4/1p4kp/3p1n2/p4pB1/2pQ4/8/1P4PP/4RRK1 w - - bm Re8; id WAC.145 Q- f6,Score:5.91 8/8/2Kp4/3P1B2/2P2k2/5p2/8/8 w - - bm Bc8 Bd3 Bh3; id WAC.146 B- d3,Score:4.31 r2r2k1/ppqbppbp/2n2np1/2pp4/6P1/1P1PPNNP/PBP2PB1/R2QK2R b KQ - bm Nxg4; id WAC.147 N-e4,Score:1.39 2r1k3/6pr/p1nBP3/1p3p1p/2q5/2P5/P1R4P/K2Q2R1 w - - bm Rxg7; id WAC.148 R-g6,Score:1.42 6k1/6p1/2p4p/4Pp2/4b1qP/2Br4/1P2RQPK/8 b - - bm Bxg2; id WAC.149 P- c5,Score:4.03 r3r1k1/5p2/pQ1b2pB/1p6/4p3/6P1/Pq2BP1P/2R3K1 b - - bm Ba3 Bf8 e3 Be5; id WAC.150 B-f8,Score:6.59 8/3b2kp/4p1p1/pr1n4/N1N4P/1P4P1/1K3P2/3R4 w - - bm Nc3; id WAC.151 N- c3,Score:-0.49 1br2rk1/1pqb1ppp/p3pn2/8/1P6/P1N1PN1P/1B3PP1/1QRR2K1 w - - bm Ne4; id WAC.152 N-d5,Score:2.07 2r3k1/q4ppp/p3p3/pnNp4/2rP4/2P2P2/4R1PP/2R1Q1K1 b - - bm Nxd4; id WAC. 153 R-c5,Score:2.57 r1b2rk1/2p2ppp/p7/1p6/3P3q/1BP3bP/PP3QP1/RNB1R1K1 w - - bm Qxf7 ; id WAC.154 Q-f3,Score:1.78 5bk1/1rQ4p/5pp1/2pP4/3n1PP1/7P/1q3BB1/4R1K1 w - - bm d6; id WAC.155 P- d6,Score:2.15 r1b1qN1k/1pp3p1/p2p3n/4p1B1/8/1BP4Q/PP3KPP/8 w - - bm Qxh6 ; id WAC. 156 N-e6,Score:-2.59 5rk1/p4ppp/2p1b3/3Nq3/4P1n1/1p1B2QP/1PPr2P1/1K2R2R w - - bm Ne7 ; id WAC.157 Q-f3,Score:-4.35 5rk1/n1p1R1bp/p2p4/1qpP1QB1/7P/2P3P1/PP3P2/6K1 w - - bm Rxg7 ; id WAC. 158 Q-e6,Score:3.89 r1b2r2/5P1p/ppn3pk/2p1p1Nq/1bP1PQ2/3P4/PB4BP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Ne6 ; id WAC.159 B-e5,Score:5.95 qn1kr2r/1pRbb3/pP5p/P2pP1pP/3N1pQ1/3B4/3B1PP1/R5K1 w - - bm Qxd7 ; id WAC.160 Q-e6,Score:8.05 3r3k/3r1P1p/pp1Nn3/2pp4/7Q/6R1/Pq4PP/5RK1 w - - bm Qxd8 ; id WAC.161 R- g6,Score:4.38 r3kbnr/p4ppp/2p1p3/8/Q1B3b1/2N1B3/PP3PqP/R3K2R w KQkq - bm Bd5; id WAC. 162 B-d5,Score:5.0 5rk1/2p4p/2p4r/3P4/4p1b1/1Q2NqPp/PP3P1K/R4R2 b - - bm Qg2 ; id WAC.163 P-d5,Score:4.12 8/6pp/4p3/1p1n4/1NbkN1P1/P4P1P/1PR3K1/r7 w - - bm Rxc4 ; id WAC.164 R- d2,Score:5.94 1r5k/p1p3pp/8/8/4p3/P1P1R3/1P1Q1qr1/2KR4 w - - bm Re2; id WAC.165 Q- d8,Score:0.73 r3r1k1/5pp1/p1p4p/2Pp4/8/q1NQP1BP/5PP1/4K2R b K - bm d4; id WAC.166 Q- c1,Score:0.96 7Q/ppp2q2/3p2k1/P2Ppr1N/1PP5/7R/5rP1/6K1 b - - bm Rxg2 ; id WAC.167 R- f1,Score:2.41 r3k2r/pb1q1p2/8/2p1pP2/4p1p1/B1P1Q1P1/P1P3K1/R4R2 b kq - bm Qd2 ; id WAC.168 R-h3,Score:2.97 5rk1/1pp3bp/3p2p1/2PPp3/1P2P3/2Q1B3/4q1PP/R5K1 b - - bm Bh6; id WAC. 169 P-c5,Score:0.24 5r1k/6Rp/1p2p3/p2pBp2/1qnP4/4P3/Q4PPP/6K1 w - - bm Qxc4; id WAC.170 R- f7,Score:-1.97 2rq4/1b2b1kp/p3p1p1/1p1nNp2/7P/1B2B1Q1/PP3PP1/3R2K1 w - - bm Bh6 ; id WAC.171 B-d4,Score:0.53 5r1k/p5pp/8/1P1pq3/P1p2nR1/Q7/5BPP/6K1 b - - bm Qe1 ; id WAC.172 N- e2,Score:4.41 2r1b3/1pp1qrk1/p1n1P1p1/7R/2B1p3/4Q1P1/PP3PP1/3R2K1 w - - bm Qh6 ; id WAC.173 Q-h6,Score:7.89 2r2rk1/6p1/p3pq1p/1p1b1p2/3P1n2/PP3N2/3N1PPP/1Q2RR1K b - - bm Nxg2; id WAC.174 P-g5,Score:2.21 r5k1/pppb3p/2np1n2/8/3PqNpP/3Q2P1/PPP5/R4RK1 w - - bm Nh5; id WAC.175 Q-e4,Score:-3.35 r1bq3r/ppp2pk1/3p1pp1/8/2BbPQ2/2NP2P1/PPP4P/R4R1K b - - bm Rxh2 ; id WAC.176 K-g8,Score:-0.67 r1b3r1/4qk2/1nn1p1p1/3pPp1P/p4P2/1p3BQN/PKPBN3/3R3R b - - bm Qa3 ; id WAC.177 N-c4,Score:0.42 3r2k1/p1rn1p1p/1p2pp2/6q1/3PQNP1/5P2/P1P4R/R5K1 w - - bm Nxe6; id WAC. 178 Q-h7,Score:1.42 r1b2r1k/pp4pp/3p4/3B4/8/1QN3Pn/PP3q1P/R3R2K b - - bm Qg1 ; id WAC.179 B-g4,Score:3.02 r1q2rk1/p3bppb/3p1n1p/2nPp3/1p2P1P1/6NP/PP2QPB1/R1BNK2R b KQ - bm Nxd5; id WAC.180 Q-a6,Score:2.26 r3k2r/2p2p2/p2p1n2/1p2p3/4P2p/1PPPPp1q/1P5P/R1N2QRK b kq - bm Ng4; id WAC.181 N-g4,Score:9.95 r1b2rk1/ppqn1p1p/2n1p1p1/2b3N1/2N5/PP1BP3/1B3PPP/R2QK2R w KQ - bm Qh5; id WAC.182 B-e4,Score:2.91 1r2k1r1/5p2/b3p3/1p2b1B1/3p3P/3B4/PP2KP2/2R3R1 w - - bm Bf6; id WAC. 183 P-a4,Score:-1.36 4kn2/r4p1r/p3bQ2/q1nNP1Np/1p5P/8/PPP3P1/2KR3R w - - bm Qe7 ; id WAC. 184 N-h7,Score:5.68 1r1rb1k1/2p3pp/p2q1p2/3PpP1Q/Pp1bP2N/1B5R/1P4PP/2B4K w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC.185 Q-f3,Score:-2.45 r5r1/p1q2p1k/1p1R2pB/3pP3/6bQ/2p5/P1P1NPPP/6K1 w - - bm Bf8 ; id WAC. 186 Q-g4,Score:3.29 6k1/5p2/p3p3/1p3qp1/2p1Qn2/2P1R3/PP1r1PPP/4R1K1 b - - bm Nh3 ; id WAC. 187 Q-e4,Score:-0.2 3RNbk1/pp3p2/4rQpp/8/1qr5/7P/P4P2/3R2K1 w - - bm Qg7 ; id WAC.188 Q- f3,Score:-3.18 3r1k2/1ppPR1n1/p2p1rP1/3P3p/4Rp1N/5K2/P1P2P2/8 w - - bm Re8 ; id WAC. 189 K-g2,Score:5.87 8/p2b2kp/1q1p2p1/1P1Pp3/4P3/3B2P1/P2Q3P/2Nn3K b - - bm Bh3; id WAC.190 N-f2,Score:3.85 2r1Rn1k/1p1q2pp/p7/5p2/3P4/1B4P1/P1P1QP1P/6K1 w - - bm Qc4; id WAC.191 R-c8,Score:2.87 r3k3/ppp2Npp/4Bn2/2b5/1n1pp3/N4P2/PPP3qP/R2QKR2 b Qq - bm Nd3 ; id WAC. 192 P-e3,Score:2.1 5bk1/p4ppp/Qp6/4B3/1P6/Pq2P1P1/2rr1P1P/R4RK1 b - - bm Qxe3; id WAC.193 Q-d5,Score:2.0 5rk1/ppq2ppp/2p5/4bN2/4P3/6Q1/PPP2PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Nh6 ; id WAC.194 Q-d3,Score:0.85 3r1rk1/1p3p2/p3pnnp/2p3p1/2P2q2/1P5P/PB2QPPN/3RR1K1 w - - bm g3; id WAC.195 B-f6,Score:0.25 rr4k1/p1pq2pp/Q1n1pn2/2bpp3/4P3/2PP1NN1/PP3PPP/R1B1K2R b KQ - bm Nb4; id WAC.196 R-b6,Score:1.53 7k/1p4p1/7p/3P1n2/4Q3/2P2P2/PP3qRP/7K b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.197 Q- f1,Score:84.97 2br2k1/ppp2p1p/4p1p1/4P2q/2P1Bn2/2Q5/PP3P1P/4R1RK b - - bm Rd3; id WAC. 198 Q-h4,Score:-1.07 r1br2k1/pp2nppp/2n5/1B1q4/Q7/4BN2/PP3PPP/2R2RK1 w - - bm Bxc6 Rfd1 Rcd1; id WAC.199 R-c5,Score:1.88 2rqrn1k/pb4pp/1p2pp2/n2P4/2P3N1/P2B2Q1/1B3PPP/2R1R1K1 w - - bm Bxf6; id WAC.200 Q-f3,Score:1.91 2b2r1k/4q2p/3p2pQ/2pBp3/8/6P1/1PP2P1P/R5K1 w - - bm Ra7; id WAC.201 R- a7,Score:12.18 QR2rq1k/2p3p1/3p1pPp/8/4P3/8/P1r3PP/1R4K1 b - - bm Rxa2; id WAC.202 R- a2,Score:1.25 r4rk1/5ppp/p3q1n1/2p2NQ1/4n3/P3P3/1B3PPP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Qh6; id WAC. 203 N-g7,Score:-0.25 r1b1qrk1/1p3ppp/p1p5/3Nb3/5N2/P7/1P4PQ/K1R1R3 w - - bm Rxe5; id WAC. 204 Q-h5,Score:-3.44 r3rnk1/1pq2bb1/p4p2/3p1Pp1/3B2P1/1NP4R/P1PQB3/2K4R w - - bm Qxg5; id WAC.205 K-b1,Score:1.32 1Qq5/2P1p1kp/3r1pp1/8/8/7P/p4PP1/2R3K1 b - - bm Rc6; id WAC.206 Q- b8,Score:-4.93 r1bq2kr/p1pp1ppp/1pn1p3/4P3/2Pb2Q1/BR6/P4PPP/3K1BNR w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC.207 P-f4,Score:-3.64 3r1bk1/ppq3pp/2p5/2P2Q1B/8/1P4P1/P6P/5RK1 w - - bm Bf7 ; id WAC.208 R- f2,Score:2.31 4kb1r/2q2p2/r2p4/pppBn1B1/P6P/6Q1/1PP5/2KRR3 w k - bm Rxe5 ; id WAC. 209 P-b5,Score:4.25 3r1rk1/pp1q1ppp/3pn3/2pN4/5PP1/P5PQ/1PP1B3/1K1R4 w - - bm Rh1; id WAC. 210 R-h1,Score:-1.2 r1bqrk2/pp1n1n1p/3p1p2/P1pP1P1Q/2PpP1NP/6R1/2PB4/4RBK1 w - - bm Qxf7 ; id WAC.211 N-f2,Score:3.82 rn1qr2Q/pbppk1p1/1p2pb2/4N3/3P4/2N5/PPP3PP/R4RK1 w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC.212 Q-h5,Score:0.76 3r1r1k/1b4pp/ppn1p3/4Pp1R/Pn5P/3P4/4QP2/1qB1NKR1 w - - bm Rxh7 ; id WAC.213 Q-e3,Score:-6.78 r2r2k1/1p2qpp1/1np1p1p1/p3N3/2PPN3/bP5R/4QPPP/4R1K1 w - - bm Ng5; id WAC.214 Q-e3,Score:2.83 3r2k1/pb1q1pp1/1p2pb1p/8/3N4/P2QB3/1P3PPP/1Br1R1K1 w - - bm Qh7 ; id WAC.215 Q-h7,Score:2.27 r2qr1k1/1b1nbppp/p3pn2/1p1pN3/3P1B2/2PB1N2/PP2QPPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Nxf7 a4; id WAC.216 N-g5,Score:3.11 r3kb1r/1pp3p1/p3bp1p/5q2/3QN3/1P6/PBP3P1/3RR1K1 w kq - bm Qd7 ; id WAC. 217 R-e3,Score:0.18 6k1/pp5p/2p3q1/6BP/2nPr1Q1/8/PP3R1K/8 w - - bm Bh6; id WAC.218 P- g6,Score:1.94 7k/p4q1p/1pb5/2p5/4B2Q/2P1B3/P6P/7K b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.219 Q- f1,Score:89.97 3rr1k1/ppp2ppp/8/5Q2/4n3/1B5R/PPP1qPP1/5RK1 b - - bm Qxf1 ; id WAC.220 N-f6,Score:1.87 r3k3/P5bp/2N1bp2/4p3/2p5/6NP/1PP2PP1/3R2K1 w q - bm Rd8 ; id WAC.221 R- d8,Score:8.49 2r1r2k/1q3ppp/p2Rp3/2p1P3/6QB/p3P3/bP3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Bf6; id WAC. 222 P-a3,Score:1.01 r1bqk2r/pp3ppp/5n2/8/1b1npB2/2N5/PP1Q2PP/1K2RBNR w kq - bm Nxe4; id WAC.223 B-e5,Score:-0.79 5rk1/p1q3pp/1p1r4/2p1pp1Q/1PPn1P2/3B3P/P2R2P1/3R2K1 b - - bm Rh6 e4; id WAC.224 P-f4,Score:2.11 4R3/4q1kp/6p1/1Q3b2/1P1b1P2/6KP/8/8 b - - bm Qh4 ; id WAC.225 Q- d6,Score:3.21 2b2rk1/p1p4p/2p1p1p1/br2N1Q1/1p2q3/8/PB3PPP/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nf7; id WAC.226 R-d8,Score:-0.08 2k1rb1r/ppp3pp/2np1q2/5b2/2B2P2/2P1BQ2/PP1N1P1P/2KR3R b - - bm d5; id WAC.227 Q-e7,Score:-0.38 r4rk1/1bq1bp1p/4p1p1/p2p4/3BnP2/1N1B3R/PPP3PP/R2Q2K1 w - - bm Bxe4; id WAC.228 B-e4,Score:1.61 8/8/8/1p5r/p1p1k1pN/P2pBpP1/1P1K1P2/8 b - - bm Rxh4 b4; id WAC.229 R- e5,Score:2.19 2b5/1r6/2kBp1p1/p2pP1P1/2pP4/1pP3K1/1R3P2/8 b - - bm Rb4; id WAC.230 P- a4,Score:1.79 r4rk1/1b1nqp1p/p5p1/1p2PQ2/2p5/5N2/PP3PPP/R1BR2K1 w - - bm Bg5; id WAC. 231 R-d7,Score:5.15 1R2rq1k/2p3p1/Q2p1pPp/8/4P3/8/P1r3PP/1R4K1 w - - bm Qb5 Rxe8; id WAC. 232 Q-b7,Score:-1.76 5rk1/p1p2r1p/2pp2p1/4p3/PPPnP3/3Pq1P1/1Q1R1R1P/4NK2 b - - bm Nb3; id WAC.233 N-b3,Score:9.91 2kr1r2/p6p/5Pp1/2p5/1qp2Q1P/7R/PP6/1KR5 w - - bm Rb3; id WAC.234 R- b3,Score:4.36 5r2/1p1RRrk1/4Qq1p/1PP3p1/8/4B3/1b3P1P/6K1 w - - bm Qxf7 Rxf7 Qe4; id WAC.235 R-f7,Score:5.61 1R6/p5pk/4p2p/4P3/8/2r3qP/P3R1b1/4Q1K1 b - - bm Rc1; id WAC.236 Q- e1,Score:1.45 r5k1/pQp2qpp/8/4pbN1/3P4/6P1/PPr4P/1K1R3R b - - bm Rc1 ; id WAC.237 R- c6,Score:-1.75 1k1r4/pp1r1pp1/4n1p1/2R5/2Pp1qP1/3P2QP/P4PB1/1R4K1 w - - bm Bxb7; id WAC.238 Q-f4,Score:0.65 8/6k1/5pp1/Q6p/5P2/6PK/P4q1P/8 b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.239 Q-f1,Score: 0.35 2b4k/p1b2p2/2p2q2/3p1PNp/3P2R1/3B4/P1Q2PKP/4r3 w - - bm Qxc6; id WAC. 240 Q-c6,Score:1.79 2rq1rk1/pp3ppp/2n2b2/4NR2/3P4/PB5Q/1P4PP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC. 241 B-f7,Score:2.33 r1b1r1k1/pp1nqp2/2p1p1pp/8/4N3/P1Q1P3/1P3PPP/1BRR2K1 w - - bm Rxd7; id WAC.242 N-d6,Score:3.14 1r3r1k/3p4/1p1Nn1R1/4Pp1q/pP3P1p/P7/5Q1P/6RK w - - bm Qe2; id WAC.243 Q-f1,Score:4.85 r6r/pp3ppp/3k1b2/2pb4/B4Pq1/2P1Q3/P5PP/1RBR2K1 w - - bm Qxc5 ; id WAC. 244 R-d5,Score:3.92 4rrn1/ppq3bk/3pPnpp/2p5/2PB4/2NQ1RPB/PP5P/5R1K w - - bm Qxg6 ; id WAC. 245 B-f6,Score:3.87 6R1/4qp1p/ppr1n1pk/8/1P2P1QP/6N1/P4PP1/6K1 w - - bm Qh5 ; id WAC.246 P- e5,Score:4.93 2k1r3/1p2Bq2/p2Qp3/Pb1p1p1P/2pP1P2/2P5/2P2KP1/1R6 w - - bm Rxb5; id WAC.247 B-g5,Score:0.91 5r1k/1p4pp/3q4/3Pp1R1/8/8/PP4PP/4Q1K1 b - - bm Qc5 ; id WAC.248 Q- c5,Score:-0.71 r4rk1/pbq2pp1/1ppbpn1p/8/2PP4/1P1Q1N2/PBB2PPP/R3R1K1 w - - bm c5 d5; id WAC.249 N-e5,Score:1.2 1b5k/7P/p1p2np1/2P2p2/PP3P2/4RQ1R/q2r3P/6K1 w - - bm Re8 ; id WAC.250 Q-g3,Score:0.67 k7/p4p2/P1q1b1p1/3p3p/3Q4/7P/5PP1/1R4K1 w - - bm Qe5 Qf4; id WAC.251 R- b7,Score:2.81 1rb1r1k1/p1p2ppp/5n2/2pP4/5P2/2QB4/qNP3PP/2KRB2R b - - bm Re2; id WAC. 252 N-d5,Score:4.71 k5r1/p4b2/2P5/5p2/3P1P2/4QBrq/P5P1/4R1K1 w - - bm Qe8 ; id WAC.253 K- f1,Score:-2.93 r6k/pp3p1p/2p1bp1q/b3p3/4Pnr1/2PP2NP/PP1Q1PPN/R2B2RK b - - bm Nxh3; id WAC.254 N-h3,Score:1.8 3r3r/p4pk1/5Rp1/3q4/1p1P2RQ/5N2/P1P4P/2b4K w - - bm Rfxg6 ; id WAC.255 R-g6,Score:-2.15 3r1rk1/1pb1qp1p/2p3p1/p7/P2Np2R/1P5P/1BP2PP1/3Q1BK1 w - - bm Nf5; id WAC.256 Q-g4,Score:1.43 4r1k1/pq3p1p/2p1r1p1/2Q1p3/3nN1P1/1P6/P1P2P1P/3RR1K1 w - - bm Rxd4; id WAC.257 R-d4,Score:4.5 r3brkn/1p5p/2p2Ppq/2Pp3B/3Pp2Q/4P1R1/6PP/5R1K w - - bm Bxg6; id WAC. 258 R-b1,Score:-0.6 r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/2np4/2bN1PN1/2B1P3/3p4/PPP2nPP/R1BQ1K1R w - - bm Qh5; id WAC.259 Q-d3,Score:-4.71 2r2b1r/p1Nk2pp/3p1p2/N2Qn3/4P3/q6P/P4PP1/1R3K1R w - - bm Qe6 ; id WAC. 260 N-e6,Score:2.66 r5k1/1bp3pp/p2p4/1p6/5p2/1PBP1nqP/1PP3Q1/R4R1K b - - bm Nd4; id WAC. 261 N-d4,Score:9.95 6k1/p1B1b2p/2b3r1/2p5/4p3/1PP1N1Pq/P2R1P2/3Q2K1 b - - bm Rh6; id WAC. 262 R-h6,Score:-0.41 rnbqr2k/pppp1Qpp/8/b2NN3/2B1n3/8/PPPP1PPP/R1B1K2R w KQ - bm Qg8 ; id WAC.263 Q-h5,Score:2.5 r2r2k1/1R2qp2/p5pp/2P5/b1PN1b2/P7/1Q3PPP/1B1R2K1 b - - bm Rab8; id WAC. 264 Q-e5,Score:2.53 2r1k2r/2pn1pp1/1p3n1p/p3PP2/4q2B/P1P5/2Q1N1PP/R4RK1 w k - bm exf6; id WAC.265 Q-e4,Score:0.99 r3q2r/2p1k1p1/p5p1/1p2Nb2/1P2nB2/P7/2PNQbPP/R2R3K b - - bm Rxh2 ; id WAC.266 N-c3,Score:-4.72 2r1kb1r/pp3ppp/2n1b3/1q1N2B1/1P2Q3/8/P4PPP/3RK1NR w Kk - bm Nc7 ; id WAC.267 P-a3,Score:0.0 2r3kr/ppp2n1p/7B/5q1N/1bp5/2Pp4/PP2RPPP/R2Q2K1 w - - bm Re8 ; id WAC. 268 R-e3,Score:0.41 2kr2nr/pp1n1ppp/2p1p3/q7/1b1P1B2/P1N2Q1P/1PP1BPP1/R3K2R w KQ - bm axb4; id WAC.269 K-g1,Score:2.87 2r1r1k1/pp1q1ppp/3p1b2/3P4/3Q4/5N2/PP2RPPP/4R1K1 w - - bm Qg4; id WAC. 270 Q-d3,Score:1.13 2kr4/ppp3Pp/4RP1B/2r5/5P2/1P6/P2p4/3K4 w - - bm Rd6; id WAC.271 B- g5,Score:-0.69 nrq4r/2k1p3/1p1pPnp1/pRpP1p2/P1P2P2/2P1BB2/1R2Q1P1/6K1 w - - bm Bxc5; id WAC.272 P-g4,Score:3.7 2k4B/bpp1qp2/p1b5/7p/1PN1n1p1/2Pr4/P5PP/R3QR1K b - - bm Ng3 g3; id WAC. 273 Q-e6,Score:1.32 8/1p6/p5R1/k7/Prpp4/K7/1NP5/8 w - - bm Rb6; id WAC.274 R-b6,Score: 2.15 r1b2rk1/1p1n1ppp/p1p2q2/4p3/P1B1Pn2/1QN2N2/1P3PPP/3R1RK1 b - - bm Nxg2 b5 Nc5; id WAC.275 N-c5,Score:-0.13 r5k1/pp1RR1pp/1b6/6r1/2p5/B6P/P4qPK/3Q4 w - - bm Qd5 ; id WAC.276 R- g7,Score:-4.71 1r4r1/p2kb2p/bq2p3/3p1p2/5P2/2BB3Q/PP4PP/3RKR2 b - - bm Rg3 Rxg2; id WAC.277 B-d3,Score:0.07 r2qkb1r/pppb2pp/2np1n2/5pN1/2BQP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - bm Bf7 ; id WAC.278 B-f7,Score:5.09 r7/4b3/2p1r1k1/1p1pPp1q/1P1P1P1p/PR2NRpP/2Q3K1/8 w - - bm Nxf5 Rc3; id WAC.279 R-c3,Score:1.42 r1r2bk1/5p1p/pn4p1/N2b4/3Pp3/B3P3/2q1BPPP/RQ3RK1 b - - bm Bxa3; id WAC. 280 B-a3,Score:1.07 2R5/2R4p/5p1k/6n1/8/1P2QPPq/r7/6K1 w - - bm Rxh7 ; id WAC.281 R- c2,Score:1.89 6k1/2p3p1/1p1p1nN1/1B1P4/4PK2/8/2r3b1/7R w - - bm Rh8 ; id WAC.282 R- h8,Score:-3.82 3q1rk1/4bp1p/1n2P2Q/3p1p2/6r1/Pp2R2N/1B4PP/7K w - - bm Ng5; id WAC.283 R-b3,Score:-2.82 3r3k/pp4pp/8/1P6/3N4/Pn2P1qb/1B1Q2B1/2R3K1 w - - bm Nf5; id WAC.284 Q- f2,Score:-3.59 2rr3k/1b2bppP/p2p1n2/R7/3P4/1qB2P2/1P4Q1/1K5R w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC. 285 R-a3,Score:-6.93 3r1k2/1p6/p4P2/2pP2Qb/8/1P1KB3/P6r/8 b - - bm Rxd5 ; id WAC.286 B- e2,Score:-0.79 rn3k1r/pp2bBpp/2p2n2/q5N1/3P4/1P6/P1P3PP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - bm Qh5 Qg4; id WAC.287 B-d2,Score:3.77 r1b2rk1/p4ppp/1p1Qp3/4P2N/1P6/8/P3qPPP/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nf6 ; id WAC. 288 N-f4,Score:1.13 2r3k1/5p1p/p3q1p1/2n3P1/1p1QP2P/1P4N1/PK6/2R5 b - - bm Qe5; id WAC.289 Q-e5,Score:3.57 2k2r2/2p5/1pq5/p1p1n3/P1P2n1B/1R4Pp/2QR4/6K1 b - - bm Ne2 ; id WAC.290 N-g2,Score:2.79 5r1k/3b2p1/p6p/1pRpR3/1P1P2q1/P4pP1/5QnP/1B4K1 w - - bm h3; id WAC.291 B-a2,Score:1.65 4r3/1Q1qk2p/p4pp1/3Pb3/P7/6PP/5P2/4R1K1 w - - bm d6 ; id WAC.292 R- b1,Score:-1.37 1nbq1r1k/3rbp1p/p1p1pp1Q/1p6/P1pPN3/5NP1/1P2PPBP/R4RK1 w - - bm Nfg5; id WAC.293 N-c3,Score:2.48 3r3k/1r3p1p/p1pB1p2/8/p1qNP1Q1/P6P/1P4P1/3R3K w - - bm Bf8 Nf5 Qf4; id WAC.294 P-e5,Score:4.31 4r3/p4r1p/R1p2pp1/1p1bk3/4pNPP/2P1K3/2P2P2/3R4 w - - bm Rxd5 ; id WAC. 295 N-d5,Score:3.79 3r4/1p2k2p/p1b1p1p1/4Q1Pn/2B3KP/4pP2/PP2R1N1/6q1 b - - bm Rd4 Rf8; id WAC.296 B-d5,Score:0.68 3r1rk1/p3qp1p/2bb2p1/2p5/3P4/1P6/PBQN1PPP/2R2RK1 b - - bm Bxg2 Bxh2 ; id WAC.297 Q-e2,Score:-0.38 3Q4/p3b1k1/2p2rPp/2q5/4B3/P2P4/7P/6RK w - - bm Qh8 ; id WAC.298 Q- e8,Score:2.89 1n2rr2/1pk3pp/pNn2p2/2N1p3/8/6P1/PP2PPKP/2RR4 w - - bm Nca4; id WAC. 299 N-d7,Score:3.7 b2b1r1k/3R1ppp/4qP2/4p1PQ/4P3/5B2/4N1K1/8 w - - bm g6; id WAC.300 P- g7,Score:0.81 Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 27 Aug 2008 22:21:17 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. Here is the recorded game. http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM25483&game=Chess How much time Tony's Chess 0.01 was taking per move? Beginner takes average 15 sec / move. Game Played between tmokonen and beginner at GetClub.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tmokonen: (Black) beginner: (White) Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM25483&game=Chess -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- White -- Black (beginner) -- (tmokonen) 1. e2-e4{2} e7-e5{96} 2. Ng1-f3{0} Nb8-c6{10} 3. Bf1-c4{0} h7-h6{6} 4. Nb1-c3{6} Ng8-f6{8} 5. d2-d3{14} d7-d6{6} 6. g2-g3{20} Nc6-a5{8} 7. Bc4-d5{12} c7-c6{28} 8. Bd5-b3{16} Bc8-g4{8} 9. h2-h4{64} b7-b5{12} 10. Ra1-b1{20} b5-b4{10} 11. Nc3-a4{6} d6-d5{12} 12. Qd1-e2{10} Na5-b3{10} 13. c2-b3{12} d5-d4{10} 14. Bc1-d2{10} Qd8-d6{12} 15. Rb1-a1{48} Ra8-b8{22} 16. Ra1-c1{10} Nf6-d7{90} 17. Ke1-g1{20} Qd6-e6{10} 18. Rc1-c4{8} Nd7-b6{10} 19. Na4-b6{8} Rb8-b6{6} 20. Rf1-b1{18} Ke8-d8{10} 21. Rb1-c1{10} c6-c5{8} 22. Bd2-e1{26} g7-g5{12} 23. h4-g5{6} h6-g5{6} 24. Kg1-g2{22} Rh8-h6{12} 25. Be1-d2{6} Bf8-e7{8} 26. Qe2-d1{34} Rh6-f6{8} 27. Nf3-g5{8} Qe6-c4{20} 28. d3-c4{0} Bg4-d1{8} 29. Rc1-d1{18} Rb6-a6{8} 30. a2-a4{8} b4-a3{14} 31. Rd1-b1{6} Kd8-c7{10} 32. f2-f3{6} Kc7-b7{10} 33. g3-g4{12} a3-b2{14} 34. Rb1-b2{8} Kb7-c8{8} 35. Bd2-e1{6} Ra6-b6{12} 36. Be1-a5{6} Rb6-b8{10} 37. Ba5-d2{8} Kc8-b7{14} 38. Rb2-b1{6} Kb7-a8{8} 39. Bd2-e1{6} a7-a6{8} 40. Be1-d2{12} Rb8-b7{10} 41. Bd2-e1{10} Be7-d8{10} 42. Ng5-h3{8} Rf6-g6{14} 43. Rb1-b2{6} a6-a5{6} 44. Be1-g3{10} Bd8-c7{10} 45. Rb2-b1{6} Rg6-b6{14} 46. Rb1-d1{6} Rb6-b3{8} 47. Nh3-g5{8} Rb3-b2{10} 48. Kg2-g1{10} Bc7-d6{12} 49. Bg3-e1{22} a5-a4{8} 50. Rd1-c1{6} f7-f6{8} 51. Ng5-e6{8} Rb2-b1{8} 52. Rc1-b1{6} Rb7-b1{6} 53. Kg1-f2{6} a4-a3{8} 54. Ne6-d4{26} c5-d4{8} 55. c4-c5{8} Bd6-c5{8} 56. Be1-b4{18} Rb1-b4{8} 57. g4-g5{32} d4-d3{18} 58. Kf2-g3{50} a3-a2{16} 59. f3-f4{60} Qa2-a1{Q}{10} 60. g5-g6{14} Bc5-f2{10} 61. Kg3-f2{6} Rb4-b2{8} 62. Kf2-e3{2} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tmokonen: (Black) beginner: (White) Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html View Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM25483&game=Chess This was a nice Match. What is the rating of Tony's Chess 0.01. Looking for more games. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html       Date: 28 Aug 2008 06:01:36 From: Tony M Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:21:17 -0700 (PDT), Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: >Here is the recorded game. > >http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM25483&game=Chess > >How much time Tony's Chess 0.01 was taking per move? Beginner takes >average 15 sec / move. > >Game Played between tmokonen and beginner at GetClub.com > That's the same game I posted, only in Sanny format rather than PGN :). The time control was 40 moves in 5 minutes. If you look at the PGN I posted, it shows the amount of time each move took, the ply depth, the evaluation score according to Tony's Chess, and the PV. Tony         Date: 28 Aug 2008 07:11:28 From: Tony M Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:01:36 GMT, Tony M <[email protected] > wrote: >On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:21:17 -0700 (PDT), Sanny ><[email protected]> wrote: > >>Here is the recorded game. >> >>http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM25483&game=Chess >> >>How much time Tony's Chess 0.01 was taking per move? Beginner takes >>average 15 sec / move. >> >>Game Played between tmokonen and beginner at GetClub.com >> > >That's the same game I posted, only in Sanny format rather than PGN >:). The time control was 40 moves in 5 minutes. If you look at the >PGN I posted, it shows the amount of time each move took, the ply >depth, the evaluation score according to Tony's Chess, and the PV. > >Tony I tried another game, same time control, same conditions (40/5 time control, Arena 1.1 GUI, 32 MB hash, Harry Schnapp Arena book). Sorry, but Tony's won. Tony's started out poorly, it doesn't play gambit openings well, being the materialistic yet low depth searching program that it is. Tony's managed to equalize, and even gain a couple of pawns. It looked for a while that Tony's might not convert the material advantage in a bishop of opposite colours endgame, and that it would end in a long boring draw, but eventually it managed to push a passed pawn through. You can download my program at http://tmokonen.110mb.com/tonyschess/ if you want to try it out or test against it. [Event "Computer Schach Partie"] [Site "Vancouver"] [Date "2008.08.27"] [Round "?"] [White "Tony's Chess 0.01"] [Black "Sanny's Chess"] [Result "1-0"] [BlackElo "?"] [ECO "C30"] [Opening "King's Gambit"] [Time "23:14:43"] [Variation "2...d6"] [TimeControl "40/300:40/300:300"] [Termination "normal"] [PlyCount "147"] [WhiteType "program"] [BlackType "human"] 1.e4 d6 2.f4 e5 3.Nc3 exf4 4.Qh5 {(d1h5 b8c6 g1f3 c8e6 h5b5 326) -0.96/5 3} Na6 5.Nd5 {(c3d5 d8d7 f1a6 b7a6 d5f4 671) 0.00/5 6} g5 6.Nf3 {(g1f3 h7h6 h2h4 f8g7 h4g5 h6g5 361) -0.95/4 3} h6 7.h4 {(h2h4 f8g7 h4g5 h6g5 549) -0.95/4 5} Bg7 8.Bxa6 {(f1a6 b7a6 h4g5 h6g5 804) -0.96/4 8} bxa6 9.Ke2 {(e1e2 g8e7 d5b4 g5h4 h1h4 395) -0.97/4 3} c6 10.hxg5 {(h4g5 c6d5 g5h6 d5e4 f3g5 g8h6 g5e4 567) -2.99/5 5} cxd5 11.g6 {(g5g6 g8f6 g6f7 e8f8 h5g6 d5e4 f3d4 615) -3.03/6 6} dxe4 12.gxf7+ {(g6f7 e8e7 f7g8 d8g8 f3e1 g7e5 h5h4 e7e8 h4h5 508) -1.05/6 5} Ke7 13.fxg8=N+ {(f7g8 811) -1.05/6 8} Rxg8 14.Nh2 {(f3h2 g7f6 e2f1 d8b6 h5h6 f6b2 283) -1.06/5 2} Qb6 15.Qh4+ {(h5h4 g7f6 h4f4 b6b5 e2d1 g8g2 f4e4 340) -0.07/5 3} Ke8 16.Qxf4 {(h4f4 b6b5 e2d1 b5d5 h1e1 c8b7 h2f3 839) -0.04/6 8} d5 17.Qg3 {(f4g3 b6b5 d2d3 e4d3 g3d3 b5d3 e2d3 306) -0.03/4 3} Be6 18.Qe3 {(g3e3 g7f8 e2f1 b6e3 d2e3 324) -0.06/5 3} Bf8 19.Kf1 {(e2f1 b6e3 d2e3 a8c8 c2c3 351) -0.05/5 3} Qxe3 20.dxe3 {(d2e3 a8c8 c2c3 e8f7 c1d2 f8d6 a1b1 539) -0.07/7 5} Bd6 21.Bd2 {(c1d2 d6e5 c2c3 g8f8 f1e2 e8d7 a1f1 469) -0.07/6 4} Rg5 22.Bc3 {(d2c3 e8d7 g2g4 a8f8 f1e1 d7c6 h2f1 e6g4 h1h6 1399) -0.06/6 13} Rh5 23.Kg1 {(f1g1 a8c8 h2f1 h5h1 389) -0.04/6 3} Bg3 24.Rd1 {(a1d1 a8c8 a2a4 a6a5 h2f1 h5h1 g1h1 180) -0.05/5 1} Bd7 25.Bd4 {(c3d4 a8b8 d4f6 b8c8 h2f1 h5h1 g1h1 388) -0.05/5 3} Rb8 26.Rf1 {(d1f1 b8c8 c2c3 d7b5 155) -0.04/4 1} Bb5 27.Rc1 {(f1c1 g3e5 h2g4 h5h1 g1h1 e5d4 e3d4 189) -0.03/5 1} Be2 28.Nf1 {(h2f1 h5h1 323) -0.02/6 3} Rxh1+ 29.Kxh1 {(g1h1 0) -0.02/1} Bf2 30.b3 {(b2b3 b8b7 c2c4 d5c4 b3c4 b7e7 359) 0.00/6 3} Rb7 31.c4 {(c2c4 d5c4 b3c4 b7e7 c4c5 e2g4 169) 0.00/6 1} dxc4 32.bxc4 {(b3c4 b7d7 c4c5 d7d5 h1h2 d5f5 291) 0.00/6 2} Rd7 33.c5 {(c4c5 f2h4 c5c6 d7e7 263) +0.02/6 2} Rd5 34.Rc2 {(c1c2 d5h5 f1h2 f2g3 c2e2 h5h2 h1g1 h2h5 c5c6 732) +0.05/7 7} Bxf1 35.Rxf2 {(c2f2 d5h5 129) +0.05/7 1} Bb5 36.Rf6 {(f2f6 d5h5 619) +0.06/6 6} h5 37.Re6+ {(f6e6 e8d7 e6e4 b5c4 a2a3 c4d3 e4e5 d5e5 d4e5 281) +1.06/6 2} Kd7 38.Rxe4 {(e6e4 b5c4 a2a3 a6a5 e4h4 d5f5 e3e4 765) +1.07/7 7} Bc6 39.Rf4 {(e4f4 d7c8 f4f8 155) +1.08/6 1} Rg5 40.e4 {(e3e4 g5g3 d4b2 d7e8 h1h2 g3d3 376) +1.09/6 3} a5 41.Kh2 {(h1h2 g5g8 d4f6 a7a6 f6d4 g8e8 542) +1.10/6 5} a6 42.g3 {(g2g3 g5g4 f4g4 h5g4 e4e5 d7e6 551) +1.10/6 5} a4 43.Rf7+ {(f4f7 407) +1.10/6 4} Kc8 44.Rf8+ {(f7f8 c8c7 e4e5 g5g4 f8f7 c7b8 f7f4 g4f4 g3f4 1976) +1.10/7 19} Kb7 45.Rf4 {(f8f4 g5g4 e4e5 g4f4 g3f4 c6d5 a2a3 2190) +1.10/7 21} a3 46.Kh3 {(h2h3 g5g8 f4f7 325) +1.10/6 3} Ba4 47.Kh4 {(h3h4 g5g6 e4e5 a4d1 d4c3 d1c2 h4h5 g6g3 518) +1.12/6 5} Rg6 48.e5 {(e4e5 a4d1 d4c3 b7c6 c3b4 c6d5 523) +1.12/6 5} Bd1 49.Bf2 {(d4f2 g6e6 f4b4 693) +1.11/6 6} Rg4+ 50.Rxg4 {(f4g4 d1g4 h4g5 b7c7 g5f6 c7d7 535) +1.11/8 5} Bxg4 51.Be1 {(f2e1 b7c6 e1b4 c6d5 b4a3 d5e6 c5c6 e6e5 c6c7 860) +1.06/9 8} Kc6 52.Bb4 {(e1b4 c6d5 b4a3 d5e5 a3c1 g4f3 c1e3 a6a5 h4h3 f3e4 642) +1.03/10 6} Kb5 53.Bxa3 {(b4a3 b5c6 a3b4 c6d5 e5e6 d5e6 c5c6 e6f7 c6c7 g4f3 377) +1.07/10 3} Ka4 54.Bc1 {(a3c1 a4b5 c1e3 b5a4 c5c6 a4a3 c6c7 a3a2 e3b6 a2a3 577) +1.12/10 5} Kb5 55.Be3 {(c1e3 b5a4 c5c6 a4a3 e3b6 a3a2 c6c7 314) +1.14/9 3} Kc4 56.Kg5 {(h4g5 c4b4 c5c6 b4a3 e3b6 g4f3 c6c7 f3g4 b6c5 a3a2 698) +1.13/9 6} Kd5 57.Kf4 {(g5f4 d5c4 e3f2 c4b4 f4g5 b4a3 c5c6 g4f3 c6c7 a3a2 1529) +1.12/9 15} a5 58.Bf2 {(e3f2 d5c4 a2a3 c4b5 f4e4 b5a4 f2e1 a4b5 e4d5 620) +2.07/9 6} a4 59.a3 {(a2a3 d5c4 f4g5 c4b3 c5c6 b3a3 c6c7 a3b4 g5f6 715) +1.11/9 7} Kc4 60.Kg5 {(f4g5 c4b3 c5c6 b3a3 c6c7 a3b3 f2c5 a4a3 426) +1.10/9 4} Kd5 61.Kf6 {(g5f6 g4e6 f2e3 e6d7 f6g5 d5e5 g5h5 d7e8 h5h4 e8c6 413) +2.06/9 4} Bh3 62.Be3 {(f2e3 h3g4 e3g1 g4d7 f6g6 d7e6 g6h5 d5e5 245) +2.06/8 2} Bg4 63.Bg1 {(e3g1 g4e6 f6g6 d5e5 g6h5 e6f7 h5h6 f7d5 g3g4 d5e4 507) +2.08/9 5} Be6 64.c6 {(c5c6 e6g4 c6c7 d5c6 c7c8 g4c8 e5e6 c6d6 e6e7 c8e6 218) +1.08/9 2} Bg4 65.Be3 {(g1e3 d5c6 e5e6 c6c7 e6e7 c7d7 f6f7 g4e6 f7f8 e6d5 306) +1.08/9 3} Ke4 66.e6 {(e5e6 e4e3 e6e7 e3f3 e7e8 f3g3 c6c7 h5h4 c7c8 g4c8 e8c8 403) +8.06/9 4} h4 67.e7 {(e6e7 e4e3 g3h4 e3f4 e7e8 f4g3 441) +8.19/8 4} Kxe3 68.e8=Q+ {(e7e8 e3f3 g3h4 g4h3 c6c7 f3g3 e8g8 g3f4 c7c8 h3c8 g8c8 1886) +10.17/8 18} Kd2 69.gxh4 {(g3h4 g4h3 c6c7 d2d3 h4h5 d3c4 c7c8 h3c8 e8c8 370) +10.18/7 3} Bh3 70.h5 {(h4h5 h3g2 h5h6 d2c1 h6h7 g2c6 e8c6 1063) +10.23/7 10} Bf1 71.Qd7+ {(e8d7 d2c3 c6c7 f1a6 d7c6 c3b3 c6a6 b3a3 237) +10.23/6 2} Ke3 72.c7 {(c6c7 f1c4 d7a4 c4e2 a4e8 e3f3 c7c8 e2d3 247) +17.26/7 2} Bd3 73.c8=Q {(c7c8 e3d2 c8c4 d2e3 d7d3 e3f2 c4a4 379) +20.34/6 3} Bh7 74.Qc3+ {(c8c3 6) +M0/4} {Black resigns} 1-0 Tony     Date: 24 Aug 2008 06:31:22 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. > Strength matters not a whit to me. =A0After all, my Tony'sChessis only > 1500ish, yet I still enjoy watching it compete in tournaments like > Chesswar and Le System Du Suisse. =A0I'll just as gleefully download the > latest version of, say, =A0POS as I would the latest version of Fruit. > Being a weak player, I'd rather play a program that might actually > give me the occasional chance to win. =A0 Play a game against GetClub Chess. And tell me how it scored against GetClub? GetClub Chess: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html Bye Sanny       Date: 27 Aug 2008 22:15:25 From: Tony M Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:31:22 -0700 (PDT), Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: >> Strength matters not a whit to me. �After all, my Tony'sChessis only >> 1500ish, yet I still enjoy watching it compete in tournaments like >> Chesswar and Le System Du Suisse. �I'll just as gleefully download the >> latest version of, say, �POS as I would the latest version of Fruit. >> Being a weak player, I'd rather play a program that might actually >> give me the occasional chance to win. � > >Play a game against GetClub Chess. And tell me how it scored against >GetClub? I tried it against Tony's Chess 0.01 (a little stronger than Tony's Chess 0.02, unfortunately), and your program lost. My program doesn't have a native book, so I used the Arena main book from Harry Schnapp. It seems to me, Sanny, that your program has regressed a little bit. I tried it out in the past with another email address and several other programs, and it used to be competitive with HoiChess, TSCP and MicroMax. I don't think FinalFun 0.1 would be competitive with your program, it is very basic, with what appears to be a material only evaluation, with equal moves in order of how they were generated. (I believe, maybe Simon can confirm this). [Event "Computer Schach Partie"] [Site "Vancouver"] [Date "2008.08.27"] [Round "?"] [White "Sanny's Chess"] [Black "Tony's Chess 0.01"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C50"] [Opening "Italian Game"] [Time "14:28:12"] [Variation "1.e4 e5"] [WhiteElo "?"] [TimeControl "40/300:40/300:300"] [Termination "normal"] [PlyCount "122"] [WhiteType "human"] [BlackType "program"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.g3 Na5 {(c6a5 f3d2 c8h3 a2a4 a5c4 d2c4 d8d7 1590) +0.04/7 15} 7.Bd5 c6 {(c7c6 d5b3 a5b3 a2b3 c8e6 a1a4 1431) +0.06/6 14} 8.Bb3 Bg4 {(c8g4 c1e3 b7b5 d1e2 a5b3 a2b3 375) +0.05/5 3} 9.h4 b5 {(b7b5 c1e3 b5b4 c3a4 a5b3 a2b3 423) +0.07/4 4} 10.Rb1 b4 {(b5b4 c3a4 d6d5 e4d5 a5b3 a2b3 d8d5 257) +0.08/5 2} 11.Na4 d5 {(d6d5 e4d5 a5b3 a2b3 d8d5 456) +0.08/4 4} 12.Qe2 Nxb3 {(a5b3 a2b3 d5e4 d3e4 395) +0.08/4 3} 13.cxb3 d4 {(d5d4 a2a3 a7a5 a3b4 a5b4 243) +0.09/5 2} 14.Bd2 Qd6 {(d8d6 b1c1 a8d8 a4c5 578) +0.10/4 5} 15.Ra1 Rb8 {(a8b8 e2d1 b8b5 e1e2 g4e6 1389) +0.10/5 13} 16.Rc1 Nd7 {(f6d7 e1f1 b8b5 f1g2 g4e6 1460) +0.09/5 14} 17.O-O Qe6 {(d6e6 f1e1 g4h3 g1h2 b8b5 1865) +0.09/5 18} 18.Rc4 Nb6 {(d7b6 a4b6 b8b6 c4c2 257) +0.10/4 2} 19.Nxb6 Rxb6 {(b8b6 f1c1 c6c5 e2d1 g4h3 345) +0.07/5 3} 20.Rb1 Kd8 {(e8d8 b1c1 c6c5 g1g2 159) +0.11/4 1} 21.Rbc1 c5 {(c6c5 e2d1 b6a6 c1a1 g4h3 440) +0.08/5 4} 22.Be1 g5 {(g7g5 g1g2 g5h4 g3h4 298) +0.12/4 2} 23.hxg5 hxg5 {(h6g5 e1d2 f7f6 e2d1 312) +0.08/5 3} 24.Kg2 Rh6 {(h8h6 e1d2 f8e7 c1h1 196) +0.13/4 1} 25.Bd2 Be7 {(f8e7 e2e1 h6g6 e1e2 248) +0.13/4 2} 26.Qd1 Rf6 {(h6f6 f3g5 e6c4 b3c4 g4d1 c1d1 184) +0.81/5 1} 27.Nxg5 Qxc4 {(e6c4 b3c4 g4d1 c1d1 d8e8 211) +0.78/5 2} 28.dxc4 Bxd1 {(g4d1 c1d1 b6a6 d1a1 d8c7 a2a4 156) +0.85/6 1} 29.Rxd1 Rba6 {(b6a6 d1a1 d8e8 f2f4 f6g6 a2a4 279) +0.84/6 2} 30.a4 bxa3 {(b4a3 b2a3 a6a3 d1b1 a7a5 g5f3 a5a4 f3e5 a4b3 156) +1.78/7 1} 31.Rb1 Kc7 {(d8c7 f2f4 a3a2 b1a1 e5f4 g3f4 134) +1.80/6 1} 32.f3 Kb7 {(c7b7 f3f4 a3a2 b1a1 e5f4 d2f4 220) +1.80/6 2} 33.g4 axb2 {(a3b2 b1b2 a6a1 b2c2 a1a3 g5h7 f6e6 343) +1.79/7 3} 34.Rxb2 Kc8 {(b7c8 d2e1 e7d8 b2e2 c8d7 e1d2 350) +1.81/6 3} 35.Be1 Rab6 {(a6b6 g5h3 b6b7 e1h4 f6d6 h4e7 b7e7 143) +1.78/5 1} 36.Ba5 Rb8 {(b6b8 a5d2 c8d7 d2e1 a7a6 g2g3 221) +1.81/6 2} 37.Bd2 Kb7 {(c8b7 b2b1 b8g8 g2g3 g8g6 b1e1 646) +1.80/6 6} 38.Rb1 Ka8 {(b7a8 g2g3 e7d6 g5h7 f6e6 146) +1.80/5 1} 39.Be1 a6 {(a7a6 b1b2 b8b7 e1a5 a8b8 112) +1.80/5 1} 40.Bd2 Rb7 {(b8b7 g2g3 e7d8 g5h7 f6b6 d2g5 d8g5 h7g5 284) +1.80/6 2} 41.Be1 Bd8 {(e7d8 g5h3 d8c7 807) +1.80/6 8} 42.Nh3 Rg6 {(f6g6 b1b2 d8c7 h3f2 b7b6 e1d2 893) +1.80/6 8} 43.Rb2 a5 {(a6a5 e1g3 d8c7 g3h4 b7b6 g4g5 573) +1.81/6 5} 44.Bg3 Bc7 {(d8c7 h3f2 g6b6 f2d3 b6b3 b2b3 b7b3 d3e5 837) +1.83/7 8} 45.Rb1 Rgb6 {(g6b6 f3f4 e5f4 g3f4 c7f4 496) +2.76/7 4} 46.Rd1 R6xb3 {(b6b3 h3f2 b3c3 f2d3 c3c2 g2h3 c2c4 d3e5 912) +2.84/7 9} 47.Ng5 R3b2+ {(b3b2 g2g1 b7b3 g3e1 f7f6 g5e6 c7b6 d1a1 1604) +2.86/7 16} 48.Kg1 Bd6 {(c7d6 g3e1 a5a4 d1a1 b7a7 a1a3 f7f6 1228) +2.84/7 12} 49.Be1 a4 {(a5a4 d1c1 f7f6 g5h3 b7h7 h3f2 a4a3 621) +2.87/7 6} 50.Rc1 f6 {(f7f6 g5e6 b7b3 c1a1 a4a3 g4g5 b3f3 g5f6 362) +2.89/7 3} 51.Ne6 R2b1 {(b2b1 c1b1 b7b1 g1f1 b1c1 g4g5 f6g5 762) +3.83/7 7} 52.Rxb1 Rxb1 {(b7b1 g1f2 a4a3 e1a5 b1b2 f2g3 a3a2 e6c7 a8a7 c7d5 443) +2.89/8 4} 53.Kf2 a3 {(a4a3 e6c7 500) +6.85/8 4} 54.Nxd4 cxd4 {(c5d4 c4c5 a3a2 c5d6 b1b2 e1d2 a2a1 f2e2 329) +9.87/7 3} 55.c5 Bxc5 {(d6c5 f2g2 a3a2 e1h4 a2a1 h4f6 d4d3 g4g5 451) +12.88/8 4} 56.Bb4 Rxb4 {(b1b4 f3f4 d4d3 f2f3 e5f4 g4g5 582) +16.98/8 5} 57.g5 d3+ {(d4d3 f2g3 f6g5 g3g4 d3d2 g4g5 d2d1 g5f5 d1f3 981) +18.05/8 9} 58.Kg3 a2 {(a3a2 g5g6 a2a1 g6g7 a1g1 g3h3 c5f2 g7g8 g1g8 h3h2 412) +18.10/8 4} 59.f4 a1=Q {(a2a1 g3h4 e5f4 g5f6 d3d2 h4g5 d2d1 g5f4 a1f6 815) +25.11/7 8} 60.g6 Bf2+ {(c5f2 g6g7 e5f4 50) +M0/5} 61.Kxf2 Rb2+ {(b4b2 0) +M0/1} {White resigns} 0-1     Date: 22 Aug 2008 22:08:35 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. In first 100 Positions I found 44 out of 100 were correct. So The improvement made it 44% correct. Up from 39% previously. So the new improvement is in correct direction. But I find it missed a few Mate in 3/ 4. I will see more games and if the error persist remove the new modifications. Beginner: 44% correct result How good is this result? Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 22 Aug 2008 21:58:21 From: Sanny Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. In first 100 Positions I found 44 out of 100 were correct. So The improvement made it 44% correct. Up from 30% previously. I will count the old record too and see if the improvement is positive or negative. If the improvement is negative I will replace the new modifications with old once. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 22 Aug 2008 12:39:59 From: Guest Subject: Re: GetClub Updated Results. "Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >A few things were changed at GetClub. > > Here us the result after Changes. I am not clear that the > modifications are good or bad as for some positions it gave correct > move while for others it gave wrong result. You tell whether a modification is good or bad by the overall results. By: 1) playing lots of tests games and comparing the total wins / loss / draws. 2) You run lots of test positions and you go for the higher number of solved positions without making any blunders. I'm only looking at the first 20 positions at the moment... I know I said that I was okay with GC's results for the beginner level, but I after sleeping on it, I really should modify that statement a little. You shouldn't be missing any mate-in-2 positions. None. I can accept that a beginner wouldn't be able to find a mate in 5 or mate in 7, etc. I don't mind a beginner level in a program missing those. A mate in 3 or 4... I don't know... Might be okay if it's a complicated position. But a mate-in-2 definetly should not be missed. You really need to fix that because it shows some serious issues with your program's tactical abilities. There are four mate-in-2's in just the first 20 positions and you are only getting two of them. You are also getting the mate-in-4, but the score shows it doesn't know it. I think I can live with that for a beginner level. But I think you should fix the mate in two problems. The best positional play in the world doesn't mean anything if you miss major tactical issues. After all, checkmating your opponent is the object of the game. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 22 Aug 2008 02:20:31 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Guest <[email protected] > (00:00) schrieb: Thanks for the detailed explanations. > That was due to my move sorting. I had accidently changed things so likely > captures would be tried first. The king wasn't considered 'likely' to be > captured so sometimes it would never get around to noticing the king could > be captured. It'd just go ahead and search the position as if it was legal. I did that king capture checking in move generation. Someone told me that way the code gets executed too often. How do you ensure the king capture is found before some beta cut? My lame engine has a strange bug: In material only evaluation it sometimes has an evaluation of 1 centipawn. I'm not the mood to check that out. > It's a shame there's not a good collection of obvious positions to test. > > I mean mate-in-XYZ for nearly every condition you could think of (enpassant, > underpromotion, etc. etc.) > > draws and stalemates of all shapes & sizes. Repetition & 50 move rule for a > wide range of possible positions. Ack. > All of us have our own little collection of more basic testing positions > we've accumulated, but we don't have a major collection. The professionals > probably do, but they certainly aren't going to make them public. Ever asked for that on Talkchess? What about Bob Hyatt? He does excessive testing and has no commercial interest. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 21 Aug 2008 20:37:10 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (00:00) schrieb: > > Thanks for the detailed explanations. > >> That was due to my move sorting. I had accidently changed things so >> likely >> captures would be tried first. The king wasn't considered 'likely' to be >> captured so sometimes it would never get around to noticing the king >> could >> be captured. It'd just go ahead and search the position as if it was >> legal. > > I did that king capture checking in move generation. Someone told me > that way the code gets executed too often. How do you ensure the king > capture is found before some beta cut? Simply do the king first. You can either simply do a specific quick loop through captures and see if the king is caputred, or in whatever move ordering you do, simply make sure the capture of the king is scored high enough that it'll be first. Doing an explicit loop is fairly quick, since you'll usually have very few captures. It's quick, but it is something you have to explicitly do. The second option, to just make sure your sorting method puts it first, is easiest. It's nice & generic. But it might not be suitable for some move sorting methods or how you do your coding. Some people do indeed explicit checks in the move generator. There are two variations. The first is that it never generates an illegal move. It makes the search easy, but it takes time to verify though. Others go ahead and generate pseudo-legal moves, but if the king is ever captured, then it aborts and returns an invalid flag. I'm not fond of the first one and I've never tried the second one. The capture of the king is rare enough that I generally prefer to wait until it happens and worry about it then. Different people have different preferences though. However, modern bitboard techniques are introducing some new ideas. The bitboard attack generation methods are getting fast enough that you can put IsSqrAttacked(Kig[Color]) kind of statement about anywhere you want without too much performance penalty. First we had the parallel shift methods (that could do find all the rays at once). Then Gerd came up with his 'Kindergarten" method. Then magic number methods that can do two rays at once. And lots of variations. There are so many options these days it can get very confusing trying to decide which to use. Some of these things cost little more than an array access, a 64 bit mul, an AND and a shift. On a 64 bit processor, it's pretty quick. They are fast enough that you can just about put them anywhere you want without any real penalty. > My lame engine has a strange bug: In material only evaluation it > sometimes has an evaluation of 1 centipawn. I'm not the mood to check > that out. Not being familiar with your engine, I can't even guess. I'd put some debugging code into the eval and dump the board whenever it happens. Then put a few more checks into the search to catch other spots. >> All of us have our own little collection of more basic testing positions >> we've accumulated, but we don't have a major collection. The >> professionals >> probably do, but they certainly aren't going to make them public. > > Ever asked for that on Talkchess? What about Bob Hyatt? He does > excessive testing and has no commercial interest. I did long long ago. Back before they switched to the phpBB stuff. And every so often I see others bring up the subject, but nothing ever really comes from it. Usually the suggestion is a simple regular test suite. Not the low level diagnostic kind of stuff most beginners need. As for Bob.... I think he's moved so far beyond needing them that he might not even understand why a beginner would need them. > > mfg, simon .... l ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 22 Aug 2008 02:23:33 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Tony M <[email protected] > (01:40) schrieb: > It's a known bug in my root search. I'm just very dissatisfied with > programming and life in general right now, and haven't bothered to > work on my chess program in a while. My last chess engine was in Java, and I don't want to do any Java programming anymore. The next one probably will be in Ruby and C. mfg, simon .... l   Date: 22 Aug 2008 00:35:37 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Tony M <[email protected] > (23:54) schrieb: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:58:09 +0200, Simon Krahnke <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>* Guest <[email protected]> (20:18) schrieb: >> >>> In one case, my program would actually try for stalemate when I was ahead. >>> >>> One other time, given a choice between a stalemate draw and being mated, it >>> would choose to be mated. >> >> How did you manage to do that? Sounds like a wrong '-' somewhere, but >> wouldn't that screw it all up? > > Just bugs, just bugs. I've seen several amateur programs that get > confused between stalemate and checkmate. Same question. Can't these programs detect a check or what? > Man, talking about bugs, sometimes my own program, when it finds a > mating line against itself in the search, immediately stops the search > and steps right into the mate, rather than continuing the search and > trying to prolong the game. Are you the programmer of Getclub chess? ;-) I use the standard encoding: Mate is minimum short value + plies. For the normal search it's just a value, that's judged by its numerical meaning. The mate values are only special when produced, for the transposition table and when printing them. > I guess it likes to avoid suffering as much as possible, or maybe it > just gets panicky and thinks the sky is falling when it sees a mate. The only place where my search cares about mate is when there are no legal moves: It returns the above value when in check or the stalemate value when not in check. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 21 Aug 2008 23:40:51 From: Tony M Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:35:37 +0200, Simon Krahnke <[email protected] > wrote: >* Tony M <[email protected]> (23:54) schrieb: > >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:58:09 +0200, Simon Krahnke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>* Guest <[email protected]> (20:18) schrieb: >>> >>>> In one case, my program would actually try for stalemate when I was ahead. >>>> >>>> One other time, given a choice between a stalemate draw and being mated, it >>>> would choose to be mated. >>> >>> How did you manage to do that? Sounds like a wrong '-' somewhere, but >>> wouldn't that screw it all up? >> >> Just bugs, just bugs. I've seen several amateur programs that get >> confused between stalemate and checkmate. > >Same question. Can't these programs detect a check or what? Maybe they just short-circuit things when they see "no legal moves left", and don't bother to see if there's a check...? I don't know, I have a lot of bugs, but not that particular one. > >> Man, talking about bugs, sometimes my own program, when it finds a >> mating line against itself in the search, immediately stops the search >> and steps right into the mate, rather than continuing the search and >> trying to prolong the game. > >Are you the programmer of Getclub chess? ;-) No, my crappy program is even crappier than that. Getclub is kind of the opposite of mine, in that it stews, martyr like, for a long time when losing, rather than trying to get the hell out of there as fast as possible like my program. > >I use the standard encoding: Mate is minimum short value + plies. > >For the normal search it's just a value, that's judged by its numerical >meaning. The mate values are only special when produced, for the >transposition table and when printing them. > >> I guess it likes to avoid suffering as much as possible, or maybe it >> just gets panicky and thinks the sky is falling when it sees a mate. > >The only place where my search cares about mate is when there are no >legal moves: It returns the above value when in check or the stalemate >value when not in check. > It's a known bug in my root search. I'm just very dissatisfied with programming and life in general right now, and haven't bothered to work on my chess program in a while. >mfg, simon .... l   Date: 21 Aug 2008 21:58:09 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Guest <[email protected] > (20:18) schrieb: > In one case, my program would actually try for stalemate when I was ahead. > > One other time, given a choice between a stalemate draw and being mated, it > would choose to be mated. How did you manage to do that? Sounds like a wrong '-' somewhere, but wouldn't that screw it all up? mfg, simon .... l     Date: 21 Aug 2008 17:00:53 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (20:18) schrieb: > >> In one case, my program would actually try for stalemate when I was >> ahead. >> >> One other time, given a choice between a stalemate draw and being mated, >> it >> would choose to be mated. > > How did you manage to do that? Sounds like a wrong '-' somewhere, but > wouldn't that screw it all up? For the first one, it was due to some code I had in a routine that detected insufficient material. I had it backwards so it thought the opponent was ahead in material and it would return a high drawing score to encourage drawing. (Not a lot of faith in my program's ability to play endgames.) For the other, when a stalemate was detected, sometimes it was incorrectly flagged as being mate. It would miss the fact that there were no legal moves but wasn't in check. A bug in some code that was too complicated to easily follow. Most programs, including mine, wait until the King is captured, and back that up as illegal. It's easier and faster than generating only legal moves. Well, when that was backed up, under a certain condition, the code would miss that there had been no legal moves at all. So it thought it was full mate instead of stalemate. Then the search did what it's supposed to do... Delay mate as long as possible in the hope the player would miss the mating chance. So it would pick a longer, guaranteed mate because the 'mate' / stalemate was closer. The code was just a little too complicated and it had a bug. Another bug I once had was sometimes the program wouldn't even notice the king could be captured. That screwed up mate detection in most cases... It played okay in normal positions but things got screwy in mating positions. That was due to my move sorting. I had accidently changed things so likely captures would be tried first. The king wasn't considered 'likely' to be captured so sometimes it would never get around to noticing the king could be captured. It'd just go ahead and search the position as if it was legal. In most normal positions, things worked out okay without any obvious issues. But more testing showed there was a problem, of course. If you don't test, you don't know.... And if you don't know, you can't fix it. It's a shame there's not a good collection of obvious positions to test. I mean mate-in-XYZ for nearly every condition you could think of (enpassant, underpromotion, etc. etc.) draws and stalemates of all shapes & sizes. Repetition & 50 move rule for a wide range of possible positions. And so on. Most test positions are like the WAC stuff... Normal playing positions rather than something specifically designed to detect certain kinds of problems. All of us have our own little collection of more basic testing positions we've accumulated, but we don't have a major collection. The professionals probably do, but they certainly aren't going to make them public. > > mfg, simon .... l ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 21 Aug 2008 21:54:31 From: Tony M Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:58:09 +0200, Simon Krahnke <[email protected] > wrote: >* Guest <[email protected]> (20:18) schrieb: > >> In one case, my program would actually try for stalemate when I was ahead. >> >> One other time, given a choice between a stalemate draw and being mated, it >> would choose to be mated. > >How did you manage to do that? Sounds like a wrong '-' somewhere, but >wouldn't that screw it all up? > >mfg, simon .... l Just bugs, just bugs. I've seen several amateur programs that get confused between stalemate and checkmate. Man, talking about bugs, sometimes my own program, when it finds a mating line against itself in the search, immediately stops the search and steps right into the mate, rather than continuing the search and trying to prolong the game. I guess it likes to avoid suffering as much as possible, or maybe it just gets panicky and thinks the sky is falling when it sees a mate.   Date: 21 Aug 2008 01:28:43 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: I will test them later. * help bot <[email protected] > (09:03) schrieb: > I favor a complete re-write, focusing on > tactics and speed. I favor a programmer who doesn't spend 199 lines of code on a move applying function. mfg, simon .... l   Date: 20 Aug 2008 04:56:39 From: Sanny Subject: Beginner Level Results I played 300 Postions from WAC and I am writing below the Move played by GetClub along with Score given by GetClub to that move. Please analyze and tell what do you think about the below results. For each Test Position Best Move by GetClub Beginner Level along with score is written. ----------------------------- For Example: 8/7p/5k2/5p2/p1p2P2/Pr1pPK2/1P1R3P/8 b - - bm Rxb2; id WAC.002 P- c3,Score:1.84 It means WAC says best move is Rxb2 But Beginner Level played P-c3 and it gives an advantage of 1.84 to its move. --------------------------- If Score is +ve it means GetClub thinks its position is strong and if Score is -ve GetClub thinks its position is weak. After you see the result for each position I will test the Easy Level also. It took me 2 hours to test all 300 moves through automation. It will take 8-10 hours for Easy Level Testing. The score is better than what I predicted. I was thinking none of them will match but I find 20% moves are correct while other 80% are not Matching for Beginner Level. If I get good suggestions from you I will try the Easy Level. Let me know if the Scores given by GetClub for its move is correct or not. Beginner: 15-20 sec / move [Test done in 2 hours.] Easy: 1-2 min / move [Test will need 8-10 hours] GETCLUB BEGINNER LEVEL RESULTS. ----------------------------------------------------- 2rr3k/pp3pp1/1nnqbN1p/3pN3/2pP4/2P3Q1/PPB4P/R4RK1 w - - bm Qg6; id WAC. 001 Q-g6,Score:87.65 8/7p/5k2/5p2/p1p2P2/Pr1pPK2/1P1R3P/8 b - - bm Rxb2; id WAC.002 P- c3,Score:1.84 5rk1/1ppb3p/p1pb4/6q1/3P1p1r/2P1R2P/PP1BQ1P1/5RKN w - - bm Rg3; id WAC. 003 Q-c4,Score:-1.11 r1bq2rk/pp3pbp/2p1p1pQ/7P/3P4/2PB1N2/PP3PPR/2KR4 w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC.004 Q-e3,Score:2.53 5k2/6pp/p1qN4/1p1p4/3P4/2PKP2Q/PP3r2/3R4 b - - bm Qc4 ; id WAC.005 Q- d6,Score:2.47 7k/p7/1R5K/6r1/6p1/6P1/8/8 w - - bm Rb7; id WAC.006 R-b7,Score: 5.1 rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/8/4P3/6n1/7P/PPPNPPP1/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - bm Ne3; id WAC.007 Q-h4,Score:-1.27 r4q1k/p2bR1rp/2p2Q1N/5p2/5p2/2P5/PP3PPP/R5K1 w - - bm Rf7; id WAC.008 R-f7,Score:10.92 3q1rk1/p4pp1/2pb3p/3p4/6Pr/1PNQ4/P1PB1PP1/4RRK1 b - - bm Bh2 ; id WAC. 009 Q-b6,Score:-2.73 2br2k1/2q3rn/p2NppQ1/2p1P3/Pp5R/4P3/1P3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Rxh7; id WAC. 010 R-h7,Score:4.47 r1b1kb1r/3q1ppp/pBp1pn2/8/Np3P2/5B2/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - bm Bxc6; id WAC.011 R-e1,Score:1.58 4k1r1/2p3r1/1pR1p3/3pP2p/3P2qP/P4N2/1PQ4P/5R1K b - - bm Qxf3 ; id WAC. 012 R-f8,Score:-4.04 5rk1/pp4p1/2n1p2p/2Npq3/2p5/6P1/P3P1BP/R4Q1K w - - bm Qxf8 ; id WAC. 013 B-f3,Score:-1.78 r2rb1k1/pp1q1p1p/2n1p1p1/2bp4/5P2/PP1BPR1Q/1BPN2PP/R5K1 w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC.014 B-f6,Score:2.45 1R6/1brk2p1/4p2p/p1P1Pp2/P7/6P1/1P4P1/2R3K1 w - - bm Rxb7; id WAC.015 R-b7,Score:5.82 r4rk1/ppp2ppp/2n5/2bqp3/8/P2PB3/1PP1NPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - bm Nc3; id WAC. 016 N-c3,Score:2.75 1k5r/pppbn1pp/4q1r1/1P3p2/2NPp3/1QP5/P4PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - bm Ne5; id WAC.017 B-f4,Score:-0.42 R7/P4k2/8/8/8/8/r7/6K1 w - - bm Rh8; id WAC.018 K-f1,Score:2.35 r1b2rk1/ppbn1ppp/4p3/1QP4q/3P4/N4N2/5PPP/R1B2RK1 w - - bm c6; id WAC. 019 B-e3,Score:0.24 r2qkb1r/1ppb1ppp/p7/4p3/P1Q1P3/2P5/5PPP/R1B2KNR b kq - bm Bb5; id WAC. 020 B-b5,Score:9.75 5rk1/1b3p1p/pp3p2/3n1N2/1P6/P1qB1PP1/3Q3P/4R1K1 w - - bm Qh6; id WAC. 021 Q-c3,Score:2.46 r1bqk2r/ppp1nppp/4p3/n5N1/2BPp3/P1P5/2P2PPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - bm Ba2 Nxf7; id WAC.022 B-a2,Score:0.08 r3nrk1/2p2p1p/p1p1b1p1/2NpPq2/3R4/P1N1Q3/1PP2PPP/4R1K1 w - - bm g4; id WAC.023 Q-c1,Score:3.59 6k1/1b1nqpbp/pp4p1/5P2/1PN5/4Q3/P5PP/1B2B1K1 b - - bm Bd4; id WAC.024 B-d4,Score:7.01 3R1rk1/8/5Qpp/2p5/2P1p1q1/P3P3/1P2PK2/8 b - - bm Qh4 ; id WAC.025 Q- h4,Score:11.3 3r2k1/1p1b1pp1/pq5p/8/3NR3/2PQ3P/PP3PP1/6K1 b - - bm Bf5; id WAC.026 Q- b2,Score:-0.15 7k/pp4np/2p3p1/3pN1q1/3P4/Q7/1r3rPP/2R2RK1 w - - bm Qf8 ; id WAC.027 N- f7,Score:-3.79 1r1r2k1/4pp1p/2p1b1p1/p3R3/RqBP4/4P3/1PQ2PPP/6K1 b - - bm Qe1 ; id WAC. 028 Q-e1,Score:2.6 r2q2k1/pp1rbppp/4pn2/2P5/1P3B2/6P1/P3QPBP/1R3RK1 w - - bm c6; id WAC. 029 P-c6,Score:3.12 1r3r2/4q1kp/b1pp2p1/5p2/pPn1N3/6P1/P3PPBP/2QRR1K1 w - - bm Nxd6; id WAC.030 N-d6,Score:1.91 rb3qk1/pQ3ppp/4p3/3P4/8/1P3N2/1P3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxa8 d6 dxe6 g3; id WAC.031 P-e6,Score:7.2 6k1/p4p1p/1p3np1/2q5/4p3/4P1N1/PP3PPP/3Q2K1 w - - bm Qd8 ; id WAC.032 Q-d8,Score:2.75 8/p1q2pkp/2Pr2p1/8/P3Q3/6P1/5P1P/2R3K1 w - - bm Qe5 Qf4; id WAC.033 Q- e8,Score:2.63 7k/1b1r2p1/p6p/1p2qN2/3bP3/3Q4/P5PP/1B1R3K b - - bm Bg1; id WAC.034 K- g8,Score:-2.61 r3r2k/2R3pp/pp1q1p2/8/3P3R/7P/PP3PP1/3Q2K1 w - - bm Rxh7 ; id WAC.035 Q-b1,Score:2.34 3r4/2p1rk2/1pQq1pp1/7p/1P1P4/P4P2/6PP/R1R3K1 b - - bm Re1 ; id WAC.036 R-e1,Score:1.96 2r5/2rk2pp/1pn1pb2/pN1p4/P2P4/1N2B3/nPR1KPPP/3R4 b - - bm Nxd4 ; id WAC.037 R-b7,Score:-1.48 4k3/p4prp/1p6/2b5/8/2Q3P1/P2R1PKP/4q3 w - - bm Rd8 Qd3; id WAC.038 R- d8,Score:1.17 r1br2k1/pp2bppp/2nppn2/8/2P1PB2/2N2P2/PqN1B1PP/R2Q1R1K w - - bm Na4; id WAC.039 N-a4,Score:0.62 3r1r1k/1p4pp/p4p2/8/1PQR4/6Pq/P3PP2/2R3K1 b - - bm Rc8; id WAC.040 R- d4,Score:1.41 1k6/5RP1/1P6/1K6/6r1/8/8/8 w - - bm Ka5 Kc5 b7; id WAC.041 P-b7,Score: 5.91 r1b1r1k1/pp1n1pbp/1qp3p1/3p4/1B1P4/Q3PN2/PP2BPPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Ba5; id WAC.042 B-a5,Score:3.11 r2q3k/p2P3p/1p3p2/3QP1r1/8/B7/P5PP/2R3K1 w - - bm Be7 Qxa8; id WAC.043 B-e7,Score:3.89 3rb1k1/pq3pbp/4n1p1/3p4/2N5/2P2QB1/PP3PPP/1B1R2K1 b - - bm dxc4; id WAC.044 B-c6,Score:-2.18 