Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Where are engine-engine games stored?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 5:53:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

I'm having fun with my newly-functional Shredder 7 interface.

I'm running a G/3 (minutes) contest between Shredder7 and Fruit, the free
engine. So far after 19 games Fruit is winning, 19-7.

My question is: Are these games stored anywhere? I have not been able to
find them. Some are quite fascinating.

Angelo
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 2:14:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Angelo DePalma wrote:
> I'm having fun with my newly-functional Shredder 7 interface.
>
> I'm running a G/3 (minutes) contest between Shredder7 and Fruit, the free
> engine. So far after 19 games Fruit is winning, 19-7.
>
> My question is: Are these games stored anywhere? I have not been able to
> find them. Some are quite fascinating.
>
> Angelo
>
>

somethinglike:
documents and settings/"username"/documents/Chessbase/compbase/engtourn.cbh

"username" is probably you in your case

HD
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 2:14:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

THanks, HD. I'll check it out.

Engine-engine matches are incredibly interesting.

"HD" <hdchess@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:431a0415$0$18639$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>> I'm having fun with my newly-functional Shredder 7 interface.
>>
>> I'm running a G/3 (minutes) contest between Shredder7 and Fruit, the free
>> engine. So far after 19 games Fruit is winning, 19-7.
>>
>> My question is: Are these games stored anywhere? I have not been able to
>> find them. Some are quite fascinating.
>>
>> Angelo
>
> somethinglike:
> documents and
> settings/"username"/documents/Chessbase/compbase/engtourn.cbh
>
> "username" is probably you in your case
>
> HD
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 2:34:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Thanks, it was right where you said it would be.

By the way, after 121 games at G/3 minutes, the score is Fruit 63 - Shredder
58. At this time control Fruit appears to be as strong as Shredder. Some of
these games are absolutely amazing to watch.

Anyone interested in the game scores, let me know.

Angelo


"HD" <hdchess@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:431a0415$0$18639$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>> I'm having fun with my newly-functional Shredder 7 interface.
>>
>> I'm running a G/3 (minutes) contest between Shredder7 and Fruit, the free
>> engine. So far after 19 games Fruit is winning, 19-7.
>>
>> My question is: Are these games stored anywhere? I have not been able to
>> find them. Some are quite fascinating.
>>
>> Angelo
>
> somethinglike:
> documents and
> settings/"username"/documents/Chessbase/compbase/engtourn.cbh
>
> "username" is probably you in your case
>
> HD
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 11:54:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Angelo DePalma wrote:
> Thanks, it was right where you said it would be.
>
> By the way, after 121 games at G/3 minutes, the score is Fruit 63 - Shredder
> 58. At this time control Fruit appears to be as strong as Shredder. Some of
> these games are absolutely amazing to watch.
>
> Anyone interested in the game scores, let me know.
>
> Angelo
>
Funny enough, both authors claims that their programs is bad, "or not so
good" at bullet/blitz... Most tests - also against other engines -
hasn't comfirmed that.
And yes, watching engines play, can be very fascinating!

HD
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 3:27:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

I had the two engines play G/10 minutes + 3 seconds/move overnight, and so
far the result is Fruit 14, Shredder 13. I can't wait to see the slow games.


"HD" <hdchess@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:431a8bf3$0$18650$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>> Thanks, it was right where you said it would be.
>>
>> By the way, after 121 games at G/3 minutes, the score is Fruit 63 -
>> Shredder 58. At this time control Fruit appears to be as strong as
>> Shredder. Some of these games are absolutely amazing to watch.
>>
>> Anyone interested in the game scores, let me know.
>>
>> Angelo
>>
> Funny enough, both authors claims that their programs is bad, "or not so
> good" at bullet/blitz... Most tests - also against other engines - hasn't
> comfirmed that.
> And yes, watching engines play, can be very fascinating!
>
> HD
September 4, 2005 10:50:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 11:27:27 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> using recycled electrons muttered something
about:
>
>I had the two engines play G/10 minutes + 3 seconds/move overnight, and so
>far the result is Fruit 14, Shredder 13. I can't wait to see the slow games.

> Anyone interested in the game scores, let me know.

> Angelo

Hi Angelo,

I would be interested in the having the games if you could zip them and mail
them to:

dayffd at earthlink dot net.

>> Funny enough, both authors claims that their programs is bad, "or not so
>> good" at bullet/blitz... Most tests - also against other engines - hasn't
>> comfirmed that.
>> And yes, watching engines play, can be very fascinating!
>>
>> HD

The games can be especially interesting if the parameters are changed a bit.
For example, when starting a tournament, instead of leaving the "book" settings
at their default, try this: New Tournament/Invite Engine/ (pick an engine, then
Edit the engine)/Book choice (pick a book, e.g. Fritz 8 book)/Book Options (2nd
button down)/ click on "Normal" - note how the variety of play moves to ~80% -
and then increase (or not) the influence of the learn value slider and the
learning strength all the way to the right. Now, your engines will start playing
things like King's Gambits, Faulkbeer Counter-gambits, Benko/Volga gambits, and
other openings, some mainstream, others not so mainstream. :)  The variety
increases tremendously.

Also, with some programs, Shredder being one, you can change the values of the
pieces. Try dropping the value of a pawn by one or two, from 100 to 98 or 99.
Then have it prefer open games. Suddenly, Shredder will be much more willing to
sacrifice a pawn to open a position up. This is not to say that Shredder will be
stronger, indeed, it may even weaken it a bit, but the games can become much
more interesting imo, and worth looking at closely if you like attacking games.

You can also add to your opening books via File/Open/Opening books. Open the
book of your choice. Then, under Edit,/Openings book, you can import games,
combine opening books by "Import book",etc. Be careful, though, when importing
games, the amount of space used up becomes enormous. Leave the cut off number of
moves at the default of 20. Increasing this number results in humongous files.

Anyways....


No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 10:50:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

I'd be happy to send you the games. Do you prefer PGN, ZIP, or CBV?

I'm very interested in implementing some of your ideas. The results would
make an interesting book!

By the way, Fruit won the G/10 match 16-14. So far we have played two G/60 +
3 seconds, and Fruit is ahead 2-0, and has a slight advantage in game 3.

My observations: Fruit tends to use considerably less time than Shredder at
all time controls, especially G/10 and longer. Fruit also appears to be a
deadly endgame player. In one of the G/60s it was down a (doubled) pawn with
rook-file passers on both sides, plus 2 rooks. I was about to adjudicate the
game as a draw but I'm glad I didn't because Fruit won handily. It was quite
a game.


<Chaos@chaos.org> wrote in message
news:38fmh11jsdalo8orrcgqu8529o5h0cdde2@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 11:27:27 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> using recycled electrons muttered
> something
> about:
>>
>>I had the two engines play G/10 minutes + 3 seconds/move overnight, and so
>>far the result is Fruit 14, Shredder 13. I can't wait to see the slow
>>games.
>
>> Anyone interested in the game scores, let me know.
>
>> Angelo
>
> Hi Angelo,
>
> I would be interested in the having the games if you could zip them and
> mail
> them to:
>
> dayffd at earthlink dot net.
>
>>> Funny enough, both authors claims that their programs is bad, "or not so
>>> good" at bullet/blitz... Most tests - also against other engines -
>>> hasn't
>>> comfirmed that.
>>> And yes, watching engines play, can be very fascinating!
>>>
>>> HD
>
> The games can be especially interesting if the parameters are changed a
> bit.
> For example, when starting a tournament, instead of leaving the "book"
> settings
> at their default, try this: New Tournament/Invite Engine/ (pick an engine,
> then
> Edit the engine)/Book choice (pick a book, e.g. Fritz 8 book)/Book Options
> (2nd
> button down)/ click on "Normal" - note how the variety of play moves to
> ~80% -
> and then increase (or not) the influence of the learn value slider and the
> learning strength all the way to the right. Now, your engines will start
> playing
> things like King's Gambits, Faulkbeer Counter-gambits, Benko/Volga
> gambits, and
> other openings, some mainstream, others not so mainstream. :)  The variety
> increases tremendously.
>
> Also, with some programs, Shredder being one, you can change the values of
> the
> pieces. Try dropping the value of a pawn by one or two, from 100 to 98 or
> 99.
> Then have it prefer open games. Suddenly, Shredder will be much more
> willing to
> sacrifice a pawn to open a position up. This is not to say that Shredder
> will be
> stronger, indeed, it may even weaken it a bit, but the games can become
> much
> more interesting imo, and worth looking at closely if you like attacking
> games.
>
> You can also add to your opening books via File/Open/Opening books. Open
> the
> book of your choice. Then, under Edit,/Openings book, you can import
> games,
> combine opening books by "Import book",etc. Be careful, though, when
> importing
> games, the amount of space used up becomes enormous. Leave the cut off
> number of
> moves at the default of 20. Increasing this number results in humongous
> files.
>
> Anyways....
>
>
> No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 10:50:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Actually the results of the G/10 + 3 secons was Fruit 18, Shredder 14.
That's a significant difference to me.