7k/2p1b1pp/8/1p2P3/1P3r2/2P3Q1/1P5P/R4qBK b - - bm Qxa1; id WAC.045 Q- a1,Score:5.85 r1bqr1k1/pp1nb1p1/4p2p/3p1p2/3P4/P1N1PNP1/1PQ2PP1/3RKB1R w K - bm Nb5; id WAC.046 B-d3,Score:1.95 r1b2rk1/pp2bppp/2n1pn2/q5B1/2BP4/2N2N2/PP2QPPP/2R2RK1 b - - bm Nxd4; id WAC.047 N-d4,Score:-1.37 1rbq1rk1/p1p1bppp/2p2n2/8/Q1BP4/2N5/PP3PPP/R1B2RK1 b - - bm Rb4; id WAC.048 P-c5,Score:-1.07 2b3k1/4rrpp/p2p4/2pP2RQ/1pP1Pp1N/1P3P1P/1q6/6RK w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC. 049 Q-h6,Score:0.12 k4r2/1R4pb/1pQp1n1p/3P4/5p1P/3P2P1/r1q1R2K/8 w - - bm Rxb6 ; id WAC. 050 R-c2,Score:-2.54 r1bq1r2/pp4k1/4p2p/3pPp1Q/3N1R1P/2PB4/6P1/6K1 w - - bm Rg4 ; id WAC. 051 P-g4,Score:0.97 r1k5/1p3q2/1Qpb4/3N1p2/5Pp1/3P2Pp/PPPK3P/4R3 w - - bm Re7 c4; id WAC. 052 P-c4,Score:1.71 6k1/6p1/p7/3Pn3/5p2/4rBqP/P4RP1/5QK1 b - - bm Re1; id WAC.053 P- a5,Score:2.26 r3kr2/1pp4p/1p1p4/7q/4P1n1/2PP2Q1/PP4P1/R1BB2K1 b q - bm Qh1 ; id WAC. 054 R-g8,Score:-0.56 r3r1k1/pp1q1pp1/4b1p1/3p2B1/3Q1R2/8/PPP3PP/4R1K1 w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC.055 Q-e5,Score:1.43 r1bqk2r/pppp1ppp/5n2/2b1n3/4P3/1BP3Q1/PP3PPP/RNB1K1NR b KQkq - bm Bxf2 ; id WAC.056 Q-e7,Score:1.0 r3q1kr/ppp5/3p2pQ/8/3PP1b1/5R2/PPP3P1/5RK1 w - - bm Rf8 ; id WAC.057 R- f8,Score:88.69 8/8/2R5/1p2qp1k/1P2r3/2PQ2P1/5K2/8 w - - bm Qd1 ; id WAC.058 Q- f3,Score:6.36 r1b2rk1/2p1qnbp/p1pp2p1/5p2/2PQP3/1PN2N1P/PB3PP1/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nd5; id WAC.059 N-d5,Score:8.11 rn1qr1k1/1p2np2/2p3p1/8/1pPb4/7Q/PB1P1PP1/2KR1B1R w - - bm Qh8 ; id WAC.060 Q-h7,Score:85.37 3qrbk1/ppp1r2n/3pP2p/3P4/2P4P/1P3Q2/PB6/R4R1K w - - bm Qf7 ; id WAC. 061 Q-g2,Score:4.43 6r1/3Pn1qk/p1p1P1rp/2Q2p2/2P5/1P4P1/P3R2P/5RK1 b - - bm Rxg3 ; id WAC. 062 R-g4,Score:-4.66 r1brnbk1/ppq2pp1/4p2p/4N3/3P4/P1PB1Q2/3B1PPP/R3R1K1 w - - bm Nxf7; id WAC.063 Q-e3,Score:2.97 8/6pp/3q1p2/3n1k2/1P6/3NQ2P/5PP1/6K1 w - - bm g4 ; id WAC.064 P- g4,Score:92.65 1r1r1qk1/p2n1p1p/bp1Pn1pQ/2pNp3/2P2P1N/1P5B/P6P/3R1RK1 w - - bm Ne7 ; id WAC.065 N-e7,Score:11.46 1k1r2r1/ppq5/1bp4p/3pQ3/8/2P2N2/PP4P1/R4R1K b - - bm Qxe5; id WAC.066 R-g3,Score:3.23 3r2k1/p2q4/1p4p1/3rRp1p/5P1P/6PK/P3R3/3Q4 w - - bm Rxd5; id WAC.067 R- d5,Score:2.52 6k1/5ppp/1q6/2b5/8/2R1pPP1/1P2Q2P/7K w - - bm Qxe3; id WAC.068 Q- e3,Score:6.47 2k5/pppr4/4R3/4Q3/2pp2q1/8/PPP2PPP/6K1 w - - bm f3 h3; id WAC.069 P- f3,Score:2.59 2kr3r/pppq1ppp/3p1n2/bQ2p3/1n1PP3/1PN1BN1P/1PP2PP1/2KR3R b - - bm Na2 ; id WAC.070 N-a2,Score:4.26 2kr3r/pp1q1ppp/5n2/1Nb5/2Pp1B2/7Q/P4PPP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Nxa7 ; id WAC. 071 Q-b3,Score:0.29 r3r1k1/pp1n1ppp/2p5/4Pb2/2B2P2/B1P5/P5PP/R2R2K1 w - - bm e6; id WAC. 072 P-e6,Score:2.55 r1q3rk/1ppbb1p1/4Np1p/p3pP2/P3P3/2N4R/1PP1Q1PP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qd2; id WAC.073 N-d5,Score:0.47 5r1k/pp4pp/2p5/2b1P3/4Pq2/1PB1p3/P3Q1PP/3N2K1 b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC. 074 Q-e4,Score:5.82 r3r1k1/pppq1ppp/8/8/1Q4n1/7P/PPP2PP1/RNB1R1K1 b - - bm Qd6; id WAC.075 Q-d4,Score:-2.52 r1b1qrk1/2p2ppp/pb1pnn2/1p2pNB1/3PP3/1BP5/PP2QPPP/RN1R2K1 w - - bm Bxf6; id WAC.076 B-f6,Score:4.2 3r2k1/ppp2ppp/6q1/b4n2/3nQB2/2p5/P4PPP/RN3RK1 b - - bm Ng3; id WAC.077 N-g3,Score:7.24 r2q3r/ppp2k2/4nbp1/5Q1p/2P1NB2/8/PP3P1P/3RR1K1 w - - bm Ng5 ; id WAC. 078 R-d8,Score:5.48 r3k2r/pbp2pp1/3b1n2/1p6/3P3p/1B2N1Pq/PP1PQP1P/R1B2RK1 b kq - bm Qxh2 ; id WAC.079 P-g3,Score:1.99 r4rk1/p1B1bpp1/1p2pn1p/8/2PP4/3B1P2/qP2QP1P/3R1RK1 w - - bm Ra1; id WAC.080 P-d5,Score:1.93 r4rk1/1bR1bppp/4pn2/1p2N3/1P6/P3P3/4BPPP/3R2K1 b - - bm Bd6; id WAC. 081 B-g2,Score:0.18 3rr1k1/pp3pp1/4b3/8/2P1B2R/6QP/P3q1P1/5R1K w - - bm Bh7 ; id WAC.082 B- h7,Score:1.67 3rr1k1/ppqbRppp/2p5/8/3Q1n2/2P3N1/PPB2PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxd7; id WAC. 083 Q-d7,Score:8.01 r2q1r1k/2p1b1pp/p1n5/1p1Q1bN1/4n3/1BP1B3/PP3PPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Qg8 ; id WAC.084 N-e4,Score:2.13 kr2R3/p4r2/2pq4/2N2p1p/3P2p1/Q5P1/5P1P/5BK1 w - - bm Na6; id WAC.085 Q- e3,Score:2.89 8/p7/1ppk1n2/5ppp/P1PP4/2P1K1P1/5N1P/8 b - - bm Ng4 ; id WAC.086 P- a6,Score:0.95 8/p3k1p1/4r3/2ppNpp1/PP1P4/2P3KP/5P2/8 b - - bm Rxe5; id WAC.087 P- b4,Score:3.1 r6k/p1Q4p/2p1b1rq/4p3/B3P3/4P3/PPP3P1/4RRK1 b - - bm Rxg2 ; id WAC.088 Q-g5,Score:-0.88 1r3b1k/p4rpp/4pp2/3q4/2ppbPPQ/6RK/PP5P/2B1NR2 b - - bm g5; id WAC.089 P-c3,Score:7.87 3qrrk1/1pp2pp1/1p2bn1p/5N2/2P5/P1P3B1/1P4PP/2Q1RRK1 w - - bm Nxg7; id WAC.090 R-f4,Score:1.69 2qr2k1/4b1p1/2p2p1p/1pP1p3/p2nP3/PbQNB1PP/1P3PK1/4RB2 b - - bm Be6; id WAC.091 B-e6,Score:1.44 r4rk1/1p2ppbp/p2pbnp1/q7/3BPPP1/2N2B2/PPP4P/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm Bxg4; id WAC.092 Q-c7,Score:0.28 r1b1k1nr/pp3pQp/4pq2/3pn3/8/P1P5/2P2PPP/R1B1KBNR w KQkq - bm Bh6; id WAC.093 B-b5,Score:-1.12 8/k7/p7/3Qp2P/n1P5/3KP3/1q6/8 b - - bm e4 ; id WAC.094 Q-b3,Score: 3.45 2r5/1r6/4pNpk/3pP1qp/8/2P1QP2/5PK1/R7 w - - bm Ng4 ; id WAC.095 Q- g5,Score:-1.77 r1b4k/ppp2Bb1/6Pp/3pP3/1qnP1p1Q/8/PPP3P1/1K1R3R w - - bm Qd8 ; id WAC. 096 Q-d8,Score:4.47 6k1/5p2/p5np/4B3/3P4/1PP1q3/P3r1QP/6RK w - - bm Qa8 ; id WAC.097 Q- c6,Score:3.97 1r3rk1/5pb1/p2p2p1/Q1n1q2p/1NP1P3/3p1P1B/PP1R3P/1K2R3 b - - bm Nxe4; id WAC.098 N-e4,Score:3.83 r1bq1r1k/1pp1Np1p/p2p2pQ/4R3/n7/8/PPPP1PPP/R1B3K1 w - - bm Rh5; id WAC. 099 R-h5,Score:89.5 8/k1b5/P4p2/1Pp2p1p/K1P2P1P/8/3B4/8 w - - bm b6 Be3; id WAC.100 K- b3,Score:2.78 5rk1/p5pp/8/8/2Pbp3/1P4P1/7P/4RN1K b - - bm Bc3; id WAC.101 P-e3,Score: 0.05 2Q2n2/2R4p/1p1qpp1k/8/3P3P/3B2P1/5PK1/r7 w - - bm Qxf8 ; id WAC.102 R- f7,Score:6.07 6k1/2pb1r1p/3p1PpQ/p1nPp3/1q2P3/2N2P2/PrB5/2K3RR w - - bm Qxg6 ; id WAC.103 R-g6,Score:-0.71 b4r1k/pq2rp2/1p1bpn1p/3PN2n/2P2P2/P2B3K/1B2Q2N/3R2R1 w - - bm Qxh5; id WAC.104 Q-h5,Score:14.53 r2r2k1/pb3ppp/1p1bp3/7q/3n2nP/PP1B2P1/1B1N1P2/RQ2NRK1 b - - bm Qxh4 Bxg3; id WAC.105 Q-h4,Score:6.8 4rrk1/pppb4/7p/3P2pq/3Qn3/P5P1/1PP4P/R3RNNK b - - bm Nf2 ; id WAC.106 N-f2,Score:0.73 5n2/pRrk2p1/P4p1p/4p3/3N4/5P2/6PP/6K1 w - - bm Nb5; id WAC.107 N- b5,Score:2.51 r5k1/1q4pp/2p5/p1Q5/2P5/5R2/4RKPP/r7 w - - bm Qe5; id WAC.108 R- e7,Score:1.26 rn2k1nr/pbp2ppp/3q4/1p2N3/2p5/QP6/PB1PPPPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - bm c3; id WAC.109 N-f6,Score:-0.74 2kr4/bp3p2/p2p2b1/P7/2q5/1N4B1/1PPQ2P1/2KR4 b - - bm Be3; id WAC.110 R- e8,Score:0.35 6k1/p5p1/5p2/2P2Q2/3pN2p/3PbK1P/7P/6q1 b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.111 Q- f1,Score:5.25 r4kr1/ppp5/4bq1b/7B/2PR1Q1p/2N3P1/PP3P1P/2K1R3 w - - bm Rxe6; id WAC. 112 R-e6,Score:5.81 rnbqkb1r/1p3ppp/5N2/1p2p1B1/2P5/8/PP2PPPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - bm Qxf6; id WAC.113 Q-f6,Score:1.2 r1b1rnk1/1p4pp/p1p2p2/3pN2n/3P1PPq/2NBPR1P/PPQ5/2R3K1 w - - bm Bxh7 ; id WAC.114 N-c6,Score:2.31 4N2k/5rpp/1Q6/p3q3/8/P5P1/1P3P1P/5K2 w - - bm Nd6; id WAC.115 N- d6,Score:-0.57 r2r2k1/2p2ppp/p7/1p2P1n1/P6q/5P2/1PB1QP1P/R5RK b - - bm Rd2; id WAC. 116 N-h3,Score:0.83 3r1rk1/q4ppp/p1Rnp3/8/1p6/1N3P2/PP3QPP/3R2K1 b - - bm Ne4; id WAC.117 N-e4,Score:2.35 r5k1/pb2rpp1/1p6/2p4q/5R2/2PB2Q1/P1P3PP/5R1K w - - bm Rh4; id WAC.118 R-f6,Score:0.55 r2qr1k1/p1p2ppp/2p5/2b5/4nPQ1/3B4/PPP3PP/R1B2R1K b - - bm Qxd3; id WAC. 119 N-f2,Score:1.05 r4rk1/1bn2qnp/3p1B1Q/p2P1pP1/1pp5/5N1P/PPB2P2/2KR3R w - - bm g6 Rhg1; id WAC.120 R-e1,Score:2.55 6k1/5p1p/2bP2pb/4p3/2P5/1p1pNPPP/1P1Q1BK1/1q6 b - - bm Bxf3 ; id WAC. 121 P-e4,Score:4.18 1k6/ppp4p/1n2pq2/1N2Rb2/2P2Q2/8/P4KPP/3r1B2 b - - bm Rxf1 ; id WAC.122 Q-d8,Score:3.29 6k1/1b2rp2/1p4p1/3P4/PQ4P1/2N2q2/5P2/3R2K1 b - - bm Bxd5 Rc7 Re6; id WAC.123 R-c7,Score:4.23 6k1/3r4/2R5/P5P1/1P4p1/8/4rB2/6K1 b - - bm g3; id WAC.124 R-b2,Score: 0.2 r1bqr1k1/pp3ppp/1bp5/3n4/3B4/2N2P1P/PPP1B1P1/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm Bxd4 ; id WAC.125 B-d4,Score:3.76 r5r1/pQ5p/1qp2R2/2k1p3/4P3/2PP4/P1P3PP/6K1 w - - bm Rxc6 ; id WAC.126 Q-f7,Score:2.93 2k4r/1pr1n3/p1p1q2p/5pp1/3P1P2/P1P1P3/1R2Q1PP/1RB3K1 w - - bm Rxb7; id WAC.127 P-g5,Score:2.84 6rk/1pp2Qrp/3p1B2/1pb1p2R/3n1q2/3P4/PPP3PP/R6K w - - bm Qg6; id WAC. 128 Q-g6,Score:1.2 3r1r1k/1b2b1p1/1p5p/2p1Pp2/q1B2P2/4P2P/1BR1Q2K/6R1 b - - bm Bf3; id WAC.129 B-e4,Score:1.17 6k1/1pp3q1/5r2/1PPp4/3P1pP1/3Qn2P/3B4/4R1K1 b - - bm Qh6 Qh8; id WAC. 130 Q-h8,Score:-0.99 2rq1bk1/p4p1p/1p4p1/3b4/3B1Q2/8/P4PpP/3RR1K1 w - - bm Re8; id WAC.131 Q-e5,Score:-3.19 4r1k1/5bpp/2p5/3pr3/8/1B3pPq/PPR2P2/2R2QK1 b - - bm Re1; id WAC.132 Q- f1,Score:3.43 r1b1k2r/1pp1q2p/p1n3p1/3QPp2/8/1BP3B1/P5PP/3R1RK1 w kq - bm Bh4; id WAC.133 R-d3,Score:3.23 3r2k1/p6p/2Q3p1/4q3/2P1p3/P3Pb2/1P3P1P/2K2BR1 b - - bm Rd1 ; id WAC. 134 R-d1,Score:5.85 3r1r1k/N2qn1pp/1p2np2/2p5/2Q1P2N/3P4/PP4PP/3R1RK1 b - - bm Nd4; id WAC. 135 N-d4,Score:2.12 6kr/1q2r1p1/1p2N1Q1/5p2/1P1p4/6R1/7P/2R3K1 w - - bm Rc8 ; id WAC.136 Q- f5,Score:3.71 3b1rk1/1bq3pp/5pn1/1p2rN2/2p1p3/2P1B2Q/1PB2PPP/R2R2K1 w - - bm Rd7; id WAC.137 R-d4,Score:0.33 r1bq3r/ppppR1p1/5n1k/3P4/6pP/3Q4/PP1N1PP1/5K1R w - - bm h5; id WAC.138 Q-e3,Score:0.66 rnb3kr/ppp2ppp/1b6/3q4/3pN3/Q4N2/PPP2KPP/R1B1R3 w - - bm Nf6 ; id WAC. 139 Q-e7,Score:-1.15 r2b1rk1/pq4p1/4ppQP/3pB1p1/3P4/2R5/PP3PP1/5RK1 w - - bm Rc7 Bc7; id WAC.140 R-c7,Score:13.43 4r1k1/p1qr1p2/2pb1Bp1/1p5p/3P1n1R/1B3P2/PP3PK1/2Q4R w - - bm Qxf4; id WAC.141 K-f1,Score:-1.58 r2q3n/ppp2pk1/3p4/5Pr1/2NP1Qp1/2P2pP1/PP3K2/4R2R w - - bm Re8 f6 ; id WAC.142 R-h4,Score:3.4 5b2/pp2r1pk/2pp1pRp/4rP1N/2P1P3/1P4QP/P3q1P1/5R1K w - - bm Rxh6 ; id WAC.143 N-f6,Score:0.97 r2q1rk1/pp3ppp/2p2b2/8/B2pPPb1/7P/PPP1N1P1/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm d3; id WAC. 144 B-e2,Score:2.58 r1bq4/1p4kp/3p1n2/p4pB1/2pQ4/8/1P4PP/4RRK1 w - - bm Re8; id WAC.145 B- f6,Score:5.67 8/8/2Kp4/3P1B2/2P2k2/5p2/8/8 w - - bm Bc8 Bd3 Bh3; id WAC.146 B- h3,Score:3.69 r2r2k1/ppqbppbp/2n2np1/2pp4/6P1/1P1PPNNP/PBP2PB1/R2QK2R b KQ - bm Nxg4; id WAC.147 Q-a5,Score:1.37 2r1k3/6pr/p1nBP3/1p3p1p/2q5/2P5/P1R4P/K2Q2R1 w - - bm Rxg7; id WAC.148 R-g7,Score:3.9 6k1/6p1/2p4p/4Pp2/4b1qP/2Br4/1P2RQPK/8 b - - bm Bxg2; id WAC.149 R- d7,Score:3.01 r3r1k1/5p2/pQ1b2pB/1p6/4p3/6P1/Pq2BP1P/2R3K1 b - - bm Ba3 Bf8 e3 Be5; id WAC.150 Q-e2,Score:4.95 8/3b2kp/4p1p1/pr1n4/N1N4P/1P4P1/1K3P2/3R4 w - - bm Nc3; id WAC.151 N- e5,Score:-0.94 1br2rk1/1pqb1ppp/p3pn2/8/1P6/P1N1PN1P/1B3PP1/1QRR2K1 w - - bm Ne4; id WAC.152 N-e4,Score:1.61 2r3k1/q4ppp/p3p3/pnNp4/2rP4/2P2P2/4R1PP/2R1Q1K1 b - - bm Nxd4; id WAC. 153 R-c5,Score:2.65 r1b2rk1/2p2ppp/p7/1p6/3P3q/1BP3bP/PP3QP1/RNB1R1K1 w - - bm Qxf7 ; id WAC.154 B-f7,Score:0.91 5bk1/1rQ4p/5pp1/2pP4/3n1PP1/7P/1q3BB1/4R1K1 w - - bm d6; id WAC.155 Q- d8,Score:1.94 r1b1qN1k/1pp3p1/p2p3n/4p1B1/8/1BP4Q/PP3KPP/8 w - - bm Qxh6 ; id WAC. 156 N-e6,Score:-3.14 5rk1/p4ppp/2p1b3/3Nq3/4P1n1/1p1B2QP/1PPr2P1/1K2R2R w - - bm Ne7 ; id WAC.157 N-e7,Score:-3.65 5rk1/n1p1R1bp/p2p4/1qpP1QB1/7P/2P3P1/PP3P2/6K1 w - - bm Rxg7 ; id WAC. 158 Q-e6,Score:2.62 r1b2r2/5P1p/ppn3pk/2p1p1Nq/1bP1PQ2/3P4/PB4BP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Ne6 ; id WAC.159 B-e5,Score:6.38 qn1kr2r/1pRbb3/pP5p/P2pP1pP/3N1pQ1/3B4/3B1PP1/R5K1 w - - bm Qxd7 ; id WAC.160 P-e6,Score:8.62 3r3k/3r1P1p/pp1Nn3/2pp4/7Q/6R1/Pq4PP/5RK1 w - - bm Qxd8 ; id WAC.161 N- e8,Score:0.95 r3kbnr/p4ppp/2p1p3/8/Q1B3b1/2N1B3/PP3PqP/R3K2R w KQkq - bm Bd5; id WAC. 162 B-d5,Score:-0.54 5rk1/2p4p/2p4r/3P4/4p1b1/1Q2NqPp/PP3P1K/R4R2 b - - bm Qg2 ; id WAC.163 P-d5,Score:4.38 8/6pp/4p3/1p1n4/1NbkN1P1/P4P1P/1PR3K1/r7 w - - bm Rxc4 ; id WAC.164 N- d5,Score:4.52 1r5k/p1p3pp/8/8/4p3/P1P1R3/1P1Q1qr1/2KR4 w - - bm Re2; id WAC.165 Q- f2,Score:-2.85 r3r1k1/5pp1/p1p4p/2Pp4/8/q1NQP1BP/5PP1/4K2R b K - bm d4; id WAC.166 Q- c1,Score:2.24 7Q/ppp2q2/3p2k1/P2Ppr1N/1PP5/7R/5rP1/6K1 b - - bm Rxg2 ; id WAC.167 R- f1,Score:1.27 r3k2r/pb1q1p2/8/2p1pP2/4p1p1/B1P1Q1P1/P1P3K1/R4R2 b kq - bm Qd2 ; id WAC.168 R-h3,Score:3.24 5rk1/1pp3bp/3p2p1/2PPp3/1P2P3/2Q1B3/4q1PP/R5K1 b - - bm Bh6; id WAC. 169 P-c5,Score:0.13 5r1k/6Rp/1p2p3/p2pBp2/1qnP4/4P3/Q4PPP/6K1 w - - bm Qxc4; id WAC.170 Q- c4,Score:8.05 2rq4/1b2b1kp/p3p1p1/1p1nNp2/7P/1B2B1Q1/PP3PP1/3R2K1 w - - bm Bh6 ; id WAC.171 R-d4,Score:1.39 5r1k/p5pp/8/1P1pq3/P1p2nR1/Q7/5BPP/6K1 b - - bm Qe1 ; id WAC.172 N- e2,Score:5.1 2r1b3/1pp1qrk1/p1n1P1p1/7R/2B1p3/4Q1P1/PP3PP1/3R2K1 w - - bm Qh6 ; id WAC.173 Q-h6,Score:8.25 2r2rk1/6p1/p3pq1p/1p1b1p2/3P1n2/PP3N2/3N1PPP/1Q2RR1K b - - bm Nxg2; id WAC.174 R-d8,Score:3.57 r5k1/pppb3p/2np1n2/8/3PqNpP/3Q2P1/PPP5/R4RK1 w - - bm Nh5; id WAC.175 N-h5,Score:1.54 r1bq3r/ppp2pk1/3p1pp1/8/2BbPQ2/2NP2P1/PPP4P/R4R1K b - - bm Rxh2 ; id WAC.176 K-g8,Score:-0.49 r1b3r1/4qk2/1nn1p1p1/3pPp1P/p4P2/1p3BQN/PKPBN3/3R3R b - - bm Qa3 ; id WAC.177 N-c4,Score:-0.35 3r2k1/p1rn1p1p/1p2pp2/6q1/3PQNP1/5P2/P1P4R/R5K1 w - - bm Nxe6; id WAC. 178 Q-h7,Score:2.12 r1b2r1k/pp4pp/3p4/3B4/8/1QN3Pn/PP3q1P/R3R2K b - - bm Qg1 ; id WAC.179 B-f5,Score:1.91 r1q2rk1/p3bppb/3p1n1p/2nPp3/1p2P1P1/6NP/PP2QPB1/R1BNK2R b KQ - bm Nxd5; id WAC.180 N-d5,Score:3.23 r3k2r/2p2p2/p2p1n2/1p2p3/4P2p/1PPPPp1q/1P5P/R1N2QRK b kq - bm Ng4; id WAC.181 Q-f1,Score:3.23 r1b2rk1/ppqn1p1p/2n1p1p1/2b3N1/2N5/PP1BP3/1B3PPP/R2QK2R w KQ - bm Qh5; id WAC.182 Q-h5,Score:2.12 1r2k1r1/5p2/b3p3/1p2b1B1/3p3P/3B4/PP2KP2/2R3R1 w - - bm Bf6; id WAC. 183 P-h5,Score:-0.65 4kn2/r4p1r/p3bQ2/q1nNP1Np/1p5P/8/PPP3P1/2KR3R w - - bm Qe7 ; id WAC. 184 N-b4,Score:5.51 1r1rb1k1/2p3pp/p2q1p2/3PpP1Q/Pp1bP2N/1B5R/1P4PP/2B4K w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC.185 Q-f3,Score:-2.65 r5r1/p1q2p1k/1p1R2pB/3pP3/6bQ/2p5/P1P1NPPP/6K1 w - - bm Bf8 ; id WAC. 186 B-g5,Score:2.34 6k1/5p2/p3p3/1p3qp1/2p1Qn2/2P1R3/PP1r1PPP/4R1K1 b - - bm Nh3 ; id WAC. 187 Q-e4,Score:-0.63 3RNbk1/pp3p2/4rQpp/8/1qr5/7P/P4P2/3R2K1 w - - bm Qg7 ; id WAC.188 Q- f3,Score:-3.13 3r1k2/1ppPR1n1/p2p1rP1/3P3p/4Rp1N/5K2/P1P2P2/8 w - - bm Re8 ; id WAC. 189 K-e2,Score:5.49 8/p2b2kp/1q1p2p1/1P1Pp3/4P3/3B2P1/P2Q3P/2Nn3K b - - bm Bh3; id WAC.190 N-f2,Score:4.19 2r1Rn1k/1p1q2pp/p7/5p2/3P4/1B4P1/P1P1QP1P/6K1 w - - bm Qc4; id WAC.191 Q-c4,Score:86.91 r3k3/ppp2Npp/4Bn2/2b5/1n1pp3/N4P2/PPP3qP/R2QKR2 b Qq - bm Nd3 ; id WAC. 192 P-d3,Score:5.11 5bk1/p4ppp/Qp6/4B3/1P6/Pq2P1P1/2rr1P1P/R4RK1 b - - bm Qxe3; id WAC.193 Q-e3,Score:2.19 5rk1/ppq2ppp/2p5/4bN2/4P3/6Q1/PPP2PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Nh6 ; id WAC.194 P-f4,Score:0.93 3r1rk1/1p3p2/p3pnnp/2p3p1/2P2q2/1P5P/PB2QPPN/3RR1K1 w - - bm g3; id WAC.195 R-d8,Score:-0.51 rr4k1/p1pq2pp/Q1n1pn2/2bpp3/4P3/2PP1NN1/PP3PPP/R1B1K2R b KQ - bm Nb4; id WAC.196 R-b6,Score:1.34 7k/1p4p1/7p/3P1n2/4Q3/2P2P2/PP3qRP/7K b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.197 Q- f1,Score:-5.31 2br2k1/ppp2p1p/4p1p1/4P2q/2P1Bn2/2Q5/PP3P1P/4R1RK b - - bm Rd3; id WAC. 198 N-e2,Score:1.27 r1br2k1/pp2nppp/2n5/1B1q4/Q7/4BN2/PP3PPP/2R2RK1 w - - bm Bxc6 Rfd1 Rcd1; id WAC.199 R-c5,Score:1.83 2rqrn1k/pb4pp/1p2pp2/n2P4/2P3N1/P2B2Q1/1B3PPP/2R1R1K1 w - - bm Bxf6; id WAC.200 P-c5,Score:1.93 2b2r1k/4q2p/3p2pQ/2pBp3/8/6P1/1PP2P1P/R5K1 w - - bm Ra7; id WAC.201 P- c4,Score:1.47 QR2rq1k/2p3p1/3p1pPp/8/4P3/8/P1r3PP/1R4K1 b - - bm Rxa2; id WAC.202 R- a2,Score:0.82 r4rk1/5ppp/p3q1n1/2p2NQ1/4n3/P3P3/1B3PPP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Qh6; id WAC. 203 Q-h6,Score:90.51 r1b1qrk1/1p3ppp/p1p5/3Nb3/5N2/P7/1P4PQ/K1R1R3 w - - bm Rxe5; id WAC. 204 N-b6,Score:-0.38 r3rnk1/1pq2bb1/p4p2/3p1Pp1/3B2P1/1NP4R/P1PQB3/2K4R w - - bm Qxg5; id WAC.205 K-b1,Score:1.11 1Qq5/2P1p1kp/3r1pp1/8/8/7P/p4PP1/2R3K1 b - - bm Rc6; id WAC.206 R- c6,Score:1.23 r1bq2kr/p1pp1ppp/1pn1p3/4P3/2Pb2Q1/BR6/P4PPP/3K1BNR w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC.207 B-d3,Score:-3.31 3r1bk1/ppq3pp/2p5/2P2Q1B/8/1P4P1/P6P/5RK1 w - - bm Bf7 ; id WAC.208 P- b4,Score:2.25 4kb1r/2q2p2/r2p4/pppBn1B1/P6P/6Q1/1PP5/2KRR3 w k - bm Rxe5 ; id WAC. 209 P-b5,Score:3.28 3r1rk1/pp1q1ppp/3pn3/2pN4/5PP1/P5PQ/1PP1B3/1K1R4 w - - bm Rh1; id WAC. 210 B-d3,Score:-0.87 r1bqrk2/pp1n1n1p/3p1p2/P1pP1P1Q/2PpP1NP/6R1/2PB4/4RBK1 w - - bm Qxf7 ; id WAC.211 N-h6,Score:3.62 rn1qr2Q/pbppk1p1/1p2pb2/4N3/3P4/2N5/PPP3PP/R4RK1 w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC.212 Q-h5,Score:1.36 3r1r1k/1b4pp/ppn1p3/4Pp1R/Pn5P/3P4/4QP2/1qB1NKR1 w - - bm Rxh7 ; id WAC.213 R-g7,Score:-8.05 r2r2k1/1p2qpp1/1np1p1p1/p3N3/2PPN3/bP5R/4QPPP/4R1K1 w - - bm Ng5; id WAC.214 Q-d1,Score:2.32 3r2k1/pb1q1pp1/1p2pb1p/8/3N4/P2QB3/1P3PPP/1Br1R1K1 w - - bm Qh7 ; id WAC.215 Q-h7,Score:85.97 r2qr1k1/1b1nbppp/p3pn2/1p1pN3/3P1B2/2PB1N2/PP2QPPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Nxf7 a4; id WAC.216 B-g5,Score:2.44 r3kb1r/1pp3p1/p3bp1p/5q2/3QN3/1P6/PBP3P1/3RR1K1 w kq - bm Qd7 ; id WAC. 217 N-g3,Score:3.27 6k1/pp5p/2p3q1/6BP/2nPr1Q1/8/PP3R1K/8 w - - bm Bh6; id WAC.218 P- g6,Score:-0.03 7k/p4q1p/1pb5/2p5/4B2Q/2P1B3/P6P/7K b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.219 Q- f1,Score:89.97 3rr1k1/ppp2ppp/8/5Q2/4n3/1B5R/PPP1qPP1/5RK1 b - - bm Qxf1 ; id WAC.220 N-f6,Score:1.68 r3k3/P5bp/2N1bp2/4p3/2p5/6NP/1PP2PP1/3R2K1 w q - bm Rd8 ; id WAC.221 N- h5,Score:8.11 2r1r2k/1q3ppp/p2Rp3/2p1P3/6QB/p3P3/bP3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Bf6; id WAC. 222 R-d7,Score:1.89 r1bqk2r/pp3ppp/5n2/8/1b1npB2/2N5/PP1Q2PP/1K2RBNR w kq - bm Nxe4; id WAC.223 N-e4,Score:-0.39 5rk1/p1q3pp/1p1r4/2p1pp1Q/1PPn1P2/3B3P/P2R2P1/3R2K1 b - - bm Rh6 e4; id WAC.224 P-e4,Score:2.96 4R3/4q1kp/6p1/1Q3b2/1P1b1P2/6KP/8/8 b - - bm Qh4 ; id WAC.225 Q- f6,Score:3.15 2b2rk1/p1p4p/2p1p1p1/br2N1Q1/1p2q3/8/PB3PPP/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nf7; id WAC.226 R-e1,Score:-1.07 2k1rb1r/ppp3pp/2np1q2/5b2/2B2P2/2P1BQ2/PP1N1P1P/2KR3R b - - bm d5; id WAC.227 K-b8,Score:-0.28 r4rk1/1bq1bp1p/4p1p1/p2p4/3BnP2/1N1B3R/PPP3PP/R2Q2K1 w - - bm Bxe4; id WAC.228 B-e5,Score:1.66 8/8/8/1p5r/p1p1k1pN/P2pBpP1/1P1K1P2/8 b - - bm Rxh4 b4; id WAC.229 R- e5,Score:2.15 2b5/1r6/2kBp1p1/p2pP1P1/2pP4/1pP3K1/1R3P2/8 b - - bm Rb4; id WAC.230 P- a4,Score:1.89 r4rk1/1b1nqp1p/p5p1/1p2PQ2/2p5/5N2/PP3PPP/R1BR2K1 w - - bm Bg5; id WAC. 231 R-d7,Score:2.38 1R2rq1k/2p3p1/Q2p1pPp/8/4P3/8/P1r3PP/1R4K1 w - - bm Qb5 Rxe8; id WAC. 232 Q-b7,Score:-1.51 5rk1/p1p2r1p/2pp2p1/4p3/PPPnP3/3Pq1P1/1Q1R1R1P/4NK2 b - - bm Nb3; id WAC.233 R-f6,Score:5.43 2kr1r2/p6p/5Pp1/2p5/1qp2Q1P/7R/PP6/1KR5 w - - bm Rb3; id WAC.234 R- c3,Score:1.46 5r2/1p1RRrk1/4Qq1p/1PP3p1/8/4B3/1b3P1P/6K1 w - - bm Qxf7 Rxf7 Qe4; id WAC.235 R-f7,Score:4.52 1R6/p5pk/4p2p/4P3/8/2r3qP/P3R1b1/4Q1K1 b - - bm Rc1; id WAC.236 Q- e1,Score:1.32 r5k1/pQp2qpp/8/4pbN1/3P4/6P1/PPr4P/1K1R3R b - - bm Rc1 ; id WAC.237 R- h2,Score:0.67 1k1r4/pp1r1pp1/4n1p1/2R5/2Pp1qP1/3P2QP/P4PB1/1R4K1 w - - bm Bxb7; id WAC.238 Q-f4,Score:0.77 8/6k1/5pp1/Q6p/5P2/6PK/P4q1P/8 b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.239 Q-f1,Score: 0.18 2b4k/p1b2p2/2p2q2/3p1PNp/3P2R1/3B4/P1Q2PKP/4r3 w - - bm Qxc6; id WAC. 240 Q-c6,Score:-0.53 2rq1rk1/pp3ppp/2n2b2/4NR2/3P4/PB5Q/1P4PP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC. 241 N-f7,Score:2.62 r1b1r1k1/pp1nqp2/2p1p1pp/8/4N3/P1Q1P3/1P3PPP/1BRR2K1 w - - bm Rxd7; id WAC.242 N-d6,Score:2.55 1r3r1k/3p4/1p1Nn1R1/4Pp1q/pP3P1p/P7/5Q1P/6RK w - - bm Qe2; id WAC.243 Q-e2,Score:4.25 r6r/pp3ppp/3k1b2/2pb4/B4Pq1/2P1Q3/P5PP/1RBR2K1 w - - bm Qxc5 ; id WAC. 244 R-d5,Score:4.23 4rrn1/ppq3bk/3pPnpp/2p5/2PB4/2NQ1RPB/PP5P/5R1K w - - bm Qxg6 ; id WAC. 245 N-b5,Score:5.32 6R1/4qp1p/ppr1n1pk/8/1P2P1QP/6N1/P4PP1/6K1 w - - bm Qh5 ; id WAC.246 P- e5,Score:4.82 2k1r3/1p2Bq2/p2Qp3/Pb1p1p1P/2pP1P2/2P5/2P2KP1/1R6 w - - bm Rxb5; id WAC.247 Q-c5,Score:1.51 5r1k/1p4pp/3q4/3Pp1R1/8/8/PP4PP/4Q1K1 b - - bm Qc5 ; id WAC.248 Q- d5,Score:-0.21 r4rk1/pbq2pp1/1ppbpn1p/8/2PP4/1P1Q1N2/PBB2PPP/R3R1K1 w - - bm c5 d5; id WAC.249 N-e5,Score:0.83 1b5k/7P/p1p2np1/2P2p2/PP3P2/4RQ1R/q2r3P/6K1 w - - bm Re8 ; id WAC.250 Q-g3,Score:0.75 k7/p4p2/P1q1b1p1/3p3p/3Q4/7P/5PP1/1R4K1 w - - bm Qe5 Qf4; id WAC.251 Q- b4,Score:3.69 1rb1r1k1/p1p2ppp/5n2/2pP4/5P2/2QB4/qNP3PP/2KRB2R b - - bm Re2; id WAC. 252 Q-a1,Score:2.2 k5r1/p4b2/2P5/5p2/3P1P2/4QBrq/P5P1/4R1K1 w - - bm Qe8 ; id WAC.253 R- e2,Score:-5.4 r6k/pp3p1p/2p1bp1q/b3p3/4Pnr1/2PP2NP/PP1Q1PPN/R2B2RK b - - bm Nxh3; id WAC.254 R-g6,Score:0.57 3r3r/p4pk1/5Rp1/3q4/1p1P2RQ/5N2/P1P4P/2b4K w - - bm Rfxg6 ; id WAC.255 Q-g3,Score:-2.6 3r1rk1/1pb1qp1p/2p3p1/p7/P2Np2R/1P5P/1BP2PP1/3Q1BK1 w - - bm Nf5; id WAC.256 Q-g4,Score:0.23 4r1k1/pq3p1p/2p1r1p1/2Q1p3/3nN1P1/1P6/P1P2P1P/3RR1K1 w - - bm Rxd4; id WAC.257 N-g5,Score:2.5 r3brkn/1p5p/2p2Ppq/2Pp3B/3Pp2Q/4P1R1/6PP/5R1K w - - bm Bxg6; id WAC. 258 R-b1,Score:-1.12 r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/2np4/2bN1PN1/2B1P3/3p4/PPP2nPP/R1BQ1K1R w - - bm Qh5; id WAC.259 Q-h5,Score:-1.79 2r2b1r/p1Nk2pp/3p1p2/N2Qn3/4P3/q6P/P4PP1/1R3K1R w - - bm Qe6 ; id WAC. 260 N-a6,Score:2.93 r5k1/1bp3pp/p2p4/1p6/5p2/1PBP1nqP/1PP3Q1/R4R1K b - - bm Nd4; id WAC. 261 Q-g2,Score:3.19 6k1/p1B1b2p/2b3r1/2p5/4p3/1PP1N1Pq/P2R1P2/3Q2K1 b - - bm Rh6; id WAC. 262 R-h6,Score:1.37 rnbqr2k/pppp1Qpp/8/b2NN3/2B1n3/8/PPPP1PPP/R1B1K2R w KQ - bm Qg8 ; id WAC.263 Q-h5,Score:2.4 r2r2k1/1R2qp2/p5pp/2P5/b1PN1b2/P7/1Q3PPP/1B1R2K1 b - - bm Rab8; id WAC. 264 Q-e5,Score:2.73 2r1k2r/2pn1pp1/1p3n1p/p3PP2/4q2B/P1P5/2Q1N1PP/R4RK1 w k - bm exf6; id WAC.265 Q-e4,Score:3.47 r3q2r/2p1k1p1/p5p1/1p2Nb2/1P2nB2/P7/2PNQbPP/R2R3K b - - bm Rxh2 ; id WAC.266 B-g3,Score:-3.37 2r1kb1r/pp3ppp/2n1b3/1q1N2B1/1P2Q3/8/P4PPP/3RK1NR w Kk - bm Nc7 ; id WAC.267 P-a3,Score:-0.96 2r3kr/ppp2n1p/7B/5q1N/1bp5/2Pp4/PP2RPPP/R2Q2K1 w - - bm Re8 ; id WAC. 268 R-e1,Score:-0.19 2kr2nr/pp1n1ppp/2p1p3/q7/1b1P1B2/P1N2Q1P/1PP1BPP1/R3K2R w KQ - bm axb4; id WAC.269 K-g1,Score:2.87 2r1r1k1/pp1q1ppp/3p1b2/3P4/3Q4/5N2/PP2RPPP/4R1K1 w - - bm Qg4; id WAC. 270 Q-d3,Score:0.74 2kr4/ppp3Pp/4RP1B/2r5/5P2/1P6/P2p4/3K4 w - - bm Rd6; id WAC.271 P- a3,Score:-0.63 nrq4r/2k1p3/1p1pPnp1/pRpP1p2/P1P2P2/2P1BB2/1R2Q1P1/6K1 w - - bm Bxc5; id WAC.272 R-b3,Score:3.62 2k4B/bpp1qp2/p1b5/7p/1PN1n1p1/2Pr4/P5PP/R3QR1K b - - bm Ng3 g3; id WAC. 273 B-d5,Score:0.71 8/1p6/p5R1/k7/Prpp4/K7/1NP5/8 w - - bm Rb6; id WAC.274 R-g5,Score: 3.22 r1b2rk1/1p1n1ppp/p1p2q2/4p3/P1B1Pn2/1QN2N2/1P3PPP/3R1RK1 b - - bm Nxg2 b5 Nc5; id WAC.275 N-c5,Score:-0.52 r5k1/pp1RR1pp/1b6/6r1/2p5/B6P/P4qPK/3Q4 w - - bm Qd5 ; id WAC.276 R- g7,Score:-6.57 1r4r1/p2kb2p/bq2p3/3p1p2/5P2/2BB3Q/PP4PP/3RKR2 b - - bm Rg3 Rxg2; id WAC.277 B-d3,Score:0.64 r2qkb1r/pppb2pp/2np1n2/5pN1/2BQP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - bm Bf7 ; id WAC.278 B-f7,Score:4.05 r7/4b3/2p1r1k1/1p1pPp1q/1P1P1P1p/PR2NRpP/2Q3K1/8 w - - bm Nxf5 Rc3; id WAC.279 R-c3,Score:1.5 r1r2bk1/5p1p/pn4p1/N2b4/3Pp3/B3P3/2q1BPPP/RQ3RK1 b - - bm Bxa3; id WAC. 280 Q-e2,Score:1.02 2R5/2R4p/5p1k/6n1/8/1P2QPPq/r7/6K1 w - - bm Rxh7 ; id WAC.281 R- c2,Score:-0.49 6k1/2p3p1/1p1p1nN1/1B1P4/4PK2/8/2r3b1/7R w - - bm Rh8 ; id WAC.282 R- h8,Score:-3.6 3q1rk1/4bp1p/1n2P2Q/3p1p2/6r1/Pp2R2N/1B4PP/7K w - - bm Ng5; id WAC.283 R-g3,Score:-3.96 3r3k/pp4pp/8/1P6/3N4/Pn2P1qb/1B1Q2B1/2R3K1 w - - bm Nf5; id WAC.284 N- f5,Score:-0.39 2rr3k/1b2bppP/p2p1n2/R7/3P4/1qB2P2/1P4Q1/1K5R w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC. 285 R-a3,Score:-7.0 3r1k2/1p6/p4P2/2pP2Qb/8/1P1KB3/P6r/8 b - - bm Rxd5 ; id WAC.286 B- e2,Score:0.07 rn3k1r/pp2bBpp/2p2n2/q5N1/3P4/1P6/P1P3PP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - bm Qh5 Qg4; id WAC.287 Q-d3,Score:4.99 r1b2rk1/p4ppp/1p1Qp3/4P2N/1P6/8/P3qPPP/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nf6 ; id WAC. 288 N-f4,Score:1.05 2r3k1/5p1p/p3q1p1/2n3P1/1p1QP2P/1P4N1/PK6/2R5 b - - bm Qe5; id WAC.289 Q-e5,Score:3.13 2k2r2/2p5/1pq5/p1p1n3/P1P2n1B/1R4Pp/2QR4/6K1 b - - bm Ne2 ; id WAC.290 N-e6,Score:3.84 5r1k/3b2p1/p6p/1pRpR3/1P1P2q1/P4pP1/5QnP/1B4K1 w - - bm h3; id WAC.291 R-d5,Score:2.18 4r3/1Q1qk2p/p4pp1/3Pb3/P7/6PP/5P2/4R1K1 w - - bm d6 ; id WAC.292 P- d6,Score:3.0 1nbq1r1k/3rbp1p/p1p1pp1Q/1p6/P1pPN3/5NP1/1P2PPBP/R4RK1 w - - bm Nfg5; id WAC.293 P-b5,Score:2.92 3r3k/1r3p1p/p1pB1p2/8/p1qNP1Q1/P6P/1P4P1/3R3K w - - bm Bf8 Nf5 Qf4; id WAC.294 Q-f4,Score:5.81 4r3/p4r1p/R1p2pp1/1p1bk3/4pNPP/2P1K3/2P2P2/3R4 w - - bm Rxd5 ; id WAC. 295 N-d5,Score:-1.8 3r4/1p2k2p/p1b1p1p1/4Q1Pn/2B3KP/4pP2/PP2R1N1/6q1 b - - bm Rd4 Rf8; id WAC.296 R-f8,Score:2.43 3r1rk1/p3qp1p/2bb2p1/2p5/3P4/1P6/PBQN1PPP/2R2RK1 b - - bm Bxg2 Bxh2 ; id WAC.297 Q-h4,Score:-0.67 3Q4/p3b1k1/2p2rPp/2q5/4B3/P2P4/7P/6RK w - - bm Qh8 ; id WAC.298 Q- e8,Score:2.46 1n2rr2/1pk3pp/pNn2p2/2N1p3/8/6P1/PP2PPKP/2RR4 w - - bm Nca4; id WAC. 299 N-a8,Score:6.68 b2b1r1k/3R1ppp/4qP2/4p1PQ/4P3/5B2/4N1K1/8 w - - bm g6; id WAC.300 P- g7,Score:0.8     Date: 23 Aug 2008 08:24:06 From: zzz Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results On 23 aug, 13:24, Simon Krahnke <[email protected] > wrote: > * Guest <[email protected]> (05:41) schrieb: > > > The catch is, that if between the repetition positions, your castling > > ability changes, like you are in check but you block it instead of moving > > your king, then technically your castling rights changed. > > > There was a period there where you could not castle. > > > It's temporary, but still your rights had changed. > That's an incorrect interpretation of "the rigth to castle". In rule 3.8 of FIDE's Laws of Chess it says: (1) The right for castling has been lost: 1. if the king has already moved, or 2. with a rook that has already moved (2) Castling is prevented temporarily 1. if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent`s pieces. 2. if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected. Rule 9.2 states: "...Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer in this manner be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently." Since a check does not take away the "right to castle", but merely "prevents it temporarily" it has no bearing on the 3-fold repetition rule. The only odd thing here - and source of all the confusion - is the use of the word "temporarily" in rule 9.2., as it implies that a player could somehow regain the right to castle after having lost it, which is technically impossible according to the definition in rule 3.8.       Date: 23 Aug 2008 11:27:16 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "zzz" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:c12f40d8-00ee-4f76-9d2f-36b4d65546ba@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On 23 aug, 13:24, Simon Krahnke <[email protected]> wrote: >> * Guest <[email protected]> (05:41) schrieb: >> >> > The catch is, that if between the repetition positions, your castling >> > ability changes, like you are in check but you block it instead of >> > moving >> > your king, then technically your castling rights changed. >> >> > There was a period there where you could not castle. >> >> > It's temporary, but still your rights had changed. >> > > That's an incorrect interpretation of "the rigth to castle". > In rule 3.8 of FIDE's Laws of Chess it says: > > (1) The right for castling has been lost: > 1. if the king has already moved, or > 2. with a rook that has already moved > (2) Castling is prevented temporarily > 1. if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must > cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more > of the opponent`s pieces. > 2. if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which > castling is to be effected. > > Rule 9.2 states: > "...Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured > en passant can no longer in this manner be captured or if the right to > castle has been changed temporarily or permanently." > > Since a check does not take away the "right to castle", but merely > "prevents it temporarily" it has no bearing on the 3-fold repetition > rule. > The only odd thing here - and source of all the confusion - is the use > of the word "temporarily" in rule 9.2., as it implies that a player > could somehow regain the right to castle after having lost it, which > is technically impossible according to the definition in rule 3.8. Precisely That's what we were saying. The rules were a little fuzzy. It does *EXPLICITLY* say "temporarily". That word isn't an interpretation but is actually said. You generally don't put random words into rules. If you use a word like that, then it's usually put there for a reason. Unless you just screw up, of course. With castling, you can indeed loose it temporarily either by being in check or it having to cross an attacked square. So it can be 'temporarily' lost. But other areas disagree. That's also why I pointed out the issue has indeed been brought up for real in a real tournament. And that the tournament director agreed that the rule does actually say that and can be intrepreted that way, but it's not what was really meant or traditionally done. That part of the rules was just poorly worded. As long as the rules are worded that way, another TD can still rule the other way, though. Probably wont, but could. The rule is fuzzy. Which was the point. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 21 Aug 2008 02:40:27 From: Sanny Subject: New Beginner Results very good. The new result after improvements is very good. Earlier 20% Results were correct. After improvement Beginner Level gave 30% correct Result. Example: ------------------------ 8/7p/5k2/5p2/p1p2P2/Pr1pPK2/1P1R3P/8 b - - bm Rxb2; id WAC.002 P- c3,Score:1.99 Here according to WAC best move is Rxb2 but GetClub played P-c3 with a score of 1.99 -------------------------- Do you think now GetClub is much stronger as Beginner thinking for 15 sec/ move gave 30% correct results. Best Move by GetClub Beginner Level 2rr3k/pp3pp1/1nnqbN1p/3pN3/2pP4/2P3Q1/PPB4P/R4RK1 w - - bm Qg6; id WAC. 001 Q-g6,Score:87.12 8/7p/5k2/5p2/p1p2P2/Pr1pPK2/1P1R3P/8 b - - bm Rxb2; id WAC.002 P- c3,Score:1.99 5rk1/1ppb3p/p1pb4/6q1/3P1p1r/2P1R2P/PP1BQ1P1/5RKN w - - bm Rg3; id WAC. 003 R-g3,Score:2.47 r1bq2rk/pp3pbp/2p1p1pQ/7P/3P4/2PB1N2/PP3PPR/2KR4 w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC.004 Q-e3,Score:2.19 5k2/6pp/p1qN4/1p1p4/3P4/2PKP2Q/PP3r2/3R4 b - - bm Qc4 ; id WAC.005 Q- d6,Score:3.13 7k/p7/1R5K/6r1/6p1/6P1/8/8 w - - bm Rb7; id WAC.006 R-b7,Score: 5.68 rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/8/4P3/6n1/7P/PPPNPPP1/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - bm Ne3; id WAC.007 N-e5,Score:-0.57 r4q1k/p2bR1rp/2p2Q1N/5p2/5p2/2P5/PP3PPP/R5K1 w - - bm Rf7; id WAC.008 R-f7,Score:13.32 3q1rk1/p4pp1/2pb3p/3p4/6Pr/1PNQ4/P1PB1PP1/4RRK1 b - - bm Bh2 ; id WAC. 009 Q-b6,Score:-2.75 2br2k1/2q3rn/p2NppQ1/2p1P3/Pp5R/4P3/1P3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Rxh7; id WAC. 010 R-h7,Score:5.05 r1b1kb1r/3q1ppp/pBp1pn2/8/Np3P2/5B2/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w kq - bm Bxc6; id WAC.011 R-e1,Score:1.94 4k1r1/2p3r1/1pR1p3/3pP2p/3P2qP/P4N2/1PQ4P/5R1K b - - bm Qxf3 ; id WAC. 012 R-f7,Score:-3.33 5rk1/pp4p1/2n1p2p/2Npq3/2p5/6P1/P3P1BP/R4Q1K w - - bm Qxf8 ; id WAC. 013 Q-e1,Score:-1.71 r2rb1k1/pp1q1p1p/2n1p1p1/2bp4/5P2/PP1BPR1Q/1BPN2PP/R5K1 w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC.014 B-f6,Score:2.55 1R6/1brk2p1/4p2p/p1P1Pp2/P7/6P1/1P4P1/2R3K1 w - - bm Rxb7; id WAC.015 K-f2,Score:2.49 r4rk1/ppp2ppp/2n5/2bqp3/8/P2PB3/1PP1NPPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - bm Nc3; id WAC. 016 N-c3,Score:2.31 1k5r/pppbn1pp/4q1r1/1P3p2/2NPp3/1QP5/P4PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - bm Ne5; id WAC.017 B-d2,Score:-0.15 R7/P4k2/8/8/8/8/r7/6K1 w - - bm Rh8; id WAC.018 K-f1,Score:2.32 r1b2rk1/ppbn1ppp/4p3/1QP4q/3P4/N4N2/5PPP/R1B2RK1 w - - bm c6; id WAC. 019 B-e3,Score:1.01 r2qkb1r/1ppb1ppp/p7/4p3/P1Q1P3/2P5/5PPP/R1B2KNR b kq - bm Bb5; id WAC. 020 B-b5,Score:9.3 5rk1/1b3p1p/pp3p2/3n1N2/1P6/P1qB1PP1/3Q3P/4R1K1 w - - bm Qh6; id WAC. 021 Q-h6,Score:4.63 r1bqk2r/ppp1nppp/4p3/n5N1/2BPp3/P1P5/2P2PPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - bm Ba2 Nxf7; id WAC.022 B-a2,Score:0.53 r3nrk1/2p2p1p/p1p1b1p1/2NpPq2/3R4/P1N1Q3/1PP2PPP/4R1K1 w - - bm g4; id WAC.023 Q-c1,Score:3.39 6k1/1b1nqpbp/pp4p1/5P2/1PN5/4Q3/P5PP/1B2B1K1 b - - bm Bd4; id WAC.024 B-d4,Score:6.61 3R1rk1/8/5Qpp/2p5/2P1p1q1/P3P3/1P2PK2/8 b - - bm Qh4 ; id WAC.025 Q- h4,Score:11.53 3r2k1/1p1b1pp1/pq5p/8/3NR3/2PQ3P/PP3PP1/6K1 b - - bm Bf5; id WAC.026 Q- b2,Score:0.05 7k/pp4np/2p3p1/3pN1q1/3P4/Q7/1r3rPP/2R2RK1 w - - bm Qf8 ; id WAC.027 N- f7,Score:-4.69 1r1r2k1/4pp1p/2p1b1p1/p3R3/RqBP4/4P3/1PQ2PPP/6K1 b - - bm Qe1 ; id WAC. 028 Q-e1,Score:1.68 r2q2k1/pp1rbppp/4pn2/2P5/1P3B2/6P1/P3QPBP/1R3RK1 w - - bm c6; id WAC. 029 P-c6,Score:3.57 1r3r2/4q1kp/b1pp2p1/5p2/pPn1N3/6P1/P3PPBP/2QRR1K1 w - - bm Nxd6; id WAC.030 Q-c3,Score:2.03 rb3qk1/pQ3ppp/4p3/3P4/8/1P3N2/1P3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxa8 d6 dxe6 g3; id WAC.031 P-d6,Score:5.47 6k1/p4p1p/1p3np1/2q5/4p3/4P1N1/PP3PPP/3Q2K1 w - - bm Qd8 ; id WAC.032 Q-d8,Score:1.57 8/p1q2pkp/2Pr2p1/8/P3Q3/6P1/5P1P/2R3K1 w - - bm Qe5 Qf4; id WAC.033 R- c5,Score:3.65 7k/1b1r2p1/p6p/1p2qN2/3bP3/3Q4/P5PP/1B1R3K b - - bm Bg1; id WAC.034 P- b4,Score:-1.93 r3r2k/2R3pp/pp1q1p2/8/3P3R/7P/PP3PP1/3Q2K1 w - - bm Rxh7 ; id WAC.035 Q-b1,Score:1.83 3r4/2p1rk2/1pQq1pp1/7p/1P1P4/P4P2/6PP/R1R3K1 b - - bm Re1 ; id WAC.036 R-e1,Score:1.97 2r5/2rk2pp/1pn1pb2/pN1p4/P2P4/1N2B3/nPR1KPPP/3R4 b - - bm Nxd4 ; id WAC.037 N-d4,Score:0.93 4k3/p4prp/1p6/2b5/8/2Q3P1/P2R1PKP/4q3 w - - bm Rd8 Qd3; id WAC.038 R- d8,Score:-1.35 r1br2k1/pp2bppp/2nppn2/8/2P1PB2/2N2P2/PqN1B1PP/R2Q1R1K w - - bm Na4; id WAC.039 N-a4,Score:1.73 3r1r1k/1p4pp/p4p2/8/1PQR4/6Pq/P3PP2/2R3K1 b - - bm Rc8; id WAC.040 R- d4,Score:1.78 1k6/5RP1/1P6/1K6/6r1/8/8/8 w - - bm Ka5 Kc5 b7; id WAC.041 P-b7,Score: 5.67 r1b1r1k1/pp1n1pbp/1qp3p1/3p4/1B1P4/Q3PN2/PP2BPPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Ba5; id WAC.042 B-a5,Score:4.05 r2q3k/p2P3p/1p3p2/3QP1r1/8/B7/P5PP/2R3K1 w - - bm Be7 Qxa8; id WAC.043 B-e7,Score:3.85 3rb1k1/pq3pbp/4n1p1/3p4/2N5/2P2QB1/PP3PPP/1B1R2K1 b - - bm dxc4; id WAC.044 B-c6,Score:-1.45 7k/2p1b1pp/8/1p2P3/1P3r2/2P3Q1/1P5P/R4qBK b - - bm Qxa1; id WAC.045 Q- a1,Score:5.45 r1bqr1k1/pp1nb1p1/4p2p/3p1p2/3P4/P1N1PNP1/1PQ2PP1/3RKB1R w K - bm Nb5; id WAC.046 B-d3,Score:2.14 r1b2rk1/pp2bppp/2n1pn2/q5B1/2BP4/2N2N2/PP2QPPP/2R2RK1 b - - bm Nxd4; id WAC.047 N-d4,Score:-1.16 1rbq1rk1/p1p1bppp/2p2n2/8/Q1BP4/2N5/PP3PPP/R1B2RK1 b - - bm Rb4; id WAC.048 R-b7,Score:-0.57 2b3k1/4rrpp/p2p4/2pP2RQ/1pP1Pp1N/1P3P1P/1q6/6RK w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC. 049 N-f5,Score:0.69 k4r2/1R4pb/1pQp1n1p/3P4/5p1P/3P2P1/r1q1R2K/8 w - - bm Rxb6 ; id WAC. 050 R-c2,Score:-2.81 r1bq1r2/pp4k1/4p2p/3pPp1Q/3N1R1P/2PB4/6P1/6K1 w - - bm Rg4 ; id WAC. 051 R-f3,Score:0.54 r1k5/1p3q2/1Qpb4/3N1p2/5Pp1/3P2Pp/PPPK3P/4R3 w - - bm Re7 c4; id WAC. 052 N-c3,Score:2.81 6k1/6p1/p7/3Pn3/5p2/4rBqP/P4RP1/5QK1 b - - bm Re1; id WAC.053 N- d3,Score:3.37 r3kr2/1pp4p/1p1p4/7q/4P1n1/2PP2Q1/PP4P1/R1BB2K1 b q - bm Qh1 ; id WAC. 054 R-g8,Score:-0.38 r3r1k1/pp1q1pp1/4b1p1/3p2B1/3Q1R2/8/PPP3PP/4R1K1 w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC.055 P-c4,Score:1.48 r1bqk2r/pppp1ppp/5n2/2b1n3/4P3/1BP3Q1/PP3PPP/RNB1K1NR b KQkq - bm Bxf2 ; id WAC.056 N-g4,Score:1.23 r3q1kr/ppp5/3p2pQ/8/3PP1b1/5R2/PPP3P1/5RK1 w - - bm Rf8 ; id WAC.057 R- f8,Score:90.92 8/8/2R5/1p2qp1k/1P2r3/2PQ2P1/5K2/8 w - - bm Qd1 ; id WAC.058 Q- f3,Score:3.09 r1b2rk1/2p1qnbp/p1pp2p1/5p2/2PQP3/1PN2N1P/PB3PP1/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nd5; id WAC.059 N-d5,Score:7.96 rn1qr1k1/1p2np2/2p3p1/8/1pPb4/7Q/PB1P1PP1/2KR1B1R w - - bm Qh8 ; id WAC.060 Q-h7,Score:86.25 3qrbk1/ppp1r2n/3pP2p/3P4/2P4P/1P3Q2/PB6/R4R1K w - - bm Qf7 ; id WAC. 061 Q-e4,Score:5.27 6r1/3Pn1qk/p1p1P1rp/2Q2p2/2P5/1P4P1/P3R2P/5RK1 b - - bm Rxg3 ; id WAC. 062 R-g4,Score:-3.94 r1brnbk1/ppq2pp1/4p2p/4N3/3P4/P1PB1Q2/3B1PPP/R3R1K1 w - - bm Nxf7; id WAC.063 R-a2,Score:3.37 8/6pp/3q1p2/3n1k2/1P6/3NQ2P/5PP1/6K1 w - - bm g4 ; id WAC.064 P- g4,Score:92.79 1r1r1qk1/p2n1p1p/bp1Pn1pQ/2pNp3/2P2P1N/1P5B/P6P/3R1RK1 w - - bm Ne7 ; id WAC.065 N-e7,Score:9.7 1k1r2r1/ppq5/1bp4p/3pQ3/8/2P2N2/PP4P1/R4R1K b - - bm Qxe5; id WAC.066 Q-e5,Score:3.78 3r2k1/p2q4/1p4p1/3rRp1p/5P1P/6PK/P3R3/3Q4 w - - bm Rxd5; id WAC.067 R- d5,Score:2.53 6k1/5ppp/1q6/2b5/8/2R1pPP1/1P2Q2P/7K w - - bm Qxe3; id WAC.068 Q- e3,Score:6.28 2k5/pppr4/4R3/4Q3/2pp2q1/8/PPP2PPP/6K1 w - - bm f3 h3; id WAC.069 P- f3,Score:3.68 2kr3r/pppq1ppp/3p1n2/bQ2p3/1n1PP3/1PN1BN1P/1PP2PP1/2KR3R b - - bm Na2 ; id WAC.070 N-a2,Score:3.81 2kr3r/pp1q1ppp/5n2/1Nb5/2Pp1B2/7Q/P4PPP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Nxa7 ; id WAC. 071 Q-d7,Score:-0.46 r3r1k1/pp1n1ppp/2p5/4Pb2/2B2P2/B1P5/P5PP/R2R2K1 w - - bm e6; id WAC. 072 P-e6,Score:3.3 r1q3rk/1ppbb1p1/4Np1p/p3pP2/P3P3/2N4R/1PP1Q1PP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qd2; id WAC.073 Q-g4,Score:1.79 5r1k/pp4pp/2p5/2b1P3/4Pq2/1PB1p3/P3Q1PP/3N2K1 b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC. 074 Q-e4,Score:5.82 r3r1k1/pppq1ppp/8/8/1Q4n1/7P/PPP2PP1/RNB1R1K1 b - - bm Qd6; id WAC.075 Q-d4,Score:-2.2 r1b1qrk1/2p2ppp/pb1pnn2/1p2pNB1/3PP3/1BP5/PP2QPPP/RN1R2K1 w - - bm Bxf6; id WAC.076 B-f6,Score:1.34 3r2k1/ppp2ppp/6q1/b4n2/3nQB2/2p5/P4PPP/RN3RK1 b - - bm Ng3; id WAC.077 N-g3,Score:7.61 r2q3r/ppp2k2/4nbp1/5Q1p/2P1NB2/8/PP3P1P/3RR1K1 w - - bm Ng5 ; id WAC. 078 R-d8,Score:5.65 r3k2r/pbp2pp1/3b1n2/1p6/3P3p/1B2N1Pq/PP1PQP1P/R1B2RK1 b kq - bm Qxh2 ; id WAC.079 K-c8,Score:0.24 r4rk1/p1B1bpp1/1p2pn1p/8/2PP4/3B1P2/qP2QP1P/3R1RK1 w - - bm Ra1; id WAC.080 P-d5,Score:1.67 r4rk1/1bR1bppp/4pn2/1p2N3/1P6/P3P3/4BPPP/3R2K1 b - - bm Bd6; id WAC. 081 B-g2,Score:-0.87 3rr1k1/pp3pp1/4b3/8/2P1B2R/6QP/P3q1P1/5R1K w - - bm Bh7 ; id WAC.082 B- h7,Score:-1.55 3rr1k1/ppqbRppp/2p5/8/3Q1n2/2P3N1/PPB2PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxd7; id WAC. 083 R-d7,Score:6.22 r2q1r1k/2p1b1pp/p1n5/1p1Q1bN1/4n3/1BP1B3/PP3PPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Qg8 ; id WAC.084 N-e4,Score:0.58 kr2R3/p4r2/2pq4/2N2p1p/3P2p1/Q5P1/5P1P/5BK1 w - - bm Na6; id WAC.085 R- b8,Score:2.81 8/p7/1ppk1n2/5ppp/P1PP4/2P1K1P1/5N1P/8 b - - bm Ng4 ; id WAC.086 P- a6,Score:0.85 8/p3k1p1/4r3/2ppNpp1/PP1P4/2P3KP/5P2/8 b - - bm Rxe5; id WAC.087 P- b4,Score:2.97 r6k/p1Q4p/2p1b1rq/4p3/B3P3/4P3/PPP3P1/4RRK1 b - - bm Rxg2 ; id WAC.088 Q-g5,Score:-1.77 1r3b1k/p4rpp/4pp2/3q4/2ppbPPQ/6RK/PP5P/2B1NR2 b - - bm g5; id WAC.089 P-d3,Score:6.86 3qrrk1/1pp2pp1/1p2bn1p/5N2/2P5/P1P3B1/1P4PP/2Q1RRK1 w - - bm Nxg7; id WAC.090 B-h4,Score:1.79 2qr2k1/4b1p1/2p2p1p/1pP1p3/p2nP3/PbQNB1PP/1P3PK1/4RB2 b - - bm Be6; id WAC.091 B-e6,Score:1.57 r4rk1/1p2ppbp/p2pbnp1/q7/3BPPP1/2N2B2/PPP4P/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm Bxg4; id WAC.092 Q-d8,Score:-0.03 r1b1k1nr/pp3pQp/4pq2/3pn3/8/P1P5/2P2PPP/R1B1KBNR w KQkq - bm Bh6; id WAC.093 B-b5,Score:0.15 8/k7/p7/3Qp2P/n1P5/3KP3/1q6/8 b - - bm e4 ; id WAC.094 Q-b3,Score: 3.39 2r5/1r6/4pNpk/3pP1qp/8/2P1QP2/5PK1/R7 w - - bm Ng4 ; id WAC.095 Q- g5,Score:-1.56 r1b4k/ppp2Bb1/6Pp/3pP3/1qnP1p1Q/8/PPP3P1/1K1R3R w - - bm Qd8 ; id WAC. 096 Q-d8,Score:4.84 6k1/5p2/p5np/4B3/3P4/1PP1q3/P3r1QP/6RK w - - bm Qa8 ; id WAC.097 Q- c6,Score:0.92 1r3rk1/5pb1/p2p2p1/Q1n1q2p/1NP1P3/3p1P1B/PP1R3P/1K2R3 b - - bm Nxe4; id WAC.098 N-e4,Score:7.6 r1bq1r1k/1pp1Np1p/p2p2pQ/4R3/n7/8/PPPP1PPP/R1B3K1 w - - bm Rh5; id WAC. 099 R-h5,Score:89.91 8/k1b5/P4p2/1Pp2p1p/K1P2P1P/8/3B4/8 w - - bm b6 Be3; id WAC.100 B- e3,Score:2.85 5rk1/p5pp/8/8/2Pbp3/1P4P1/7P/4RN1K b - - bm Bc3; id WAC.101 P-g6,Score: 0.39 2Q2n2/2R4p/1p1qpp1k/8/3P3P/3B2P1/5PK1/r7 w - - bm Qxf8 ; id WAC.102 R- c4,Score:4.2 6k1/2pb1r1p/3p1PpQ/p1nPp3/1q2P3/2N2P2/PrB5/2K3RR w - - bm Qxg6 ; id WAC.103 R-g6,Score:3.1 b4r1k/pq2rp2/1p1bpn1p/3PN2n/2P2P2/P2B3K/1B2Q2N/3R2R1 w - - bm Qxh5; id WAC.104 Q-h5,Score:9.83 r2r2k1/pb3ppp/1p1bp3/7q/3n2nP/PP1B2P1/1B1N1P2/RQ2NRK1 b - - bm Qxh4 Bxg3; id WAC.105 Q-h4,Score:5.03 4rrk1/pppb4/7p/3P2pq/3Qn3/P5P1/1PP4P/R3RNNK b - - bm Nf2 ; id WAC.106 N-f2,Score:1.7 5n2/pRrk2p1/P4p1p/4p3/3N4/5P2/6PP/6K1 w - - bm Nb5; id WAC.107 N- b5,Score:2.47 r5k1/1q4pp/2p5/p1Q5/2P5/5R2/4RKPP/r7 w - - bm Qe5; id WAC.108 R- d2,Score:-0.05 rn2k1nr/pbp2ppp/3q4/1p2N3/2p5/QP6/PB1PPPPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - bm c3; id WAC.109 P-c3,Score:-0.68 2kr4/bp3p2/p2p2b1/P7/2q5/1N4B1/1PPQ2P1/2KR4 b - - bm Be3; id WAC.110 B- c5,Score:0.68 6k1/p5p1/5p2/2P2Q2/3pN2p/3PbK1P/7P/6q1 b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.111 Q- h2,Score:6.57 r4kr1/ppp5/4bq1b/7B/2PR1Q1p/2N3P1/PP3P1P/2K1R3 w - - bm Rxe6; id WAC. 112 R-e6,Score:6.2 rnbqkb1r/1p3ppp/5N2/1p2p1B1/2P5/8/PP2PPPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - bm Qxf6; id WAC.113 Q-f6,Score:0.61 r1b1rnk1/1p4pp/p1p2p2/3pN2n/3P1PPq/2NBPR1P/PPQ5/2R3K1 w - - bm Bxh7 ; id WAC.114 N-c6,Score:3.11 4N2k/5rpp/1Q6/p3q3/8/P5P1/1P3P1P/5K2 w - - bm Nd6; id WAC.115 N- d6,Score:-1.54 r2r2k1/2p2ppp/p7/1p2P1n1/P6q/5P2/1PB1QP1P/R5RK b - - bm Rd2; id WAC. 116 N-h3,Score:1.09 3r1rk1/q4ppp/p1Rnp3/8/1p6/1N3P2/PP3QPP/3R2K1 b - - bm Ne4; id WAC.117 N-e4,Score:4.11 r5k1/pb2rpp1/1p6/2p4q/5R2/2PB2Q1/P1P3PP/5R1K w - - bm Rh4; id WAC.118 R-c4,Score:0.09 r2qr1k1/p1p2ppp/2p5/2b5/4nPQ1/3B4/PPP3PP/R1B2R1K b - - bm Qxd3; id WAC. 119 N-f2,Score:0.98 r4rk1/1bn2qnp/3p1B1Q/p2P1pP1/1pp5/5N1P/PPB2P2/2KR3R w - - bm g6 Rhg1; id WAC.120 B-g7,Score:4.51 6k1/5p1p/2bP2pb/4p3/2P5/1p1pNPPP/1P1Q1BK1/1q6 b - - bm Bxf3 ; id WAC. 121 P-e4,Score:2.71 1k6/ppp4p/1n2pq2/1N2Rb2/2P2Q2/8/P4KPP/3r1B2 b - - bm Rxf1 ; id WAC.122 B-d3,Score:3.83 6k1/1b2rp2/1p4p1/3P4/PQ4P1/2N2q2/5P2/3R2K1 b - - bm Bxd5 Rc7 Re6; id WAC.123 R-c7,Score:4.1 6k1/3r4/2R5/P5P1/1P4p1/8/4rB2/6K1 b - - bm g3; id WAC.124 P-g3,Score: 2.6 r1bqr1k1/pp3ppp/1bp5/3n4/3B4/2N2P1P/PPP1B1P1/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm Bxd4 ; id WAC.125 N-f4,Score:1.43 r5r1/pQ5p/1qp2R2/2k1p3/4P3/2PP4/P1P3PP/6K1 w - - bm Rxc6 ; id WAC.126 R-f7,Score:4.65 2k4r/1pr1n3/p1p1q2p/5pp1/3P1P2/P1P1P3/1R2Q1PP/1RB3K1 w - - bm Rxb7; id WAC.127 P-g5,Score:3.39 6rk/1pp2Qrp/3p1B2/1pb1p2R/3n1q2/3P4/PPP3PP/R6K w - - bm Qg6; id WAC. 128 R-g1,Score:-1.22 3r1r1k/1b2b1p1/1p5p/2p1Pp2/q1B2P2/4P2P/1BR1Q2K/6R1 b - - bm Bf3; id WAC.129 Q-e8,Score:1.11 6k1/1pp3q1/5r2/1PPp4/3P1pP1/3Qn2P/3B4/4R1K1 b - - bm Qh6 Qh8; id WAC. 130 P-c6,Score:-0.88 2rq1bk1/p4p1p/1p4p1/3b4/3B1Q2/8/P4PpP/3RR1K1 w - - bm Re8; id WAC.131 Q-e5,Score:-3.53 4r1k1/5bpp/2p5/3pr3/8/1B3pPq/PPR2P2/2R2QK1 b - - bm Re1; id WAC.132 Q- f1,Score:3.76 r1b1k2r/1pp1q2p/p1n3p1/3QPp2/8/1BP3B1/P5PP/3R1RK1 w kq - bm Bh4; id WAC.133 R-f3,Score:3.15 3r2k1/p6p/2Q3p1/4q3/2P1p3/P3Pb2/1P3P1P/2K2BR1 b - - bm Rd1 ; id WAC. 134 K-f8,Score:0.57 3r1r1k/N2qn1pp/1p2np2/2p5/2Q1P2N/3P4/PP4PP/3R1RK1 b - - bm Nd4; id WAC. 135 N-d4,Score:2.11 6kr/1q2r1p1/1p2N1Q1/5p2/1P1p4/6R1/7P/2R3K1 w - - bm Rc8 ; id WAC.136 P- h3,Score:4.5 3b1rk1/1bq3pp/5pn1/1p2rN2/2p1p3/2P1B2Q/1PB2PPP/R2R2K1 w - - bm Rd7; id WAC.137 N-d6,Score:0.41 r1bq3r/ppppR1p1/5n1k/3P4/6pP/3Q4/PP1N1PP1/5K1R w - - bm h5; id WAC.138 Q-e3,Score:0.07 rnb3kr/ppp2ppp/1b6/3q4/3pN3/Q4N2/PPP2KPP/R1B1R3 w - - bm Nf6 ; id WAC. 139 Q-d3,Score:-1.98 r2b1rk1/pq4p1/4ppQP/3pB1p1/3P4/2R5/PP3PP1/5RK1 w - - bm Rc7 Bc7; id WAC.140 R-c7,Score:14.9 4r1k1/p1qr1p2/2pb1Bp1/1p5p/3P1n1R/1B3P2/PP3PK1/2Q4R w - - bm Qxf4; id WAC.141 K-f1,Score:0.78 r2q3n/ppp2pk1/3p4/5Pr1/2NP1Qp1/2P2pP1/PP3K2/4R2R w - - bm Re8 f6 ; id WAC.142 R-h4,Score:3.59 5b2/pp2r1pk/2pp1pRp/4rP1N/2P1P3/1P4QP/P3q1P1/5R1K w - - bm Rxh6 ; id WAC.143 R-f3,Score:-0.94 r2q1rk1/pp3ppp/2p2b2/8/B2pPPb1/7P/PPP1N1P1/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm d3; id WAC. 144 B-e2,Score:1.99 r1bq4/1p4kp/3p1n2/p4pB1/2pQ4/8/1P4PP/4RRK1 w - - bm Re8; id WAC.145 Q- f6,Score:4.71 8/8/2Kp4/3P1B2/2P2k2/5p2/8/8 w - - bm Bc8 Bd3 Bh3; id WAC.146 B- h3,Score:4.08 r2r2k1/ppqbppbp/2n2np1/2pp4/6P1/1P1PPNNP/PBP2PB1/R2QK2R b KQ - bm Nxg4; id WAC.147 P-d4,Score:0.99 2r1k3/6pr/p1nBP3/1p3p1p/2q5/2P5/P1R4P/K2Q2R1 w - - bm Rxg7; id WAC.148 R-g7,Score:3.93 6k1/6p1/2p4p/4Pp2/4b1qP/2Br4/1P2RQPK/8 b - - bm Bxg2; id WAC.149 B- g2,Score:6.12 r3r1k1/5p2/pQ1b2pB/1p6/4p3/6P1/Pq2BP1P/2R3K1 b - - bm Ba3 Bf8 e3 Be5; id WAC.150 B-g3,Score:5.59 8/3b2kp/4p1p1/pr1n4/N1N4P/1P4P1/1K3P2/3R4 w - - bm Nc3; id WAC.151 N- e5,Score:0.25 1br2rk1/1pqb1ppp/p3pn2/8/1P6/P1N1PN1P/1B3PP1/1QRR2K1 w - - bm Ne4; id WAC.152 N-e4,Score:2.0 2r3k1/q4ppp/p3p3/pnNp4/2rP4/2P2P2/4R1PP/2R1Q1K1 b - - bm Nxd4; id WAC. 153 Q-b8,Score:2.13 r1b2rk1/2p2ppp/p7/1p6/3P3q/1BP3bP/PP3QP1/RNB1R1K1 w - - bm Qxf7 ; id WAC.154 Q-f3,Score:2.32 5bk1/1rQ4p/5pp1/2pP4/3n1PP1/7P/1q3BB1/4R1K1 w - - bm d6; id WAC.155 Q- d8,Score:1.45 r1b1qN1k/1pp3p1/p2p3n/4p1B1/8/1BP4Q/PP3KPP/8 w - - bm Qxh6 ; id WAC. 156 N-e6,Score:-2.73 5rk1/p4ppp/2p1b3/3Nq3/4P1n1/1p1B2QP/1PPr2P1/1K2R2R w - - bm Ne7 ; id WAC.157 N-e7,Score:-4.43 5rk1/n1p1R1bp/p2p4/1qpP1QB1/7P/2P3P1/PP3P2/6K1 w - - bm Rxg7 ; id WAC. 158 Q-e6,Score:5.07 r1b2r2/5P1p/ppn3pk/2p1p1Nq/1bP1PQ2/3P4/PB4BP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Ne6 ; id WAC.159 Q-f6,Score:3.12 qn1kr2r/1pRbb3/pP5p/P2pP1pP/3N1pQ1/3B4/3B1PP1/R5K1 w - - bm Qxd7 ; id WAC.160 P-e6,Score:7.35 3r3k/3r1P1p/pp1Nn3/2pp4/7Q/6R1/Pq4PP/5RK1 w - - bm Qxd8 ; id WAC.161 N- e8,Score:3.23 r3kbnr/p4ppp/2p1p3/8/Q1B3b1/2N1B3/PP3PqP/R3K2R w KQkq - bm Bd5; id WAC. 162 B-d5,Score:3.29 5rk1/2p4p/2p4r/3P4/4p1b1/1Q2NqPp/PP3P1K/R4R2 b - - bm Qg2 ; id WAC.163 P-d5,Score:5.75 8/6pp/4p3/1p1n4/1NbkN1P1/P4P1P/1PR3K1/r7 w - - bm Rxc4 ; id WAC.164 R- d2,Score:6.25 1r5k/p1p3pp/8/8/4p3/P1P1R3/1P1Q1qr1/2KR4 w - - bm Re2; id WAC.165 Q- f2,Score:-2.69 r3r1k1/5pp1/p1p4p/2Pp4/8/q1NQP1BP/5PP1/4K2R b K - bm d4; id WAC.166 Q- c1,Score:1.06 7Q/ppp2q2/3p2k1/P2Ppr1N/1PP5/7R/5rP1/6K1 b - - bm Rxg2 ; id WAC.167 R- g5,Score:1.54 r3k2r/pb1q1p2/8/2p1pP2/4p1p1/B1P1Q1P1/P1P3K1/R4R2 b kq - bm Qd2 ; id WAC.168 R-h3,Score:4.01 5rk1/1pp3bp/3p2p1/2PPp3/1P2P3/2Q1B3/4q1PP/R5K1 b - - bm Bh6; id WAC. 169 P-c5,Score:-0.03 5r1k/6Rp/1p2p3/p2pBp2/1qnP4/4P3/Q4PPP/6K1 w - - bm Qxc4; id WAC.170 Q- c4,Score:6.51 2rq4/1b2b1kp/p3p1p1/1p1nNp2/7P/1B2B1Q1/PP3PP1/3R2K1 w - - bm Bh6 ; id WAC.171 N-f3,Score:0.75 5r1k/p5pp/8/1P1pq3/P1p2nR1/Q7/5BPP/6K1 b - - bm Qe1 ; id WAC.172 R- f5,Score:3.27 2r1b3/1pp1qrk1/p1n1P1p1/7R/2B1p3/4Q1P1/PP3PP1/3R2K1 w - - bm Qh6 ; id WAC.173 Q-h6,Score:6.09 2r2rk1/6p1/p3pq1p/1p1b1p2/3P1n2/PP3N2/3N1PPP/1Q2RR1K b - - bm Nxg2; id WAC.174 R-d8,Score:2.17 r5k1/pppb3p/2np1n2/8/3PqNpP/3Q2P1/PPP5/R4RK1 w - - bm Nh5; id WAC.175 Q-e4,Score:-2.99 r1bq3r/ppp2pk1/3p1pp1/8/2BbPQ2/2NP2P1/PPP4P/R4R1K b - - bm Rxh2 ; id WAC.176 R-h3,Score:-2.36 r1b3r1/4qk2/1nn1p1p1/3pPp1P/p4P2/1p3BQN/PKPBN3/3R3R b - - bm Qa3 ; id WAC.177 N-c4,Score:-0.33 3r2k1/p1rn1p1p/1p2pp2/6q1/3PQNP1/5P2/P1P4R/R5K1 w - - bm Nxe6; id WAC. 178 Q-h7,Score:1.79 r1b2r1k/pp4pp/3p4/3B4/8/1QN3Pn/PP3q1P/R3R2K b - - bm Qg1 ; id WAC.179 Q-d2,Score:2.46 r1q2rk1/p3bppb/3p1n1p/2nPp3/1p2P1P1/6NP/PP2QPB1/R1BNK2R b KQ - bm Nxd5; id WAC.180 P-b3,Score:1.86 r3k2r/2p2p2/p2p1n2/1p2p3/4P2p/1PPPPp1q/1P5P/R1N2QRK b kq - bm Ng4; id WAC.181 Q-f1,Score:2.3 r1b2rk1/ppqn1p1p/2n1p1p1/2b3N1/2N5/PP1BP3/1B3PPP/R2QK2R w KQ - bm Qh5; id WAC.182 Q-h5,Score:2.7 1r2k1r1/5p2/b3p3/1p2b1B1/3p3P/3B4/PP2KP2/2R3R1 w - - bm Bf6; id WAC. 183 R-c6,Score:0.36 4kn2/r4p1r/p3bQ2/q1nNP1Np/1p5P/8/PPP3P1/2KR3R w - - bm Qe7 ; id WAC. 184 N-h7,Score:6.38 1r1rb1k1/2p3pp/p2q1p2/3PpP1Q/Pp1bP2N/1B5R/1P4PP/2B4K w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC.185 Q-d1,Score:-2.36 r5r1/p1q2p1k/1p1R2pB/3pP3/6bQ/2p5/P1P1NPPP/6K1 w - - bm Bf8 ; id WAC. 186 N-c3,Score:3.07 6k1/5p2/p3p3/1p3qp1/2p1Qn2/2P1R3/PP1r1PPP/4R1K1 b - - bm Nh3 ; id WAC. 187 N-d3,Score:-0.73 3RNbk1/pp3p2/4rQpp/8/1qr5/7P/P4P2/3R2K1 w - - bm Qg7 ; id WAC.188 Q- f3,Score:-1.51 3r1k2/1ppPR1n1/p2p1rP1/3P3p/4Rp1N/5K2/P1P2P2/8 w - - bm Re8 ; id WAC. 189 K-g2,Score:5.86 8/p2b2kp/1q1p2p1/1P1Pp3/4P3/3B2P1/P2Q3P/2Nn3K b - - bm Bh3; id WAC.190 N-f2,Score:4.43 2r1Rn1k/1p1q2pp/p7/5p2/3P4/1B4P1/P1P1QP1P/6K1 w - - bm Qc4; id WAC.191 Q-c4,Score:88.88 r3k3/ppp2Npp/4Bn2/2b5/1n1pp3/N4P2/PPP3qP/R2QKR2 b Qq - bm Nd3 ; id WAC. 192 P-d3,Score:2.52 5bk1/p4ppp/Qp6/4B3/1P6/Pq2P1P1/2rr1P1P/R4RK1 b - - bm Qxe3; id WAC.193 Q-e3,Score:2.84 5rk1/ppq2ppp/2p5/4bN2/4P3/6Q1/PPP2PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Nh6 ; id WAC.194 P-f4,Score:1.05 3r1rk1/1p3p2/p3pnnp/2p3p1/2P2q2/1P5P/PB2QPPN/3RR1K1 w - - bm g3; id WAC.195 R-d8,Score:-0.11 rr4k1/p1pq2pp/Q1n1pn2/2bpp3/4P3/2PP1NN1/PP3PPP/R1B1K2R b KQ - bm Nb4; id WAC.196 N-g4,Score:-0.03 7k/1p4p1/7p/3P1n2/4Q3/2P2P2/PP3qRP/7K b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.197 Q- f1,Score:-5.63 2br2k1/ppp2p1p/4p1p1/4P2q/2P1Bn2/2Q5/PP3P1P/4R1RK b - - bm Rd3; id WAC. 198 N-e2,Score:0.26 r1br2k1/pp2nppp/2n5/1B1q4/Q7/4BN2/PP3PPP/2R2RK1 w - - bm Bxc6 Rfd1 Rcd1; id WAC.199 R-c2,Score:0.46 2rqrn1k/pb4pp/1p2pp2/n2P4/2P3N1/P2B2Q1/1B3PPP/2R1R1K1 w - - bm Bxf6; id WAC.200 Q-f3,Score:2.87 2b2r1k/4q2p/3p2pQ/2pBp3/8/6P1/1PP2P1P/R5K1 w - - bm Ra7; id WAC.201 P- c4,Score:1.15 QR2rq1k/2p3p1/3p1pPp/8/4P3/8/P1r3PP/1R4K1 b - - bm Rxa2; id WAC.202 R- a2,Score:0.88 r4rk1/5ppp/p3q1n1/2p2NQ1/4n3/P3P3/1B3PPP/1R3RK1 w - - bm Qh6; id WAC. 203 Q-h6,Score:90.27 r1b1qrk1/1p3ppp/p1p5/3Nb3/5N2/P7/1P4PQ/K1R1R3 w - - bm Rxe5; id WAC. 204 N-b6,Score:-1.79 r3rnk1/1pq2bb1/p4p2/3p1Pp1/3B2P1/1NP4R/P1PQB3/2K4R w - - bm Qxg5; id WAC.205 B-c5,Score:1.34 1Qq5/2P1p1kp/3r1pp1/8/8/7P/p4PP1/2R3K1 b - - bm Rc6; id WAC.206 R- c6,Score:1.36 r1bq2kr/p1pp1ppp/1pn1p3/4P3/2Pb2Q1/BR6/P4PPP/3K1BNR w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC.207 P-f4,Score:-3.64 3r1bk1/ppq3pp/2p5/2P2Q1B/8/1P4P1/P6P/5RK1 w - - bm Bf7 ; id WAC.208 R- f4,Score:2.73 4kb1r/2q2p2/r2p4/pppBn1B1/P6P/6Q1/1PP5/2KRR3 w k - bm Rxe5 ; id WAC. 209 P-b5,Score:5.05 3r1rk1/pp1q1ppp/3pn3/2pN4/5PP1/P5PQ/1PP1B3/1K1R4 w - - bm Rh1; id WAC. 210 B-d3,Score:-1.25 r1bqrk2/pp1n1n1p/3p1p2/P1pP1P1Q/2PpP1NP/6R1/2PB4/4RBK1 w - - bm Qxf7 ; id WAC.211 Q-h7,Score:4.23 rn1qr2Q/pbppk1p1/1p2pb2/4N3/3P4/2N5/PPP3PP/R4RK1 w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC.212 Q-h5,Score:0.79 3r1r1k/1b4pp/ppn1p3/4Pp1R/Pn5P/3P4/4QP2/1qB1NKR1 w - - bm Rxh7 ; id WAC.213 Q-e3,Score:-6.45 r2r2k1/1p2qpp1/1np1p1p1/p3N3/2PPN3/bP5R/4QPPP/4R1K1 w - - bm Ng5; id WAC.214 Q-e3,Score:3.24 3r2k1/pb1q1pp1/1p2pb1p/8/3N4/P2QB3/1P3PPP/1Br1R1K1 w - - bm Qh7 ; id WAC.215 Q-h7,Score:0.64 r2qr1k1/1b1nbppp/p3pn2/1p1pN3/3P1B2/2PB1N2/PP2QPPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Nxf7 a4; id WAC.216 R-e1,Score:2.97 r3kb1r/1pp3p1/p3bp1p/5q2/3QN3/1P6/PBP3P1/3RR1K1 w kq - bm Qd7 ; id WAC. 217 Q-c4,Score:1.11 6k1/pp5p/2p3q1/6BP/2nPr1Q1/8/PP3R1K/8 w - - bm Bh6; id WAC.218 P- g6,Score:0.56 7k/p4q1p/1pb5/2p5/4B2Q/2P1B3/P6P/7K b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.219 B- e4,Score:-1.75 3rr1k1/ppp2ppp/8/5Q2/4n3/1B5R/PPP1qPP1/5RK1 b - - bm Qxf1 ; id WAC.220 N-f6,Score:1.59 r3k3/P5bp/2N1bp2/4p3/2p5/6NP/1PP2PP1/3R2K1 w q - bm Rd8 ; id WAC.221 R- d6,Score:8.0 2r1r2k/1q3ppp/p2Rp3/2p1P3/6QB/p3P3/bP3PPP/3R2K1 w - - bm Bf6; id WAC. 222 P-a3,Score:0.99 r1bqk2r/pp3ppp/5n2/8/1b1npB2/2N5/PP1Q2PP/1K2RBNR w kq - bm Nxe4; id WAC.223 R-d1,Score:-3.19 5rk1/p1q3pp/1p1r4/2p1pp1Q/1PPn1P2/3B3P/P2R2P1/3R2K1 b - - bm Rh6 e4; id WAC.224 P-f4,Score:2.19 4R3/4q1kp/6p1/1Q3b2/1P1b1P2/6KP/8/8 b - - bm Qh4 ; id WAC.225 Q- f7,Score:4.01 2b2rk1/p1p4p/2p1p1p1/br2N1Q1/1p2q3/8/PB3PPP/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nf7; id WAC.226 P-h4,Score:-2.73 2k1rb1r/ppp3pp/2np1q2/5b2/2B2P2/2P1BQ2/PP1N1P1P/2KR3R b - - bm d5; id WAC.227 P-d5,Score:1.67 r4rk1/1bq1bp1p/4p1p1/p2p4/3BnP2/1N1B3R/PPP3PP/R2Q2K1 w - - bm Bxe4; id WAC.228 B-e4,Score:3.6 8/8/8/1p5r/p1p1k1pN/P2pBpP1/1P1K1P2/8 b - - bm Rxh4 b4; id WAC.229 R- e5,Score:2.32 2b5/1r6/2kBp1p1/p2pP1P1/2pP4/1pP3K1/1R3P2/8 b - - bm Rb4; id WAC.230 P- a4,Score:1.99 r4rk1/1b1nqp1p/p5p1/1p2PQ2/2p5/5N2/PP3PPP/R1BR2K1 w - - bm Bg5; id WAC. 231 Q-d7,Score:4.35 1R2rq1k/2p3p1/Q2p1pPp/8/4P3/8/P1r3PP/1R4K1 w - - bm Qb5 Rxe8; id WAC. 232 Q-b7,Score:-1.96 5rk1/p1p2r1p/2pp2p1/4p3/PPPnP3/3Pq1P1/1Q1R1R1P/4NK2 b - - bm Nb3; id WAC.233 Q-d2,Score:4.18 2kr1r2/p6p/5Pp1/2p5/1qp2Q1P/7R/PP6/1KR5 w - - bm Rb3; id WAC.234 Q- g4,Score:1.31 5r2/1p1RRrk1/4Qq1p/1PP3p1/8/4B3/1b3P1P/6K1 w - - bm Qxf7 Rxf7 Qe4; id WAC.235 Q-f6,Score:6.03 1R6/p5pk/4p2p/4P3/8/2r3qP/P3R1b1/4Q1K1 b - - bm Rc1; id WAC.236 Q- e1,Score:1.53 r5k1/pQp2qpp/8/4pbN1/3P4/6P1/PPr4P/1K1R3R b - - bm Rc1 ; id WAC.237 Q- e8,Score:0.25 1k1r4/pp1r1pp1/4n1p1/2R5/2Pp1qP1/3P2QP/P4PB1/1R4K1 w - - bm Bxb7; id WAC.238 Q-f4,Score:1.06 8/6k1/5pp1/Q6p/5P2/6PK/P4q1P/8 b - - bm Qf1 ; id WAC.239 Q-f1,Score: 0.75 2b4k/p1b2p2/2p2q2/3p1PNp/3P2R1/3B4/P1Q2PKP/4r3 w - - bm Qxc6; id WAC. 240 Q-c6,Score:1.89 2rq1rk1/pp3ppp/2n2b2/4NR2/3P4/PB5Q/1P4PP/3R2K1 w - - bm Qxh7 ; id WAC. 241 Q-f3,Score:1.81 r1b1r1k1/pp1nqp2/2p1p1pp/8/4N3/P1Q1P3/1P3PPP/1BRR2K1 w - - bm Rxd7; id WAC.242 B-d3,Score:2.67 1r3r1k/3p4/1p1Nn1R1/4Pp1q/pP3P1p/P7/5Q1P/6RK w - - bm Qe2; id WAC.243 Q-e3,Score:4.98 r6r/pp3ppp/3k1b2/2pb4/B4Pq1/2P1Q3/P5PP/1RBR2K1 w - - bm Qxc5 ; id WAC. 244 R-d5,Score:5.91 4rrn1/ppq3bk/3pPnpp/2p5/2PB4/2NQ1RPB/PP5P/5R1K w - - bm Qxg6 ; id WAC. 245 N-b5,Score:5.26 6R1/4qp1p/ppr1n1pk/8/1P2P1QP/6N1/P4PP1/6K1 w - - bm Qh5 ; id WAC.246 Q- e2,Score:4.33 2k1r3/1p2Bq2/p2Qp3/Pb1p1p1P/2pP1P2/2P5/2P2KP1/1R6 w - - bm Rxb5; id WAC.247 B-g5,Score:0.74 5r1k/1p4pp/3q4/3Pp1R1/8/8/PP4PP/4Q1K1 b - - bm Qc5 ; id WAC.248 Q- d5,Score:0.07 r4rk1/pbq2pp1/1ppbpn1p/8/2PP4/1P1Q1N2/PBB2PPP/R3R1K1 w - - bm c5 d5; id WAC.249 N-e5,Score:0.77 1b5k/7P/p1p2np1/2P2p2/PP3P2/4RQ1R/q2r3P/6K1 w - - bm Re8 ; id WAC.250 R-e1,Score:1.32 k7/p4p2/P1q1b1p1/3p3p/3Q4/7P/5PP1/1R4K1 w - - bm Qe5 Qf4; id WAC.251 R- b7,Score:2.1 1rb1r1k1/p1p2ppp/5n2/2pP4/5P2/2QB4/qNP3PP/2KRB2R b - - bm Re2; id WAC. 252 Q-a1,Score:2.03 k5r1/p4b2/2P5/5p2/3P1P2/4QBrq/P5P1/4R1K1 w - - bm Qe8 ; id WAC.253 R- e2,Score:-1.69 r6k/pp3p1p/2p1bp1q/b3p3/4Pnr1/2PP2NP/PP1Q1PPN/R2B2RK b - - bm Nxh3; id WAC.254 R-g6,Score:1.12 3r3r/p4pk1/5Rp1/3q4/1p1P2RQ/5N2/P1P4P/2b4K w - - bm Rfxg6 ; id WAC.255 R-g6,Score:0.26 3r1rk1/1pb1qp1p/2p3p1/p7/P2Np2R/1P5P/1BP2PP1/3Q1BK1 w - - bm Nf5; id WAC.256 Q-g4,Score:1.27 4r1k1/pq3p1p/2p1r1p1/2Q1p3/3nN1P1/1P6/P1P2P1P/3RR1K1 w - - bm Rxd4; id WAC.257 N-g5,Score:1.18 r3brkn/1p5p/2p2Ppq/2Pp3B/3Pp2Q/4P1R1/6PP/5R1K w - - bm Bxg6; id WAC. 258 Q-g4,Score:-0.88 r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/2np4/2bN1PN1/2B1P3/3p4/PPP2nPP/R1BQ1K1R w - - bm Qh5; id WAC.259 Q-h5,Score:-2.75 2r2b1r/p1Nk2pp/3p1p2/N2Qn3/4P3/q6P/P4PP1/1R3K1R w - - bm Qe6 ; id WAC. 260 N-a6,Score:3.51 r5k1/1bp3pp/p2p4/1p6/5p2/1PBP1nqP/1PP3Q1/R4R1K b - - bm Nd4; id WAC. 261 Q-g2,Score:5.03 6k1/p1B1b2p/2b3r1/2p5/4p3/1PP1N1Pq/P2R1P2/3Q2K1 b - - bm Rh6; id WAC. 262 R-f6,Score:-0.46 rnbqr2k/pppp1Qpp/8/b2NN3/2B1n3/8/PPPP1PPP/R1B1K2R w KQ - bm Qg8 ; id WAC.263 Q-f4,Score:2.95 r2r2k1/1R2qp2/p5pp/2P5/b1PN1b2/P7/1Q3PPP/1B1R2K1 b - - bm Rab8; id WAC. 264 R-d4,Score:2.23 2r1k2r/2pn1pp1/1p3n1p/p3PP2/4q2B/P1P5/2Q1N1PP/R4RK1 w k - bm exf6; id WAC.265 Q-e4,Score:1.23 r3q2r/2p1k1p1/p5p1/1p2Nb2/1P2nB2/P7/2PNQbPP/R2R3K b - - bm Rxh2 ; id WAC.266 B-g3,Score:-1.55 2r1kb1r/pp3ppp/2n1b3/1q1N2B1/1P2Q3/8/P4PPP/3RK1NR w Kk - bm Nc7 ; id WAC.267 P-a3,Score:-0.57 2r3kr/ppp2n1p/7B/5q1N/1bp5/2Pp4/PP2RPPP/R2Q2K1 w - - bm Re8 ; id WAC. 268 R-e4,Score:0.89 2kr2nr/pp1n1ppp/2p1p3/q7/1b1P1B2/P1N2Q1P/1PP1BPP1/R3K2R w KQ - bm axb4; id WAC.269 B-c1,Score:2.0 2r1r1k1/pp1q1ppp/3p1b2/3P4/3Q4/5N2/PP2RPPP/4R1K1 w - - bm Qg4; id WAC. 270 Q-d3,Score:0.9 2kr4/ppp3Pp/4RP1B/2r5/5P2/1P6/P2p4/3K4 w - - bm Rd6; id WAC.271 B- g5,Score:-0.52 nrq4r/2k1p3/1p1pPnp1/pRpP1p2/P1P2P2/2P1BB2/1R2Q1P1/6K1 w - - bm Bxc5; id WAC.272 R-b3,Score:5.61 2k4B/bpp1qp2/p1b5/7p/1PN1n1p1/2Pr4/P5PP/R3QR1K b - - bm Ng3 g3; id WAC. 273 Q-e6,Score:1.19 8/1p6/p5R1/k7/Prpp4/K7/1NP5/8 w - - bm Rb6; id WAC.274 R-g5,Score: 4.09 r1b2rk1/1p1n1ppp/p1p2q2/4p3/P1B1Pn2/1QN2N2/1P3PPP/3R1RK1 b - - bm Nxg2 b5 Nc5; id WAC.275 Q-h6,Score:-1.11 r5k1/pp1RR1pp/1b6/6r1/2p5/B6P/P4qPK/3Q4 w - - bm Qd5 ; id WAC.276 R- g7,Score:-5.05 1r4r1/p2kb2p/bq2p3/3p1p2/5P2/2BB3Q/PP4PP/3RKR2 b - - bm Rg3 Rxg2; id WAC.277 B-d3,Score:0.08 r2qkb1r/pppb2pp/2np1n2/5pN1/2BQP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1B1K2R w KQkq - bm Bf7 ; id WAC.278 Q-e3,Score:1.41 r7/4b3/2p1r1k1/1p1pPp1q/1P1P1P1p/PR2NRpP/2Q3K1/8 w - - bm Nxf5 Rc3; id WAC.279 R-c3,Score:1.67 r1r2bk1/5p1p/pn4p1/N2b4/3Pp3/B3P3/2q1BPPP/RQ3RK1 b - - bm Bxa3; id WAC. 280 Q-e2,Score:1.42 2R5/2R4p/5p1k/6n1/8/1P2QPPq/r7/6K1 w - - bm Rxh7 ; id WAC.281 R- c2,Score:0.67 6k1/2p3p1/1p1p1nN1/1B1P4/4PK2/8/2r3b1/7R w - - bm Rh8 ; id WAC.282 R- h8,Score:-3.52 3q1rk1/4bp1p/1n2P2Q/3p1p2/6r1/Pp2R2N/1B4PP/7K w - - bm Ng5; id WAC.283 P-f7,Score:-2.45 3r3k/pp4pp/8/1P6/3N4/Pn2P1qb/1B1Q2B1/2R3K1 w - - bm Nf5; id WAC.284 N- f5,Score:-0.46 2rr3k/1b2bppP/p2p1n2/R7/3P4/1qB2P2/1P4Q1/1K5R w - - bm Qxg7 ; id WAC. 285 R-a3,Score:-7.62 3r1k2/1p6/p4P2/2pP2Qb/8/1P1KB3/P6r/8 b - - bm Rxd5 ; id WAC.286 P- b6,Score:-0.3 rn3k1r/pp2bBpp/2p2n2/q5N1/3P4/1P6/P1P3PP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - bm Qh5 Qg4; id WAC.287 B-c4,Score:5.29 r1b2rk1/p4ppp/1p1Qp3/4P2N/1P6/8/P3qPPP/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nf6 ; id WAC. 288 P-f3,Score:0.39 2r3k1/5p1p/p3q1p1/2n3P1/1p1QP2P/1P4N1/PK6/2R5 b - - bm Qe5; id WAC.289 Q-e5,Score:4.97 2k2r2/2p5/1pq5/p1p1n3/P1P2n1B/1R4Pp/2QR4/6K1 b - - bm Ne2 ; id WAC.290 N-e6,Score:3.11 5r1k/3b2p1/p6p/1pRpR3/1P1P2q1/P4pP1/5QnP/1B4K1 w - - bm h3; id WAC.291 R-d5,Score:1.67 4r3/1Q1qk2p/p4pp1/3Pb3/P7/6PP/5P2/4R1K1 w - - bm d6 ; id WAC.292 P- d6,Score:-0.33 1nbq1r1k/3rbp1p/p1p1pp1Q/1p6/P1pPN3/5NP1/1P2PPBP/R4RK1 w - - bm Nfg5; id WAC.293 P-b5,Score:2.67 3r3k/1r3p1p/p1pB1p2/8/p1qNP1Q1/P6P/1P4P1/3R3K w - - bm Bf8 Nf5 Qf4; id WAC.294 Q-f4,Score:5.6 4r3/p4r1p/R1p2pp1/1p1bk3/4pNPP/2P1K3/2P2P2/3R4 w - - bm Rxd5 ; id WAC. 295 N-d5,Score:2.22 3r4/1p2k2p/p1b1p1p1/4Q1Pn/2B3KP/4pP2/PP2R1N1/6q1 b - - bm Rd4 Rf8; id WAC.296 B-d5,Score:1.57 3r1rk1/p3qp1p/2bb2p1/2p5/3P4/1P6/PBQN1PPP/2R2RK1 b - - bm Bxg2 Bxh2 ; id WAC.297 Q-e2,Score:-0.15 3Q4/p3b1k1/2p2rPp/2q5/4B3/P2P4/7P/6RK w - - bm Qh8 ; id WAC.298 Q- e8,Score:2.95 1n2rr2/1pk3pp/pNn2p2/2N1p3/8/6P1/PP2PPKP/2RR4 w - - bm Nca4; id WAC. 299 N-c4,Score:3.36 b2b1r1k/3R1ppp/4qP2/4p1PQ/4P3/5B2/4N1K1/8 w - - bm g6; id WAC.300 P- g7,Score:0.69       Date: 21 Aug 2008 13:17:07 From: Guest Subject: Re: New Beginner Results very good. "Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > The new result after improvements is very good. > > Earlier 20% Results were correct. After improvement Beginner Level > gave 30% correct Result. I'm going to say that's probably pretty good for a beginner level. That's not to say I'm agreeing with all your chosen moves. But for a beginner level, I think it's pretty good. I'm defining a "Beginner Level" as a level suitable for a person who does not normally play chess, who thinks only one or two moves head under most conditions, who des not play in tournaments but if they did, would have a rating of no more than 1200 or so. And probably well under that rating. For that level of player, I think the computer should take no more than 10 seconds. That level of play just doesn't need much computation, and todays computers are fast enough that any more than 10 seconds a move would be considered slow. You don't want it much faster though because beginners can get a little bothered when the computer keeps moving instantly. Say maybe at least 5 and never more than 15 seconds? Allowing for your program being in Java, I'm going to say that as long as it never takes more than 20 seconds and usually under 10 seconds a move, it's okay. You did miss some mates, but a beginner might miss them too. They usually miss a lot of tactical stuff. It's a bit of a fuzzy area... I don't think a chess program should miss mates that obvious, but if you are explicitly targeting a beginner, then it's sort of okay for it to miss them. For computers, you have to reduce both the positional knowledge as well as the tactical ability. It's more than just reducing the search depth. So.... This is really a subjective call.... But I'm going to say that for a beginner level (rating under 1200), you are doing okay. You might need to work on the time aspect, but other than that I'll say it's okay. Now, for your Easy Level, which takes an average of 60 seconds a move.... I've got some issues. Mostly speed. First, considering how MicroMax and GNU Chess 4 perform on the test at just 5 and 10 seconds per test position, you've got your work cut out for you. (The online "Bayesian Elo Ratinglist WBEC Ridderkerk after edition 15" gives MicroMax a rating of 1845 +-140 and GNUChess 4 at 2207 +-25. I can't find any well known programs at more reasonably lower ratings to compare against your program. TSCP can't set up positions, so it can't do any of these tests.) On my old 700mhz P3, Micromax at 5 seconds per position gets 61% even while I'm doing other things on the computer. At 10 seconds, it gets 68%. On my laptop, Micromax at 5 seconds a move gets71% and at 10 seconds per position it gets 77%. (So figure a factor of 4 in performance (slow desktop to fast laptop) gets about 10% more of the test. GNU Chess 4 on my laptop gets 94% at 5 seconds per move and 95% at 10 seconds per move. (At this point you are getting to the point where the missed ones could be the contested 'best move' in the test.) The point is, strong programs do very well even at fast time settings. Programs are very tactical and the WAC test does have a lot of tactical positions, just like regular chess. Moderate programs (micromax, which is 1700-1980) also do fairly well Micromax is mostly tactical with only a little positional knowledge. By the time you've dropped down to just 5 seconds per move, there's not really a lot of playing strength left to either of them. Cut off maybe a couple hundred points in playing strength? (Just a guess with no solid data to back that up with. And allowing for differences in the computer running the program, it's really hard to estimate.) For micromax, might be 1600-1800 and GNUChess 4 might be 2000. So I think your 'Easy Level' should be getting at least 50% in no more than 30 seconds per position. I'm allowing 30 seconds per position only because your program is in Java rathe than in compiled code. Even that would be a bit slow. But for an 'easy level', that kind of percentage would be okay and might take you up to 1600 or so. (Just a guess.) (If anybody disagrees with these guesses, please speak up. I'm doing a lot of semi-educated guessing on these ratings estimates.) To save time, I'd suggest just running the first 20 positions until you can get most of them in a reasonable time (under 30 seconds). Then you can run the rest of them. Saves testing time. Once you get up to this point, you'll need to work on your tactical ability & speed and that should bring you up to 90% plus in under 30 seconds. Then we'll need to find another test suite. But that's the future. Right now you've got quite a bit of work to do. You've got some serious work to do on your speed and your tactics. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 20 Aug 2008 23:43:37 From: Sanny Subject: I will again test the Beginner Level as GetClub was Twice improved Today GetClub was Twice improved. So I will retest the 300 Positions today to see if it passes out more tests. Lets see todays improvement is seen the results or not. I will be testing the Beginner Level again and post the results soon. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html       Date: 21 Aug 2008 13:17:22 From: Guest Subject: Re: I will again test the Beginner Level as GetClub was Twice improved today. "Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Today GetClub was Twice improved. So I will retest the 300 Positions > today to see if it passes out more tests. > > Lets see todays improvement is seen the results or not. > > I will be testing the Beginner Level again and post the results soon. Aren't test positions wonderful?! It gives you a solid way to see a problem and then test to see if you actually fixed it. You should also look around for some other types of testing positions. Basic mating positions. Mate in 1, 2, 3, up to 5 or so. (If your search was more advanced, I'd even suggest a few mates in 10+.) Drawing positions. Where the best move is a draw by repetition or stalemate. Basic tactical moves. Like winning a queen in a couple moves. Pawn promotion tests. To make sure that it'll promote the pawn at the right time, or to avoid promoting the pawn if it can be immediately captured. And so on. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 20 Aug 2008 14:13:31 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:b448381e-338d-46d5-9016-dfbad7a0e739@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >I played 300 Postions from WAC and I am writing below the Move played > by GetClub along with Score given by GetClub to that move. > > Please analyze and tell what do you think about the below results. I would suggest you buy Reinfeld's book 'win at chess'. It actually gives details why the move is prefered, etc. Just the kind of stuff you need. I'm sure HelpBot will respond, but the book might be a better choice. You could get it used from Amazon fairly cheap. Even with shipping, I'd expect it about $5. Your local bookstore might have it too. There are several versions, but I think the newest reprint is from 2001. There are, of course, many other 'testing' style chess books you could get from your bookstore. That way you could actually look at them and see if the stuff is the kind you are wanting. > After you see the result for each position I will test the Easy Level > also. > > It took me 2 hours to test all 300 moves through automation. > > It will take 8-10 hours for Easy Level Testing. I wouldn't go beyond that. I wouldn't even bother with 'easy level', actually. You'd be better off working on getting higher results at the faster speeds. The WAC test is not exactly the most difficult test suite around. Most programmers give far less time than what you are. Just to give you some comparison data, I used the 'epd2wb' program to send the test to some other engines. Specifically, Crafty20.14 and micromax 4.8. I used just 10 seconds for the thinking time. Crafty on my 2ghz laptop (like a ~3ghz P4) got 247 out of 300. That's 82%. MicroMax 4.8 was run on my desktop (an old slow P3) because Crafty was running on my fast laptop. Also, Micromax wasn't taking the full 10 seconds. It would usually move in 5 seoncs or less. (EPD2WB is not the most compatable of testing programs....) It got the first half or so very well (more than 80%)because those are rather tactical, but it missed many of the later ones. It got a 206 out of the 300. 68%. I can't get TSCP or other versions of MicroMax to run reliably with epd2wb, so no results. (They kept locking up around 22-24 moves and many moves immediately failed, without any thinking time. I think they aren't winboard enough that buggy epd2wb can deal with.) I don't know of any other small, simple chess programs to compare results to. > The score is better than what I predicted. I was thinking none of them > will match but I find 20% moves are correct while other 80% are not > Matching for Beginner Level. Not too bad considering this is your very first test suite you've ever run. Considering you've never done any testing at all, 20% isn't bad. But rather than going for longer time controls, you need to start working on the tactical stuff that it's missing in WAC. > If I get good suggestions from you I will try the Easy Level. Let me > know if the Scores given by GetClub for its move is correct or not. I'm sure HelpBot will give you some suggestions, but I still think getting the book is a good idea. Right off hand, I don't know of any electronic copy on the web. No pdf copy or web site that describes each move in detail. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---       Date: 24 Aug 2008 01:01:09 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Guest <[email protected] > (18:27) schrieb: > The rule is fuzzy. Which was the point. It talks about a thing that doesn't exist. That's pointless or wrong but not fuzzy. mfg, simon .... l         Date: 23 Aug 2008 18:50:51 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (18:27) schrieb: > >> The rule is fuzzy. Which was the point. > > It talks about a thing that doesn't exist. That's pointless or wrong but > not fuzzy. When you have rules disagreeing with itself, that's fuzzy. When you can interpet it two different ways, that's fuzzy. One of the two has to be wrong, because they can't both be right. That's fuzzy. > > mfg, simon .... l > ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---       Date: 20 Aug 2008 21:45:48 From: Bjoern Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results Guest wrote: > "Sanny" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:b448381e-338d-46d5-9016-dfbad7a0e739@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >>I played 300 Postions from WAC and I am writing below the Move played >>by GetClub along with Score given by GetClub to that move. >> >>Please analyze and tell what do you think about the below results. > Crafty on my 2ghz laptop (like a ~3ghz P4) got 247 out of 300. That's 82%. > > MicroMax 4.8 was run on my desktop (an old slow P3) because Crafty was > running on my fast laptop. Also, Micromax wasn't taking the full 10 > seconds. It would usually move in 5 seoncs or less. (EPD2WB is not the > most compatable of testing programs....) > > It got the first half or so very well (more than 80%)because those are > rather tactical, but it missed many of the later ones. It got a 206 out of > the 300. 68%. I think that's something else that Sanny's output should ideally provide: how many times the program matched the solution. On the first few problems it looks like about 1/3 later on maybe 1/5?!         Date: 20 Aug 2008 15:21:25 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "Bjoern" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Guest wrote: >> It got the first half or so very well (more than 80%)because those are >> rather tactical, but it missed many of the later ones. It got a 206 out >> of the 300. 68%. > > I think that's something else that Sanny's output should ideally provide: > how many times the program matched the solution. > > On the first few problems it looks like about 1/3 later on maybe 1/5?! His own private output might show that. But it's to be expected that the later ones have a lower success rate. They are harder positions. Also, the reality is there are some contested moves in the WAC test. There are several 'revised' versions. It seems like every couple years somebody comes along and does a deep 8 hour search or something and says that some position should have a different move answer. I'm not even sure that's really valid though. I mean if it takes 8 hours with a state of the art program to see something, then why would you expect it to be detected with a quick xyz second test? That's kind of like complaining that a master can't see something in 3 minutes that a GrandMaster can see if he spends a week studying the same position. To me, I'm willing to just accept the book answers and live with the fact tha some answers might be wrong, but that if my program is only scoring 20% with several minutes to think, then I have bigger worries. His results are not bad for a very first test run. And his program is in Java, so it does run slower. But his results do need to be improved.... And now he's got positions to work with. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---           Date: 24 Aug 2008 02:26:28 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Guest <[email protected] > (01:50) schrieb: > "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >>* Guest <[email protected]> (18:27) schrieb: >> >>> The rule is fuzzy. Which was the point. >> >> It talks about a thing that doesn't exist. That's pointless or wrong but >> not fuzzy. > > When you have rules disagreeing with itself, that's fuzzy. > > When you can interpet it two different ways, that's fuzzy. > > One of the two has to be wrong, because they can't both be right. That's > fuzzy. No, that's wrong. If two rules contradict, the rules as a whole are unusable. But that's not the case here. The first rule is correct, the second talks about "temporary rights", a term that isn't defined and thus meaningless. There can't be a change in something that doesn't exist. The TD was right about ignoring this meaningless part of the rule. An other TD decision is anything but a literal interpretation of the rules. mfg, simon .... l             Date: 23 Aug 2008 19:39:35 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (01:50) schrieb: > >> "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>>* Guest <[email protected]> (18:27) schrieb: >>> >>>> The rule is fuzzy. Which was the point. >>> >>> It talks about a thing that doesn't exist. That's pointless or wrong but >>> not fuzzy. >> >> When you have rules disagreeing with itself, that's fuzzy. >> >> When you can interpet it two different ways, that's fuzzy. >> >> One of the two has to be wrong, because they can't both be right. That's >> fuzzy. > > No, that's wrong. If two rules contradict, the rules as a whole are > unusable. > > But that's not the case here. The first rule is correct, the second > talks about "temporary rights", a term that isn't defined and thus A term doesn't have to be defined to be valid. Most people know what the word "temporarily" means. And actually, it is defined... Go back and reread what he posted. 3.8 does talk about the right to castle being prevented temporarily. And 9.2 also talks about the right to castle being changed temporarily. That's two seperate places they are using the word "temporarily". But this is all abstract. I am not claiming that is how to intrepret the rules and how you should write your chess program. I was just saying the rules were contradictory / fuzzy about it. That it has actually been brought up in a tournament and even the TD agreed that the rules could be intereted like that, but shouldn't be. > meaningless. There can't be a change in something that doesn't exist. > The TD was right about ignoring this meaningless part of the rule. He didn't ignore it. He agreed that is what the rules actually said, but that it contradicted tradition and wasn't what was meant. > An other TD decision is anything but a literal interpretation of the > rules. > > mfg, simon .... l > ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---           Date: 21 Aug 2008 04:27:20 From: Maserati 250F Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 at 20:21 GMT, Guest wrote: > > His results are not bad for a very first test run. Have to say, well done Guest! Getting Sanny to test! I am sure he is going to see the benefits of this approach sooner or later. -- A miraculous pit stop was Webber because I was told that hed parked up out the back somewhere, through my radio cans, so it was a very good stop for him!             Date: 21 Aug 2008 13:18:04 From: Guest Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results "Maserati 250F" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 at 20:21 GMT, Guest wrote: >> >> His results are not bad for a very first test run. > > Have to say, well done Guest! Getting Sanny to test! I am sure he is > going to see the benefits of this approach sooner or later. I admit I was not expecting him to actually do it. But I figured it was worth a try. You can learn so much by testing. Even basic tactical stuff. I wont even tell you have many times over the years that I thought my programs were working right (not well, just 'right') only to run a test and discover that it was totally missing some tactical point or even a mate. In one case, my program would actually try for stalemate when I was ahead. One other time, given a choice between a stalemate draw and being mated, it would choose to be mated. If you don't test, you don't know. If you don't know, you can't fix it! ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---               Date: 24 Aug 2008 15:30:18 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Beginner Level Results * Guest <[email protected] > (02:39) schrieb: > "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >>* Guest <[email protected]> (01:50) schrieb: >> >>> "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>>* Guest <[email protected]> (18:27) schrieb: >>>> >>>>> The rule is fuzzy. Which was the point. >>>> >>>> It talks about a thing that doesn't exist. That's pointless or wrong but >>>> not fuzzy. >>> >>> When you have rules disagreeing with itself, that's fuzzy. >>> >>> When you can interpet it two different ways, that's fuzzy. >>> >>> One of the two has to be wrong, because they can't both be right. That's >>> fuzzy. >> >> No, that's wrong. If two rules contradict, the rules as a whole are >> unusable. >> >> But that's not the case here. The first rule is correct, the second >> talks about "temporary rights", a term that isn't defined and thus > > A term doesn't have to be defined to be valid. Most people know what the > word "temporarily" means. That doesn't make "temporary rights" an existing thing. > And actually, it is defined... Go back and reread what he posted. > > 3.8 does talk about the right to castle being prevented temporarily. No it doesn't (1) The right for castling has been lost: 1. if the king has already moved, or 2. with a rook that has already moved (2) Castling is prevented temporarily 1. if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent`s pieces. 2. if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected. (2) isn't about rights. I have every right to buy a big house (kids don't), but just can't afford that right now. I might be declared insane, then it doesn't matter how much money I got, I won't have the right to do that. Just the same way my king and its rook maybe in their original places, with nothing in between them, and there is no check thing, I surely could castle, but might not have the right to do so, because my king previously captured a bishop and went back. > And 9.2 also talks about the right to castle being changed temporarily. But there are no temporary rights, once the right is gone, it doesn't come back. > But this is all abstract. > > I am not claiming that is how to intrepret the rules and how you should > write your chess program. > > I was just saying the rules were contradictory / fuzzy about it. > > That it has actually been brought up in a tournament and even the TD agreed > that the rules could be intereted like that, but shouldn't be. And I'm saying that would be a wrong interpretation. >> meaningless. There can't be a change in something that doesn't exist. >> The TD was right about ignoring this meaningless part of the rule. > > He didn't ignore it. > > He agreed that is what the rules actually said, but that it contradicted > tradition and wasn't what was meant. And in what way isn't that ignoring? mfg, simon .... l   Date: 19 Aug 2008 05:18:31 From: Sanny Subject: I will test them later. Here is what I think. Here is my guess work Beginner Level will not be able to find any of the correct moves Easy Level will solve 30% of them correctly. Normal Level will solve 60% of them. Master Level will solve 80% of them Rybka will solve 90% of them. Before I test them, tell me what is the validity that the above results are correct. And they are the only moves that GetClub should play? It may happen the best move is wrong. Who has checked that these results are OK? In opening both e4 and d4 are correct So what if the GetClub chose another correct alternatives? Are the best moves the only move that has to be played in these positions? r1r2bk1/5p1p/pn4p1/N2b4/3Pp3/B3P3/2q1BPPP/RQ3RK1 b - - bm Bxa3; id "WAC.280"; here b - - means Black to play and No Chastling allowed. And best move is Bxa3. If Black plays something else how much bad will be that. What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 30% ? What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 40% ? What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 50% ? What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 60% ? What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 70% ? What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 80% ? What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 90% ? What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 100% ? Is this the way to find the correct ratings? How much time should GetClub be given to solve these positions? 10 sec or 1 min or 5 min??? Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 20 Aug 2008 02:58:51 From: Sanny Subject: Automated Testing Developed. > =A0 I suspect that Sanny will not attempt > to automate the testing process, and > that as a result, there will be... human > error. Automated program was created today. I will test all 300 positions with Beginner Level and display the result. I will only tes WAC positions I think that will be enough. Do I need to test the other positions as well? Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html       Date: 20 Aug 2008 11:27:25 From: Guest Subject: Re: Automated Testing Developed. "Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >Automated program was created today. I will test all 300 positions >with Beginner Level and display the result. Congratulations. Automated testing is a lot easier than doing it manually! >I will only tes WAC positions I think that will be enough. Do I need >to test the other positions as well? The WAC positions are good enough. Better actually. Eventually you'll outgrow them, but for now, they are fine and it's okay to ignore the Bratko-Kopec positions too. I'd suggest you going over to amazon.com or your local book store and picking up a copy of Reinfeld's "Win At Chess" book, too. (There are several versions. I think the most recent printing was in 2001.) I'd guess total cost would be $5 including shipping. That way you get to read the text for each position and why a particular move is considered best, etc. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 20 Aug 2008 00:03:17 From: help bot Subject: Re: I will test them later. [email protected] wrote: > > You can still do the basic testing and report the results though. =EF= =BF=BDAs a way > > of showing how many your engine gets right / wrong. > > Do you seriously expect Sanny actually to do this, and if he does, > to report the results accurately? Given his long-running disregard for > factual truth, I don't. Often times, Sanny has reported nonsense. But you have to admit, he now is somewhat consistent in reporting that his program just loses to Rybka (shocker), although his attempts at describing such games are ludicrous. As far as what little I saw of the Bratco- Lopec positions, they are much too difficult for our purposes. But if in fact the test positions included 300 from Fred Reinfeld's old book, I think we could find the results somewhat useful. The problem is that Sanny's program has, and has always had, a serious problem with tactics. It is akin to a weak human player, only slower. Yet it now resigns well in advance of being checkmated, so when there are fewer men remaining on the board, it can calculate better. I favor a complete re-write, focusing on tactics and speed. Only when tactics are fully under control should attempts be made to, say, factor in the doubling of pawns and the like. As it is, these attempts seem to have failed miserably, perhaps even causing the gross tactical weaknesses we have seen. I suspect that Sanny will not attempt to automate the testing process, and that as a result, there will be... human error. -- help bot       Date: 20 Aug 2008 10:53:49 From: Guest Subject: Re: I will test them later. "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:cc289465-71a8-48dc-be82-a796f2080343@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >loses to Rybka (shocker), although his >attempts at describing such games are >ludicrous. That could just be due to him not being a chess player. He has readily admitted numerous times that he isn't a good player. For that matter, neither am I. Personally, I find chess programming to be far more interesting than the game itself. I was interested in chess in my earlier days, but once I saw computers playing chess, my interest in playing chess disapeared. > As far as what little I saw of the Bratco- >Lopec positions, they are much too >difficult for our purposes. But if in fact the Since there are only 24 tests, there has to be a wide range of difficulty. 12 are tactical (with one mate position) and 12 are positional. Even low end players should be able to get at least 3-4 right. It's simply related to having so few positions. (Speaking of which, I found another test like the BK test. I knew I had seen it recently but couldn't remember where. I findally found it and was about to post it when I read more carefully... The score formula is utterly bogus! Even if you get none right you still get a rating of 2000.) >test positions included 300 from Fred >Reinfeld's old book, I think we could find >the results somewhat useful. The problem >is that Sanny's program has, and has >always had, a serious problem with tactics. I've heard that mentioned lots of times, but he's never explained it. I'm wonder if it's just a bad q-search or some sort of selective search. > I favor a complete re-write, focusing on >tactics and speed. Only when tactics >are fully under control should attempts If you do a very basic chess program (like TSCP, CPWEngine, or even MicroMax), then tactics are pretty much guaranteed. It'd just be a matter of refining the q-search for even fancier stuff. That's why I've wondered if maybe his program is somewhat like a selective search. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---         Date: 20 Aug 2008 19:52:17 From: Andy Walker Subject: Re: I will test them later. In article <[email protected] >, Guest <[email protected]> wrote: >"help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:cc289465-71a8-48dc-be82-a796f2080343@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> [...] The problem >>is that Sanny's program has, and has >>always had, a serious problem with tactics. >I've heard that mentioned lots of times, but he's never explained it. >I'm wonder if it's just a bad q-search or some sort of selective search. Well, his results give us a little insight! In the first few WAC positions [and I'm certainly not going to look through any more], his program overlooks two mates in 2, and a winning pin of the queen. So that's either a Very Serious bug or else a selective search that is never going to find moves that are apparently bad at depth one or two. Either way, it explains the utter tactical incompetence of his program. At this stage, he doesn't need to worry about why his program didn't find the rook sacrifice to get a pair of advanced passed pawns. He just needs to find out why his program doesn't spot mate in 2 and correct that. After that, he needs to find out why his program thinks it is a pawn up on move 2 of the Sicilian .... -- Andy Walker Nottingham           Date: 20 Aug 2008 15:23:30 From: Guest Subject: Re: I will test them later. "Andy Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > In article <[email protected]>, Guest <[email protected]> wrote: >>"help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>news:cc289465-71a8-48dc-be82-a796f2080343@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>> [...] The problem >>>is that Sanny's program has, and has >>>always had, a serious problem with tactics. >>I've heard that mentioned lots of times, but he's never explained it. >>I'm wonder if it's just a bad q-search or some sort of selective search. > > Well, his results give us a little insight! In the first > few WAC positions [and I'm certainly not going to look through any > more], his program overlooks two mates in 2, and a winning pin of (cough).... No comment there.... > the queen. So that's either a Very Serious bug or else a selective > search that is never going to find moves that are apparently bad I am still curious. I have a feeling there's a good dose of selectivity in the search. That maybe he's even patterened it on MacHack 6 or something. It may not be what is classically called "selective search", but I don't think it's a full width brute force search. He said he's never done real research into computer chess, so it's possible he based his on the same kind of ideas that were done in MacHack 6. It's possible he heard about it and thought that was the way to go....? > at depth one or two. Either way, it explains the utter tactical > incompetence of his program. Aren't test suites wonderfull.... If you don't test, then you don't know. And if you don't know, you can't fix it. I think it's safe to say that everybody in here is glad that Sanny is finally doing some real tests. Something objective. Maybe we need to find a few more test suites. Basic mates and drawing moves, basic tactical moves, and that kind of thing.... Or he can. After all, it's not my program I'm debugging. But at least he's finally running some real tests! > At this stage, he doesn't need to worry about why his program > didn't find the rook sacrifice to get a pair of advanced passed pawns. > He just needs to find out why his program doesn't spot mate in 2 and > correct that. After that, he needs to find out why his program thinks > it is a pawn up on move 2 of the Sicilian .... > > -- > Andy Walker > Nottingham > ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 19 Aug 2008 11:11:14 From: Subject: Re: I will test them later. On Aug 19, 1:34=A0pm, "Guest" <[email protected] > wrote: > > You can still do the basic testing and report the results though. =A0As a= way > of showing how many your engine gets right / wrong. Do you seriously expect Sanny actually to do this, and if he does, to report the results accurately? Given his long-running disregard for factual truth, I don't.     Date: 19 Aug 2008 09:59:56 From: Sanny Subject: Re: I will test them later. > > 10 sec or 1 min or 5 min??? > > For the total test positions I sent (24 Bratko-Kopec and 300 Win-At-Chess), > I'd suggest first doing it at 5 seconds, then probably 10 and probably 30 > seconds. GetClub program only has 5 levels to choose. And time taken varies with position. Beginner: 5-20 sec / move Easy: 30-80 sec / move Normal: 2-5 min / move Master: 5-10 min / move. Average time Beginner: 15 sec / move Easy: 60 sec / move Normal: 4 min / move Master: 15 min / move I will just play each position with different levels. Then I will tell you the results. It will take 2-3 weeks for these testing. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html       Date: 19 Aug 2008 12:34:38 From: Guest Subject: Re: I will test them later. "Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:cd0f9f57-bb77-4974-b6b2-c3af176051d0@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... >> > 10 sec or 1 min or 5 min??? >> >> For the total test positions I sent (24 Bratko-Kopec and 300 >> Win-At-Chess), >> I'd suggest first doing it at 5 seconds, then probably 10 and probably 30 >> seconds. > > GetClub program only has 5 levels to choose. And time taken varies > with position. > > I will just play each position with different levels. Okay. You can still do the basic testing and report the results though. As a way of showing how many your engine gets right / wrong. Just run the tests at each time setting you want to check. It doesn't have to be 5, 10 and 30 seconds. Those are just common settings that are quick enough that people can run their programs through a lot of test positions without taking too much time. To do any sort of time based testing and get a pseudo Bratko-Kopec rating, you'll have to do this manually, provided GC has a way to show the move it is currently considering 'best'. Put GC on a high enough level so it'll take at least two minutes (normal level?) and then manually write down the suggested move at 30, 60, 90 and 120 seconds. Then simply abort GC and go on to the next move. But this kind of testing is very awkward and annoying to do. It'd be easier if you could automate it and do it by time. I'm not sure if we could get any sort of valid results at the lower levels. Maybe the easy level. > Then I will tell you the results. It will take 2-3 weeks for these > testing. If you were to add some code to GC, the tests would could be done very easily overnight when you aren't using the computer. And you could even do the faster test settings at any time. Get an urge....? Run them while you are eating supper. And so on. If you were to automate it, I'd suggest running both the BK & the WAC test suites, if not even more. At the suggested time limits (5, 10 and 30 seconds) you could run hundreds of positions overnight. You could do it every week just as a check to see what improvements or regressions have been made. But that requires automation. Since you can't do it by time, like most people do, you'd have to do it by level. That's okay. Odd, but okay. (You really should fix that time issue. So people or tests could be done for a certain time per move or game. I'm assuming its a side effect of you searching only full plies?) > > Bye > Sanny > > Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > > ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 19 Aug 2008 11:23:33 From: Guest Subject: Re: I will test them later. "Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:6ce7ddcc-5488-4a47-964c-f299324ddcfc@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Here is what I think. Here is my guess work > > Beginner Level will not be able to find any of the correct moves > > Easy Level will solve 30% of them correctly. > > Normal Level will solve 60% of them. > > Master Level will solve 80% of them > > Rybka will solve 90% of them. We'll find out what GC can do.... Having never played GC, I can't judge what its actually capable of doing. That's what testing is for. > Before I test them, tell me what is the validity that the above > results are correct. And they are the only moves that GetClub should > play? > > It may happen the best move is wrong. Who has checked that these > results are OK? It happens. As my message said, there is some disagreement about some of the positions. More analysis and drastically deeper searches have suggested different 'best' moves. But with so many positions, even if 10% are wrong (and I seriously doubt that many of the WAC are), it wont significantly effect your results. But, if you wish to get current information on test suites and which ones are best, I'd suggest going over to the computer chess club forums and asking. http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewforum.php?start=0&f=7&topic_view=flat Those people are a lot more knowledgeable than I am about current research into test positions. Both wider variety and positions that have contested moves. Be aware though that they wont tolerate your constant advertising of GC chess or your regular ratings claims without any testing to back it up. Unless you want to get flamed, you probably shouldn't mention you use only Rybka as a test opponent and are gettings ratings estimate from it. As long as you don't brag about GC (without testing results to back it up, of course) and just ask questions, you'll be welcomed. > In opening both e4 and d4 are correct So what if the GetClub chose > another correct alternatives? Opening positions aren't part of the test suites. Besides, that's what opening books are for. > Are the best moves the only move that has to be played in these > positions? In most of these positions (I think in all the ones I sent you), the best move is 'best' for a reason. Other moves are not the winning move. They are either just average or actually losing moves. But generally, the idea in these tests are there is only one best / reasonable move > r1r2bk1/5p1p/pn4p1/N2b4/3Pp3/B3P3/2q1BPPP/RQ3RK1 b - - bm Bxa3; id > "WAC.280"; > > here b - - means Black to play and No Chastling allowed. And best move > is Bxa3. Right. > If Black plays something else how much bad will be that. Nothing. These tests are done as "Get the right move" and count it as a point, or get no point at all. Most tests aren't about mediocre moves. It's about picking the one right move. The winning move. Not the delaying move or the loosing move. These are not random positions from games. They were chosen to have "a" right move. > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 30% ? > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 40% ? > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 50% ? > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 60% ? > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 70% ? > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 80% ? > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 90% ? > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 100% ? These tests are *NOT* about what ELO rating you get. As I've told you before, that can only come from actual games played. Like if you let your game play via the free chess servers. These tests are about finding flaws in your program, finding what kind of positions it doesn't know how to deal with. And then regularly re-running them to make sure you don't have any regressions. It's a way to measure improvement in your program. The better it is, the more it can do right. You can compare your results to others. And that can give an idea of whether your program is significantly weaker or about the same as another program. But it can't give ratings. Yes, the Bratko-Kopec test was originally done to give ratings. But it has been shown to be way too high. At least 200 to 250 points too high. And even then, there are too few positions to give a *reliable* rating. Still, if you wanted to get a BK rating, post the results and I'll calculate it with the revised method, and you can tell people that you got a "BK Rating" of xyz at abc level. It will *NOT* be the same as a real elo rating though. But still, it could be something to brag about and compare to other programs. (The same could be said about the WAC positions. That you got xyz and program ABC got only JFK right.) To do a computer version of the BK test, do each of the 24 BK positions (Not the 300 WAC positions, but just the 24 BK positions) and record what the 'best move' your program indicates at 30, 60, 90, and 120 seconds. Post those results and I'll run them through the recalibrated BK test that Kopec published. You'll have to do that for each level you want to test with GC. Again, be aware that this will not be entirely accurate. > How much time should GetClub be given to solve these positions? > > 10 sec or 1 min or 5 min??? For the total test positions I sent (24 Bratko-Kopec and 300 Win-At-Chess), I'd suggest first doing it at 5 seconds, then probably 10 and probably 30 seconds. That would give you an idea of how much your program improves with longer search times. You could certainly do longer, but with 300 WAC positions, the extra time can start to be inconvenient. It would also allow you to compare other programs at comparable time controls. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 19 Aug 2008 05:55:50 From: help bot Subject: Re: I will test them later. Sanny wrote: > Here is what I think. Here is my guess work > > Beginner Level will not be able to find any of the correct moves > > Easy Level will solve 30% of them correctly. > > Normal Level will solve 60% of them. > > Master Level will solve 80% of them > > Rybka will solve 90% of them. > > Before I test them, tell me what is the validity that the above > results are correct. I have not seen but a couple of these types of test positions being discussed by others, but I believe you may find that they are far too difficult for GetClub to handle well. Rybka, on the other hand, could be used as a fair guide to which test answers are dubious; just make sure you allow plenty of thinking time so she can zoom up to speed (~3000). > And they are the only moves that GetClub should > play? > > It may happen the best move is wrong. Who has checked that these > results are OK? I read that some of the answers were, as they termed it, controversial. In other words, the "correct" answer was decided by a measly International Master, before the advent of really strong chess engines. > In opening both e4 and d4 are correct So what if the GetClub chose > another correct alternatives? The starting position will hopefully not be one of the test questions. > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 30% ? I found some information about this by simply doing a google search on "Bratco- Kopec test". Unfortunately, to actually take the test on screen, you had to be a member. > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 40% ? > > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 50% ? > > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 60% ? > > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 70% ? I wouldn't worry about that. > What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 100% ? That would indeed be scary; it would indicate that you had specifically fine-tuned your GC engine for this crude test, and succeeded!! > Is this the way to find the correct ratings? No. > How much time should GetClub be given to solve these positions? This was all explained in the original post in this thread. The test I saw discussed on the Web had a strict limit of two minutes per test position, and the problems were very complex. In fact, their scale for the various test results did not go above the level of the test's designer (i.e. IM), and as I recall, the lower limit was not useful for our purposes here. In my opinion, you need a test suite which has lots of different types of positions, and which can tell you if your program is a USCF 1200, a 1500 or an 1800. The Kopec test is simply in the wrong range of strengths. -- help bot       Date: 19 Aug 2008 11:24:30 From: Guest Subject: Re: I will test them later. "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:bc17afc3-beda-46b4-8e8a-4d00d618ac3f@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > Sanny wrote: > >> Here is what I think. Here is my guess work >> >> Beginner Level will not be able to find any of the correct moves >> >> Easy Level will solve 30% of them correctly. >> >> Normal Level will solve 60% of them. >> >> Master Level will solve 80% of them >> >> Rybka will solve 90% of them. >> >> Before I test them, tell me what is the validity that the above >> results are correct. > > > I have not seen but a couple of these types > of test positions being discussed by others, > but I believe you may find that they are far > too difficult for GetClub to handle well. > > Rybka, on the other hand, could be used as > a fair guide to which test answers are dubious; > just make sure you allow plenty of thinking > time so she can zoom up to speed (~3000). It would be far far better if he went over to the TalkChess forum and asked there. There are already people who have done deep searches on these positions and have studied them etc. > > >> And they are the only moves that GetClub should >> play? >> >> It may happen the best move is wrong. Who has checked that these >> results are OK? > > > I read that some of the answers were, as > they termed it, controversial. In other words, > the "correct" answer was decided by a measly > International Master, before the advent of really > strong chess engines. That's true. But even now, not all computers doing deep searches will agree. > > >> In opening both e4 and d4 are correct So what if the GetClub chose >> another correct alternatives? > > > The starting position will hopefully not be one > of the test questions. > > >> What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 30% ? > > > I found some information about this by > simply doing a google search on "Bratco- > Kopec test". Unfortunately, to actually > take the test on screen, you had to be a > member. No. The paper was published long long ago. It's not some modern web thingie he came up with. > > >> What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 40% ? >> >> What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 50% ? >> >> What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 60% ? >> >> What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 70% ? > > > I wouldn't worry about that. > > >> What should the rating of GetClub if GetClub score 100% ? > > > That would indeed be scary; it would indicate > that you had specifically fine-tuned your GC > engine for this crude test, and succeeded!! It happens. Not just with BK test, but with any limited number of positions being tested. Somebody gets fixated on using one thing as a guide to judge the quality of their program and they tune it to do great on it with the result that games and other positions are terrible. That's why you need variety. > > >> Is this the way to find the correct ratings? > > > No. > > >> How much time should GetClub be given to solve these positions? > > > This was all explained in the original post in > this thread. The test I saw discussed on the > Web had a strict limit of two minutes per > test position, and the problems were very > complex. In fact, their scale for the various > test results did not go above the level of the > test's designer (i.e. IM), and as I recall, the > lower limit was not useful for our purposes > here. > > In my opinion, you need a test suite which > has lots of different types of positions, and > which can tell you if your program is a USCF > 1200, a 1500 or an 1800. The Kopec test is > simply in the wrong range of strengths. > > > -- help bot > > > > ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 19 Aug 2008 01:05:46 From: Sanny Subject: Big Bug found. I will try them next week as I need to convert them to the format which GetClub understands. Today a big bug was found and removed. Now it will not show awkward scores. I was very worried it used to show +2 benefit in equal positions. Now it show 0.02 in equal position. So the Scores will be correct as per the position of the board. That was a great Bug which give 2 pawn losses in equal positions. Thats why GetClub used to sacrifice its pawns for no reasions. Having corrected that I feel GetClub will play stronger moves. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html   Date: 18 Aug 2008 18:51:11 From: help bot Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you Guest wrote: > Sanny; > > Here are some standard test positions for you to use with GetClub chess. > > The classic Bratko-Kopec test and the Win-At-Chess test. There are many > other test sets, but these are classics that most people use. The > Bratko-Kopec tests are particularly intersting, since they've been around so > long and so many programs have done it. They aren't extensive enough, which > is why people use additional test sets, but they are classics that most > people use. I did a google search on "Bratko-Kopec test" and learned a little bit about this. One issue was the small number of test positions, and another was the fact that their results always came out nearly a class too high, relative to superior methods. But here is where I have a real beef with this approach: apparently, some of the positions were snatched from the latest fads in openings theory, and if you have read some ultra-narrow analysis of the lines in question and could recall everything, you will pick the "correct" answer. Otherwise, you're just out of luck, since nobody -- but nobody -- can figure all this stuff out in the allotted two minutes. That, my friends, is not true chess skill. Bring Emanuel Lasker forth from the grave and have him answer whether or not White's Queen can be trapped in some peculiar line from /New In Chess/ magazine circa 1988, and he will of course fail. Yet he would make mincemeat of all these IMs and FMs who construct their tests to closely match their own, peculiar chess knowledge of the latest openings theory or even the supposedly "proper" pawn lever in some position or other. Sanny's program requires easier questions-- far easier, I would say. And what's more, you can't score answers with this simplistic right/ wrong approach; you need to penalize losing moves and reward good-enough answers by comparison, just as in real-world play. In fact, it seems to me that a well-programmed chess engine might be a good way to figure out the real strength of Sanny's program, provided it can reasonably weaken its own play all the way down to GetClub's low level. Suppose for a moment that Fritz's "limit playing strength" function worked like magic, perfectly simulating the various playing strengths from zero to infinity. All you would have to do is have it play the GC program a large number of games at various settings, and look to see where the results evened out, where it won and lost equally. That would tell you it's actual strength, based on entire games-- not just a few, peculiar chess positions. There would be no opportunity for controversy over whether or not any particular "answer" was correct, for the games' results would settle the issue objectively, based on a very large number of chess decisions in all sorts of positions. It seems to me, from what little I saw (for free) of these Kopec positions, they are quite simply the sort of thing that Sanny's program could not solve, except perhaps by dumb luck; they are too advanced for weak programs. What is needed is a test of simple, straight-forward tactics, where one may win a piece, force checkmate, that sort of thing. Start with one-movers, then have some questions that require seeing two full moves ahead, then three and then four. -- help bot     Date: 22 Aug 2008 23:35:22 From: Sanny Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you Though after improvement GetClub scored 44% it missed some Mate Positions So I revert back to original. I will again test in the evening to see if the new score. Beginner Solving 39% is good enough. It means Easy Level will sove arround 60% of them. Bye Sanny       Date: 23 Aug 2008 10:24:27 From: Guest Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you "Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:66edad66-dd80-42e1-8756-ce2a53c0e093@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > Though after improvement GetClub scored 44% it missed some Mate > Positions So I revert back to original. > > I will again test in the evening to see if the new score. > > Beginner Solving 39% is good enough. It means Easy Level will sove > arround 60% of them. Maybe, maybe not. You need to be careful how much time you take, though. A beginner level should take very little time (considering how well GC does on the test at that level.) So Easy Level shouldn't take much longer. No more than 30 seconds, I'd say. It's really a judgement call, but a strong program is going to get a high percentage of the WAC test suite very quickly. What I'm saying is, at 30 seconds per move (no matter what you call that level), you should get nearly all of them. 90% or so. (That's allowing for contested solutions, etc.) So you need to make sure you aren't taking too long, as well as getting a good percentage of them. Once you can get most of these positions at a good time setting, I'll introduce you to some difficult test sets. The WAC set is pretty much a beginner's testing suite. > > Bye > Sanny > ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 22 Aug 2008 13:51:35 From: Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you On 19 Aug., 03:51, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > Guest wrote: What is needed is a test > of simple, straight-forward tactics, where > one may win a piece, forcecheckmate, > that sort of thing. =A0Start with one-movers, > then have some questions that require > seeing two full moves ahead, then three > and then four. Hello, my quest=EDon: Where can I find those easy tasks with easy results? Thanks! Greetings!       Date: 22 Aug 2008 17:40:58 From: Guest Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On 19 Aug., 03:51, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > Guest wrote: >>What is needed is a test >> of simple, straight-forward tactics, where >> one may win a piece, forcecheckmate, >> that sort of thing. Start with one-movers, >> then have some questions that require >> seeing two full moves ahead, then three >> and then four. >Hello, >my quest�on: >Where can I find >those easy tasks >with easy results? Unfortunately I don't know of a good set of debugging positions. Most authors just create their own and find what they can. Sorry. If you are still wanting some, you could go over to TalkChess.com and ask in the programmer's forum. Occasionally people will ask about that, but usually most people just suggest WAC and so on. Maybe this time they'll have a better answer. >Thanks! >Greetings! ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 21 Aug 2008 02:45:48 From: Sanny Subject: Re: Help Bot, Should I cancel your game So that you may start a new On Aug 21, 11:57=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Aug 21, 1:18=A0am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > =A0 The Master level was moving at a reasonable > > > rate of speed until I played Qxe5, reaching the > > > current position. =A0Now, it refuses to move, period. > > > I am up two pawns for nothing-- a simple win if I > > > avoid opposite colored Bishops (as in a recent > > > OTB game where I believed I could win anyway, > > > but was proved wrong by a mere 1600 player!). > > > The normal pattern thus far has been an > > > unexpected "cancellation" of all such games > > > where I was winning, so why should this time > > > be any different? > > > What do you say? Try once more and see it plays. if not I will remove > > this game. > > > A move by master level takes 320 sec - 5120 sec > > > So Max time for a move by Master Level is 5120 sec thats roughly 1.5 > > hours. Just open the game let it think for 1.5 hours and see if it > > goes ahead. > > =A0 Last night I let it run again for many hours, > to no avail. =A0This time I cut it off after only a > few hours, as it obviously is in an infinite > loop. > > =A0 The claim that the maximum time is a > mere 5120 seconds is obviously wrong. =A0I > find it strange that when the program is > winning, there is never a lock-up; yet in the > multitude of positions where I am winning, > there are numerous "malfunctions" of every > imaginable sort-- each of which make it > impossible to continue play. =A0I am > reminded of Gary Kasparov and his fits > when losing to DeepBlue. =A0And then there > was that other fellow, Bob... er, um, Fish- > something, who always "had a cow" if > things did not go his way. =A0Is it possible > yourchessengine just can't handle > losing like a carrot? > Should I remove this game? I do not understand why it do not make its move. When such things happen forst restart the computer and then play the game again. Sometimes some errors pop up which can only be removed by restarting the computer. Just restart your computer and give it 1.5 hours to think and I bilieve it will play its move in 1.5 hours. As Master always think between 320 sec - 5120 sec. If it does not I will reset this game. Try playing lower levels. Now, Normal Level will play as good as Master Level as yesterday there was Twice improvement done in game. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 20 Aug 2008 23:57:33 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help Bot, Should I cancel your game So that you may start a new On Aug 21, 1:18=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > > =A0 The Master level was moving at a reasonable > > rate of speed until I played Qxe5, reaching the > > current position. =A0Now, it refuses to move, period. > > I am up two pawns for nothing-- a simple win if I > > avoid opposite colored Bishops (as in a recent > > OTB game where I believed I could win anyway, > > but was proved wrong by a mere 1600 player!). > > The normal pattern thus far has been an > > unexpected "cancellation" of all such games > > where I was winning, so why should this time > > be any different? > > What do you say? Try once more and see it plays. if not I will remove > this game. > > A move by master level takes 320 sec - 5120 sec > > So Max time for a move by Master Level is 5120 sec thats roughly 1.5 > hours. Just open the game let it think for 1.5 hours and see if it > goes ahead. Last night I let it run again for many hours, to no avail. This time I cut it off after only a few hours, as it obviously is in an infinite loop. The claim that the maximum time is a mere 5120 seconds is obviously wrong. I find it strange that when the program is winning, there is never a lock-up; yet in the multitude of positions where I am winning, there are numerous "malfunctions" of every imaginable sort-- each of which make it impossible to continue play. I am reminded of Gary Kasparov and his fits when losing to DeepBlue. And then there was that other fellow, Bob... er, um, Fish- something, who always "had a cow" if things did not go his way. Is it possible your chess engine just can't handle losing like a carrot? -- help bot     Date: 20 Aug 2008 22:18:09 From: Sanny Subject: Re: Help Bot, Should I cancel your game So that you may start a new > =A0 The Master level was moving at a reasonable > rate of speed until I played Qxe5, reaching the > current position. =A0Now, it refuses to move, period. > I am up two pawns for nothing-- a simple win if I > avoid opposite colored Bishops (as in a recent > OTB game where I believed I could win anyway, > but was proved wrong by a mere 1600 player!). > The normal pattern thus far has been an > unexpected "cancellation" of all such games > where I was winning, so why should this time > be any different? What do you say? Try once more and see it plays. if not I will remove this game. A move by master level takes 320 sec - 5120 sec So Max time for a move by Master Level is 5120 sec thats roughly 1.5 hours. Just open the game let it think for 1.5 hours and see if it goes ahead. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 20 Aug 2008 16:13:37 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help Bot, Should I cancel your game So that you may start a new On Aug 20, 12:09=A0pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > The game you are playing with Master Level is taking 5 days. Still not > complete. > > Should I cancel your game with Master Level So that you can start a > new game? Try playing the Normal & Easy Level instead? > > There was a big Bug 2 days back So Master Level played badly. Now even > the Normal Level will play a very strong game. The Master level was moving at a reasonable rate of speed until I played Qxe5, reaching the current position. Now, it refuses to move, period. I am up two pawns for nothing-- a simple win if I avoid opposite colored Bishops (as in a recent OTB game where I believed I could win anyway, but was proved wrong by a mere 1600 player!). The normal pattern thus far has been an unexpected "cancellation" of all such games where I was winning, so why should this time be any different? -- help bot     Date: 20 Aug 2008 09:09:46 From: Sanny Subject: Help Bot, Should I cancel your game So that you may start a new game? The game you are playing with Master Level is taking 5 days. Still not complete. Should I cancel your game with Master Level So that you can start a new game? Try playing the Normal & Easy Level instead? There was a big Bug 2 days back So Master Level played badly. Now even the Normal Level will play a very strong game. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html     Date: 18 Aug 2008 22:04:59 From: help bot Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you Guest wrote: > > the fact that their results always came out nearly > > a class too high, relative to superior methods. > > As I told Sanny a long time ago, the ratings numbers are bogus. I warned > him about that months ago. I should have warned him again, but I doubted he > would have actually tried it. (And to be honest... even if he had, I > suspect those numbers would have still been lower than what he advertises.) True, but why not re-calibrate the test scores so that they are in better accord with reality? > Even with a couple 'recalibrations' / revistation's over the years, the > ratings numbers aren't really accurate. > > That's not what's being tested here. > > What's being tested is solely whether or not GC can find the accepted move. Ah, but the answers to those few problems are *not* accepted. Some are disputed, and when you consider the time frame, a few are probably wrong, which means the scoring system penalizes you for not agreeing with it, rather than for not finding the best moves. > No matter how bad your program is, with today's hardware, you should be able > to get at least half right. > > Less than that suggests serious issues with the program. We already know that Sanny's program has serious issues. What we don't know is just what sort of rating all those issues, combined together, will net. Will it be 1200? 1700? > > But here is where I have a real beef with this > > approach: apparently, some of the positions were > > snatched from the latest fads in openings theory, > > and if you have read some ultra-narrow analysis of > > Computers don't have to worry about reading... They calculate everything. My point, exactly. The latest fads may well have it wrong, and if a 1988 /New in Chess/ shows 19. ...h6!!! is best against the hyper-Borg Attack, it may well be that in 2007 Rybka 2.0c finds a mate-in-twenty refutation to Kopec's "correct" answer. > The tests have been widely used in the computer chess world since the report > was done. Okay. Are you trying to suggest that wide- spread adoption -- as with the Ptolemaic model of the Universe -- is somehow proof of correct- ness? > Even though everybody knew the numbers were bogus and the positions not the > best, it was still a standard test that everybody could share and compare. > > That's why I bothered to suggest it. > > And if you'll notice, at no time did I ever say the BK or WAC test suites > were the best. I said they were classics that most people use. But Sanny's program is relatively weak. Why do you want him to use a test suite that gives his engine no real chance of finding the supposedly correct answers? A short article I read implied that the test suite was designed to see if strong chess programs of that era could find the "right" moves or ideas that masters or IMs may find. This is way, way out of Sanny's league; his program may well score a big, fat zero on every level, barring dumb luck answer-matches by sheer chance. What useful information would such a result provide-- that the program is not a grandmaster? (We already know this!) > But we don't treat the BK test like they originally intended. > > You either find the right move and get a +1 score, or you get it wrong and > you get a zero. > > Nothing more. That's just plain silly. If a chess engine plays a terrible move, that fact needs to be factored into the score, just as if it finds another viable move which is not an exact match to Brat-Kopec, there should be no penalty. > I could have left out the BK test. But the big reason I did suggest it is > because it's been used for so long that there are results available for a > number of classic chess programs. > > Sargon 2.5, Sargon 4, Sargon 5, Awit, Chaos, Belle, CrayBlitz, Deep Thought, > HiTech, And others. Those are just some I happen to know of off hand. And they also just happen to be among the strongest chess programs of their eras. Why are you intent on rating GetClub on a scale so high that it's score will be "off the chart"? > I could have also posted other test sets, but I figured two were enough. > We'd be lucky if Sanny even did one single position. I somehow doubt that he will even understand your explanation of the complex notation. > > comparison, just as in real-world play. In fact, > > it seems to me that a well-programmed chess > > engine might be a good way to figure out the > > real strength of Sanny's program, provided it > > can reasonably weaken its own play all the > > way down to GetClub's low level. > > No. > > There are significant problems in computer vs. computer play. > > It makes it very hard to actually determine the strength of the new program. > > For example, the one with the deeper search is likely to win. Regardless of > whether its the stronger program when playing humans. This commentary seems to completely ignore the gist of my idea: playing Fritz set to perfectly emulate a 1200 player is *not* the same as a match between GetClub and Fritz; the issues you describe do not just carry over. > Computer vs. computer is just not the same human vs. human or computer vs. > human. > > Hyatt has also noticed that doing too few different starting positions can > lead to some very eratic testing results in computer vs. computer. Even > with lots of games (thousands to millions) the results are still eratic from > one batch to the next. (Has to do with timing fluctuations and limited > variability of starting positions.) That sort of testing is not practical, as nobody is going to sit down and manually play GetClub against some other 1200- rated computers. > He's done testing for a year and a half and the eratic nature is quite > repeatable. Most people just don't do enough games to notice or do their > testing in a different way. Maybe there is something wrong with the way he is doing this; sometimes people can be blinded to even the most obvious of things. (Take that one fellow who played with a sting ray, for instance; do you think for one moment he did not know that he was swimming within striking range? Maybe he thought his quick reflexes would allow him to jump out of the way, as when a gator strikes.) > Second, you need to play more than just one or two programs. Sanny playing > only against Rybka and coming up with ratings is definetly wrong. I repeat: not only is it meaningless to test GetClub against Rybka, but any test suite that is designed for a set level, such as Expert/Master/SM, is just as wrongheaded. We already know that Sanny's program is well below those levels; what we don't know is where among the Class B/C/D/E sections it fits, exactly. The test questions need to tackle everything from the simplest tactics to more difficult problems-- and Mr. Kopec's seem to miss this aim by a country mile. > Third, for a quality program to actually weaken its play down to a specific > level is actually harder than you might think. It's more than just > weakening the eval and making the occasional tactical blunder because at > other times, the search is going to see so much that most of its moves will > still be too strong. I know that; this is why I postulated a supposedly perfect emulation instead of suggesting that any such thing actually exists. > The point is, it's difficult to get realistic reduced playing strengths. It > can be done, but it's not easy. Any program that gives reduced ratings > levels should be looked at with suspicion unless there is testing to back it > up. Such as the testing that showed the Kopec test results to be about a full class off base? > To do computer vs. computer testing reliably and get a reasonable rating, > you'd need several programs with reliable strengths and you'd need lots of > games for each time control of interest. You need to automate it. You need > lots of different opening positions, so opening books aren't being judged. This goes right back to my criticism of a few of the Kopec test questions, which one article related were based on one's familiarity with then recently-published and dubious openings theory. I would just as soon avoid the issue of openings /opinions/ and focus instead on what is known as fact. Including dubious opinions into such tests is pretty much counter-productive, while adding a variety of questions -- to which the answers are indisputable -- would serve to improve the process immensely. -- help bot       Date: 19 Aug 2008 11:20:35 From: Guest Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:7c88647a-cd00-4309-b88e-d7572aee7c7c@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >> As I told Sanny a long time ago, the ratings numbers are bogus. I warned >> him about that months ago. I should have warned him again, but I doubted >> he >> would have actually tried it. (And to be honest... even if he had, I >> suspect those numbers would have still been lower than what he >> advertises.) > > True, but why not re-calibrate the test scores > so that they are in better accord with reality? Because there is considerable doubt that so few positions can even give an accurate rating, even allowing for a couple hundred point downward adjustment and a couple hundred points width in ratings aproximation.. There just isn't enough variety. It is possible that more positions (several hundred) might be able to give a more accurate rating estimate, but I'm not aware of any research into developing such a test & rating scale. Don't misunderstand me, I have no objection to the *idea* of running a quick test suite and using that to calculate an aproximate playing ability. I think it'd be quite handy. It's just that to my knowledge, there has been no more research into developing such a test, and there's no proof that such test results are reliable. It is true that strong programs tend to do tolerably well on the tests. But that doesn't mean the other direction is true. That if you do well on the test the program will actually play reasonably well. The program could end up being tuned for that test and be terrible in other positions. >> Even with a couple 'recalibrations' / revistation's over the years, the >> ratings numbers aren't really accurate. >> >> That's not what's being tested here. >> >> What's being tested is solely whether or not GC can find the accepted >> move. > > > Ah, but the answers to those few problems > are *not* accepted. Some are disputed, and > when you consider the time frame, a few are A lot of answers are disputed in all the common tests. That's one of the big problems with test suites, and one of the reasons that you can't easily make a ratings estimation from them. Depending on how you play, you might actually prefer a different move. Depending on who you are playing (and their skill and techniques) you might prefer a different move. For example, wasn't it Tal who loved to get into very risky tactical positions, and overwhelm his opponents? He did that because his opponents were uncomfortable with those positions. He certainly couldn't do that with any computer chess program. So even *who* you are playing can effect what's considered the 'best' move. With deeper investigation (or searching) it's possible that an accepted move is found to be less than expected. That's the risk you take with any sort of testing. Whether it's testing positions or testing games. In my first message in this thread, I did point out that very possibility. But I also pointed out that at least with WAC, a few missed moves aren't going to significantly effect his score. There are newer versions of the WAC test suite with 'revised' answers. Answers that are based on current research and deep computer searches. But even those could be disputed. > We already know that Sanny's program has > serious issues. What we don't know is just > what sort of rating all those issues, combined > together, will net. Will it be 1200? 1700? But with test positions, *he* can see that his program has a problem with a particular position that other programs easily get. >> Computers don't have to worry about reading... They calculate >> everything. > > > My point, exactly. The latest fads may well > have it wrong, and if a 1988 /New in Chess/ > shows 19. ...h6!!! is best against the hyper-Borg > Attack, it may well be that in 2007 Rybka 2.0c > finds a mate-in-twenty refutation to Kopec's > "correct" answer. Possibly Things do change as positions get analyzed more & more. But that's true of opening theory that people use to play games. And endgame theory that people use. But usually that doesn't happen because a particular move is 'best' for a reason. So it's not really any different from with humans. >> The tests have been widely used in the computer chess world since the >> report >> was done. > > > Okay. Are you trying to suggest that wide- > spread adoption -- as with the Ptolemaic model > of the Universe -- is somehow proof of correct- > ness? Who said anything about every move being correct? In fact, in my original message I went out of my way to point out that some positions have contested moves. But the idea of a good test suite is that there tends to be only one 'best' move, even if there are several 'good' moves. Many of them are 'best' for a particular reason, not because of any fad. The idea here is that test positions are something he can use and judge by, and something that he can accurately report. Or would you rather his next message say that now beginner level has reached 2800 elo? >> Even though everybody knew the numbers were bogus and the positions not >> the >> best, it was still a standard test that everybody could share and >> compare. >> >> That's why I bothered to suggest it. >> >> And if you'll notice, at no time did I ever say the BK or WAC test suites >> were the best. I said they were classics that most people use. > > But Sanny's program is relatively weak. > Why do you want him to use a test suite > that gives his engine no real chance of > finding the supposedly correct answers? He does have a chance. Not to solve all of the positions, but that's kind of the point. You don't want a test where you can solve them all. The test suites I suggested are not the hardest around. They are actually fairly basic. And the time controls I suggested are actually fairly generous. Many people use 5 seconds a move for their programs in these suites. I suggested he try 5, 10 and 30 seconds. He can even go to one minute if he wants to spend that much time. Just as long as he does so consistantly. They are often used in the early stages of chess programming. Remember, computer chess searching is a lot different from the way humans play. So programs can actually find quite a few of these positions simply because of their tactical search. But hey, if *you* don't like these test suites, feel free to suggest some of your own. I have absolutely no problem with that. > A short article I read implied that the test > suite was designed to see if strong chess Not sure which test you are talking about. Win-At-Chess test suite is, of course, from a chess teaching book called "Win At Chess" The Bratko-Kopec test was also derived from several teaching chess books, although I can't remember their names. Incidentally, if you want to read the original paper on the BK test, http://spider.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~kopec/Publications/P_index.html http://spider.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~kopec/Publications/Publications/O_42_C.pdf There are several papers about the BK test, but I don't happen to have a handy link to them. One is "The Bratko-Kopec test Revisited" by T. Marsland, and another is "The Bratko-Kopec Test Recalibrated" by Benn &^ Kopec. And a couple others that I can't find. > programs of that era could find the "right" > moves or ideas that masters or IMs may > find. This is way, way out of Sanny's Many of the 'best moves' are actually done for tactical reasons that computers can do. For the positional ones, he'll get some right and some wrong. For the tactical ones, he'll miss some, too. And then he'll have some idea of where his program is failing and where to improve it. That's what test positions are all about. > league; his program may well score a > big, fat zero on every level, barring dumb Bet not. I wouldn't be at all surprised if TSCP (or the CPW clone) or micromax could solve quite a few of them. Remember, chess is tactics and because of that, many 'best moves' are done for eventual tactical reasons. Tactics are something computers are pretty good at. But no, I don't expect him to score as well as many other programs. That doesn't matter. These tests give solid answers rather than the vague kind of testing he's been doing. >> But we don't treat the BK test like they originally intended. >> >> You either find the right move and get a +1 score, or you get it wrong >> and >> you get a zero. >> >> Nothing more. > > > That's just plain silly. If a chess engine > plays a terrible move, that fact needs to be > factored into the score, just as if it finds > another viable move which is not an exact > match to Brat-Kopec, there should be no > penalty. There are some tests that do have 'avoid' moves. But those are harder tests. Let's keep things simple for him and just give him points for the ones he gets right. For the ones he doesn't, he needs to work on. Remember, most of these have only one best move for a reason. Implicitly if you don't choose it, you made a terrible move. (Not all are like that, but we can pretend that for now.) >> I could have left out the BK test. But the big reason I did suggest it >> is >> because it's been used for so long that there are results available for a >> number of classic chess programs. >> >> Sargon 2.5, Sargon 4, Sargon 5, Awit, Chaos, Belle, CrayBlitz, Deep >> Thought, >> HiTech, And others. Those are just some I happen to know of off hand. > > > And they also just happen to be among the > strongest chess programs of their eras. Why > are you intent on rating GetClub on a scale > so high that it's score will be "off the chart"? (shaking head....) You really don't get how much computer performance effects things. With modern hardware, even a *SIMPLE* program like MicroMax has a higher rating that Sargon 2.5 / 4 / 5 or Awit or Chaos did back in their prime. I think TSCP can score around 1800. Faile over 2000. Neither of those are complicated programs. Even a semi-smart program easily has a higher rating than Belle or CrayBlitz. By today's standards, the early CrayBlitz is an idiot running on slower hardware than many PDA's have. Modern hardware is *FAST* and it really helps. I once had a discussion with Sanny about the "Technology curve". About how much faster hardware can help your play and ratings. Going from the hardware from back then (such as sargon 2.5) to now is going to really help! So his scores should be comparable to what the Sargons could do. (I said should... not would...) If he improves his program, then he can compare to Belle, CrayBlitz, etc. Kind of scary, huh? >> I could have also posted other test sets, but I figured two were enough. >> We'd be lucky if Sanny even did one single position. > > > I somehow doubt that he will even understand > your explanation of the complex notation. (shrug) I tried. Feel free to offer him other, supposedly better test suites. > This commentary seems to completely > ignore the gist of my idea: playing Fritz set > to perfectly emulate a 1200 player is *not* > the same as a match between GetClub and > Fritz; the issues you describe do not just > carry over. Then I misunderstood what you were trying to say. > That sort of testing is not practical, as > nobody is going to sit down and manually > play GetClub against some other 1200- > rated computers. That's why it needs some way to do automatic testing. But I don't think he's going to do that. >> He's done testing for a year and a half and the eratic nature is quite >> repeatable. Most people just don't do enough games to notice or do their >> testing in a different way. > > Maybe there is something wrong with > the way he is doing this; sometimes There has been a lot more discussion going on and even a mathematician joined in. To put it simply 1) the computer clock introduces a lot of randomness in the game. Doing a timed game is different from doing a fixed number of nodes or plies. Hyatt has shown that even doing a few hundred nodes more or less can lead to radically different games with different results. A few hundred nodes can be enough to determine whether the computer picks a great move or an okay move or even a blunder but didn't have time enough to notice. (Note: This has been comfirmed by others.) 2) You need an adequate number of opponents. 3) You need to have enough opening positions to test from. Hyatt had been using 40 standard positions and that isn't enough. You need more but it's not sure yet how many are enough. 4) You need lots of games, since the clock introduces some randomness. It's not yet determined how many games you need to get reliable results. Most people simply don't do enough testing to be able to notice these variations. You make a change in your program, you run a few simple tests and you decide to keep it or throw it out. Most people just assumed the method was valid. They never did the scale of testing Hyatt has to verify it. It's not. Or at least it can easily be invalid. It's still being investigated as to the best way to do reliable testing with reasonable error bounds. > people can be blinded to even the most > obvious of things. (Take that one fellow > who played with a sting ray, for instance; Stingings aren't too uncommon because they can get steped on. Fatalities are rare though. However, stingrays are actually pretty gentle creatures unless you startle or harrass them. Leave them alone and don't startle them, and they don't care about you. > do you think for one moment he did not > know that he was swimming within > striking range? Maybe he thought his > quick reflexes would allow him to jump > out of the way, as when a gator strikes.) You are talking about Irwin, and the couple of others who were stung very shortly after that. No, he was leaving it alone. Swiming near it observing it, but leaving it alone. The same thing thousands of other divers do every year. The problem was, he somehow startled it. And by sheer chance the barb went into his heart. The odds are good that if he had left the barb in, he would have survived. I agree the guy was a bit of a nut, but not because of the stingray. >> Second, you need to play more than just one or two programs. Sanny >> playing >> only against Rybka and coming up with ratings is definetly wrong. > > > I repeat: not only is it meaningless to test > GetClub against Rybka, but any test suite > that is designed for a set level, such as > Expert/Master/SM, is just as wrongheaded. Then feel free to offer your own choices to Sanny.... > We already know that Sanny's program is > well below those levels; what we don't know > is where among the Class B/C/D/E sections > it fits, exactly. The test questions need to > tackle everything from the simplest tactics > to more difficult problems-- and Mr. Kopec's > seem to miss this aim by a country mile. Half of them are tactical positions. Most chess programs should be able to do pretty well on that part. Bu they, I'm not saying the BK or WAC test is best, either. >> The point is, it's difficult to get realistic reduced playing strengths. >> It >> can be done, but it's not easy. Any program that gives reduced ratings >> levels should be looked at with suspicion unless there is testing to back >> it >> up. > > Such as the testing that showed the Kopec > test results to be about a full class off base? For computers, it's far more than that. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 18 Aug 2008 22:00:45 From: Guest Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > I did a google search on "Bratko-Kopec test" and > learned a little bit about this. One issue was the > small number of test positions, and another was Definetly. > the fact that their results always came out nearly > a class too high, relative to superior methods. As I told Sanny a long time ago, the ratings numbers are bogus. I warned him about that months ago. I should have warned him again, but I doubted he would have actually tried it. (And to be honest... even if he had, I suspect those numbers would have still been lower than what he advertises.) Even with a couple 'recalibrations' / revistation's over the years, the ratings numbers aren't really accurate. That's not what's being tested here. What's being tested is solely whether or not GC can find the accepted move. No matter how bad your program is, with today's hardware, you should be able to get at least half right. Less than that suggests serious issues with the program. And any program that misses the first position has *major* problems. > But here is where I have a real beef with this > approach: apparently, some of the positions were > snatched from the latest fads in openings theory, > and if you have read some ultra-narrow analysis of Computers don't have to worry about reading... They calculate everything. > the lines in question and could recall everything, > you will pick the "correct" answer. Otherwise, > you're just out of luck, since nobody -- but nobody > -- can figure all this stuff out in the allotted two > minutes. The tests have been widely used in the computer chess world since the report was done. (In fact, the original testing method was essentially impossible to do on computers because it required 2nd & 3rd best lines. But computer chess people long since ignored that.) Even though everybody knew the numbers were bogus and the positions not the best, it was still a standard test that everybody could share and compare. That's why I bothered to suggest it. And if you'll notice, at no time did I ever say the BK or WAC test suites were the best. I said they were classics that most people use. I think there is some confusion here... You are taking the Bratko-Kopec test as they originally intended. As Bratko still advertises it as if it's valid. That's not what computer chess people do. And I didn't suggest he do that. We treat it like any other test suite of positions. The big difference is that instead of it being a private collection of test positions, these are public. And for whatever reason, the positions themselves began to be used as a way to test chess programs and to compare chess programs. Since then, other sets have also become very popular. Such as the Win-At-Chess set, which I also suggested. (I guess everybody has a set of 'favorites', but BK & WAC are certainly among the most common test suites used.) But we don't treat the BK test like they originally intended. You either find the right move and get a +1 score, or you get it wrong and you get a zero. Nothing more. I could have left out the BK test. But the big reason I did suggest it is because it's been used for so long that there are results available for a number of classic chess programs. Sargon 2.5, Sargon 4, Sargon 5, Awit, Chaos, Belle, CrayBlitz, Deep Thought, HiTech, And others. Those are just some I happen to know of off hand. (Plus, of course, any current program can be easily tested with a mere 24 positions of the BK test suite.) It was a way to get some results that could be compared to other, older programs. Some people in here have compared GC to Sargon, Super Connie, etc. I could have also posted other test sets, but I figured two were enough. We'd be lucky if Sanny even did one single position. > comparison, just as in real-world play. In fact, > it seems to me that a well-programmed chess > engine might be a good way to figure out the > real strength of Sanny's program, provided it > can reasonably weaken its own play all the > way down to GetClub's low level. No. There are significant problems in computer vs. computer play. It makes it very hard to actually determine the strength of the new program. For example, the one with the deeper search is likely to win. Regardless of whether its the stronger program when playing humans. Computer vs. computer is just not the same human vs. human or computer vs. human. Hyatt has also noticed that doing too few different starting positions can lead to some very eratic testing results in computer vs. computer. Even with lots of games (thousands to millions) the results are still eratic from one batch to the next. (Has to do with timing fluctuations and limited variability of starting positions.) He's done testing for a year and a half and the eratic nature is quite repeatable. Most people just don't do enough games to notice or do their testing in a different way. Yes, computer vs. computer tournaments are often done. There are often a problem though. First, most tournaments have far too few rounds. You just can't get enough accuracy playing a few dozen games against several other opponents. (The World computer chess championship and all the older similar tournaments were perpitrators of such limited games.) Second, you need to play more than just one or two programs. Sanny playing only against Rybka and coming up with ratings is definetly wrong. Third, for a quality program to actually weaken its play down to a specific level is actually harder than you might think. It's more than just weakening the eval and making the occasional tactical blunder because at other times, the search is going to see so much that most of its moves will still be too strong. The point is, it's difficult to get realistic reduced playing strengths. It can be done, but it's not easy. Any program that gives reduced ratings levels should be looked at with suspicion unless there is testing to back it up. To do computer vs. computer testing reliably and get a reasonable rating, you'd need several programs with reliable strengths and you'd need lots of games for each time control of interest. You need to automate it. You need lots of different opening positions, so opening books aren't being judged. Etc. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---   Date: 18 Aug 2008 23:21:23 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you * Guest <[email protected] > (18:42) schrieb: Why the wild crossposting? This is off-topic in .misc. > FEN starts at A8 and goes across to H8, then A7-H7, etc. Lowercase is > black. Uppercase is white. Numbers are how many blank squares. Slashes > indicate a new row. Hey, just like in Getclub. Except - for empty square, no /, a right-to-left order and [YN]{4} for castling rights. > This is followed by the enpassant square. - means no enpassant possible. I doubt that Getclub can handle en-passant captures. > These are optionally follwed by half move clock & full move clock. You wont > have that in these tests. Because that's only true for FEN, not for EPD. > A test script is easy to do. Or you can program the testing stuff into the > program itself. That's what most people do because it makes testing easy > that way. You just say "epdtest filename" and it grabs the test file, runs > the tests, saves the results to a file and when you come back the results > are ready for you. No human participation required. Getclub would need command line for this to work. :-) > Here are the classic Bratko-Kopec tests. Which would be proper EPD if not for the additional line-feeds. :-) mfg, simon .... thanks     Date: 21 Aug 2008 00:50:13 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you * Guest <[email protected] > (17:42) schrieb: > "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >>* Guest <[email protected]> (00:21) schrieb: > > I appologize for my slightly rude remark. Accepted. > I wasn't in the best of mood to begin with and then your implying that I > deliberately screwed up the post just to annoy people irked me. > > I appologize. Me too. mfg, simon .... l     Date: 20 Aug 2008 01:25:17 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you * Guest <[email protected] > (00:21) schrieb: > "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > (My reply to other stuff snipped as being useless for you....) > >> I blame you. You can blame your own software. > > Oh gee... I'm so hurt. > > What I sent didn't have extra line feeds. Alternate Theory: Someone on the line put them in to annoy us. Fact is: they are there in my spool, so it isn't my NUA. They are only on long lines, so your news authoring tool's line breaking algorithm is the most likely candidate for putting them in. > If you don't like it, feel free to kiss your dog's ass. Maybe you'll like > that better. Sorry, no dog. No hard feelings too, removing the line break wasn't too much work. mfg, simon .... l       Date: 20 Aug 2008 10:42:28 From: Guest Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (00:21) schrieb: I appologize for my slightly rude remark. I wasn't in the best of mood to begin with and then your implying that I deliberately screwed up the post just to annoy people irked me. I appologize. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 19 Aug 2008 21:40:04 From: Simon Krahnke Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you * Guest <[email protected] > (00:33) schrieb: >> Hey, just like in Getclub. Except - for empty square, no /, a >> right-to-left order and [YN]{4} for castling rights. > > There are a lot of near FEN descriptions around. But what program uses that as it's internal representation? >>> This is followed by the enpassant square. - means no enpassant possible. >> >> I doubt that Getclub can handle en-passant captures. > > I'm not in a position to say. I'm in a position to doubt. >>> These are optionally follwed by half move clock & full move clock. You >>> wont have that in these tests. >> >> Because that's only true for FEN, not for EPD. > > Actually you can have them in EPD. EPD is very extensive. Very very few > people implement the whole thing. You can have the data in EPD, but not in the way FEN does it. > You program it into it. It pops up a box that lets you pick the file, and > it goes to work. Applets can't read files. :-) >> Which would be proper EPD if not for the additional line-feeds. :-) > > There were no additional line feeds in what I sent. > > Blame the newsreader. I blame you. You can blame your own software. mfg, simon .... l       Date: 19 Aug 2008 17:21:14 From: Guest Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... (My reply to other stuff snipped as being useless for you....) > I blame you. You can blame your own software. Oh gee... I'm so hurt. What I sent didn't have extra line feeds. But fine.... I put in 734 extra line feeds, 4 carriage returns and two horizontal tabs, just to piss you off. If you don't like it, feel free to kiss your dog's ass. Maybe you'll like that better. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---     Date: 18 Aug 2008 17:33:08 From: Guest Subject: Re: Sanny: Some test positions for you "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Guest <[email protected]> (18:42) schrieb: > > Why the wild crossposting? This is off-topic in .misc. I took the list from his posts. I don't know which groups he actually pays attention to and which one he only glances at. I removed a couple definetly irrelevant ones though. I originally was going to post it in just rgcc but since I was trying to actually help him, I wanted to give him a reasonable chance to see it and ignore it as being unworthy of his attention. >> FEN starts at A8 and goes across to H8, then A7-H7, etc. Lowercase is >> black. Uppercase is white. Numbers are how many blank squares. Slashes >> indicate a new row. > > Hey, just like in Getclub. Except - for empty square, no /, a > right-to-left > order and [YN]{4} for castling rights. There are a lot of near FEN descriptions around. You could probably find programs from the early 70's that used it in some form. >> This is followed by the enpassant square. - means no enpassant possible. > > I doubt that Getclub can handle en-passant captures. I'm not in a position to say. I was just explaining what FEN was, else he would probably come back and say he didn't know what it was and that it was beneath him to do a web search to find out. That's the same reason I posted the tests... since he claims to have an aversion for searching the web for any useful information on chess programming, this way he can't say he didn't encounter them. >> These are optionally follwed by half move clock & full move clock. You >> wont >> have that in these tests. > > Because that's only true for FEN, not for EPD. Actually you can have them in EPD. EPD is very extensive. Very very few people implement the whole thing. The extra stuff for the move clocks are used in tests involving draw by 50 move rule, for example. EPD doesn't care because it goes by the commands rather than where the FEN ends. Somewhere or other I have a decent collection of EPD's that test all the basic stuff like that, enpassant, under-promotions, mate-in-x moves, draw of various kinds, etc. All the useful kinds of tests you need to make sure your program is actually working. Probably burned onto a some unknown cd and stuck in the basement, though. >> A test script is easy to do. Or you can program the testing stuff into >> the >> program itself. That's what most people do because it makes testing easy >> that way. You just say "epdtest filename" and it grabs the test file, >> runs >> the tests, saves the results to a file and when you come back the results >> are ready for you. No human participation required. > > Getclub would need command line for this to work. :-) No you wouldn't. You program it into it. It pops up a box that lets you pick the file, and it goes to work. How he wants to do it is up to him. I was just trying to point out that he doesn't have to do it manually one by one. That he could automate it and then the only effort on his part would be to tell it to start the test. Then he could get up and leave the house. I figured that otherwise he'd say it would take too much effort and that he didn't want to put that much effort into it when obviously Rybka is a better choice, blah blah blah. >> Here are the classic Bratko-Kopec tests. > > Which would be proper EPD if not for the additional line-feeds. :-) There were no additional line feeds in what I sent. Blame the newsreader. But even a few extra linefeeds aren't really an issue. Just a tiny bit of editing. Besides, you and I both know he's actually going to ignore the tests. He's going to go out of his way to pretend to not notice. I was just trying to force things enough so he would have to put some effort into ignoring it, rather than giving an excuse like him not knowing where to find the tests or how to read FEN, etc. etc. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---