<Chaos@chaos.org> wrote in message
news:38fmh11jsdalo8orrcgqu8529o5h0cdde2@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 11:27:27 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> using recycled electrons muttered
> something
> about:
>>
>>I had the two engines play G/10 minutes + 3 seconds/move overnight, and so
>>far the result is Fruit 14, Shredder 13. I can't wait to see the slow
>>games.
>
>> Anyone interested in the game scores, let me know.
>
>> Angelo
>
> Hi Angelo,
>
> I would be interested in the having the games if you could zip them and
> mail
> them to:
>
> dayffd at earthlink dot net.
>
>>> Funny enough, both authors claims that their programs is bad, "or not so
>>> good" at bullet/blitz... Most tests - also against other engines -
>>> hasn't
>>> comfirmed that.
>>> And yes, watching engines play, can be very fascinating!
>>>
>>> HD
>
> The games can be especially interesting if the parameters are changed a
> bit.
> For example, when starting a tournament, instead of leaving the "book"
> settings
> at their default, try this: New Tournament/Invite Engine/ (pick an engine,
> then
> Edit the engine)/Book choice (pick a book, e.g. Fritz 8 book)/Book Options
> (2nd
> button down)/ click on "Normal" - note how the variety of play moves to
> ~80% -
> and then increase (or not) the influence of the learn value slider and the
> learning strength all the way to the right. Now, your engines will start
> playing
> things like King's Gambits, Faulkbeer Counter-gambits, Benko/Volga
> gambits, and
> other openings, some mainstream, others not so mainstream. :)  The variety
> increases tremendously.
>
> Also, with some programs, Shredder being one, you can change the values of
> the
> pieces. Try dropping the value of a pawn by one or two, from 100 to 98 or
> 99.
> Then have it prefer open games. Suddenly, Shredder will be much more
> willing to
> sacrifice a pawn to open a position up. This is not to say that Shredder
> will be
> stronger, indeed, it may even weaken it a bit, but the games can become
> much
> more interesting imo, and worth looking at closely if you like attacking
> games.
>
> You can also add to your opening books via File/Open/Opening books. Open
> the
> book of your choice. Then, under Edit,/Openings book, you can import
> games,
> combine opening books by "Import book",etc. Be careful, though, when
> importing
> games, the amount of space used up becomes enormous. Leave the cut off
> number of
> moves at the default of 20. Increasing this number results in humongous
> files.
>
> Anyways....
>
>
> No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
September 5, 2005 2:19:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:44:08 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> using recycled electrons muttered something
about:
>I'd be happy to send you the games. Do you prefer PGN, ZIP, or CBV?

pgn files, zipped would be my preference.

What version of Fruit? Fruit 2.1 is the strongest.

>I'm very interested in implementing some of your ideas. The results would
>make an interesting book!

I've already made a couple of books, with some additional material. But yes, a
book with GM analysis would be interesting.

I made a couple of settings for CMX (Chessmaster 10) that I've been testing
against various engines in 10 minute blitz. The results have been good, but so
far against fairly dated engines: Fritz 5.32, Nimzo 7.32, Hiarcs 7.32, Zappa
1.0, and Crafty 18.15. I'm still running tests, but I doubt these settings are
as good as others. These settings make Chessmaster 10 pretty aggressive, but
also it seems to me the engine, with these settings, the play is nearly
indistinguishable from that of a strong human master, playing moves a human
would make rather than a chess engine. Fascinating to watch!
No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 3:56:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

I'm fascinated that you're interested in human-like computer play. I am
also, but not from the point of view of making the program stronger. I would
like to set an engine up so it plays human-like at the 2100-2200 level. I
think it would be a good opponent for me (I'm around 1900).

I'll send you those files as zipped PGN tomorrow or Tuesday. I'd like to
wait for the results of the G/60s.

BTW, as these engines become capable of beating a higher and higher
percentile of GMs, I believe human analysis is becoming irrelevant. There
was a time when a GM or strong IM could poke fun at chess engines. The term
"computer chess" was used in a derogatory manner to describe machines that
apparently did not possess the planning and strategic vision of humans. I
have a position from one of my games, where I beat a much-higher rated
player in a study-like ending. I saw the long series of moves that won the
game by force, but to this day my Shredder cannot.

Still, I would trade any 2600 player's (and probably any 2800 player's)
chess knowledge and strategy -- all the stock "plans" for playing the
canonical positions -- for the sheer calculating power of one of these top
engines. They will beat any Nimzoindian expert (or Kalashnikhov expert, or
Benoni expert, etc.) at their own game time after time. It is becoming
difficult, even silly, to argue with that kind of success.

What do you think?

Angelo

<Chaos@chaos.org> wrote in message
news:c4smh1p9febuc2ln2lmn75eidnugd8cmvs@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:44:08 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> using recycled electrons muttered
> something
> about:
>>I'd be happy to send you the games. Do you prefer PGN, ZIP, or CBV?
>
> pgn files, zipped would be my preference.
>
> What version of Fruit? Fruit 2.1 is the strongest.
>
>>I'm very interested in implementing some of your ideas. The results would
>>make an interesting book!
>
> I've already made a couple of books, with some additional material. But
> yes, a
> book with GM analysis would be interesting.
>
> I made a couple of settings for CMX (Chessmaster 10) that I've been
> testing
> against various engines in 10 minute blitz. The results have been good,
> but so
> far against fairly dated engines: Fritz 5.32, Nimzo 7.32, Hiarcs 7.32,
> Zappa
> 1.0, and Crafty 18.15. I'm still running tests, but I doubt these settings
> are
> as good as others. These settings make Chessmaster 10 pretty aggressive,
> but
> also it seems to me the engine, with these settings, the play is nearly
> indistinguishable from that of a strong human master, playing moves a
> human
> would make rather than a chess engine. Fascinating to watch!
> No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
September 5, 2005 11:20:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:56:43 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> using recycled electrons muttered something
about:
>I'm fascinated that you're interested in human-like computer play.

Actually, it was not until I was watching this engine/settings play that I
became interested in seeing how like a human this one plays. Here are a couple
of games fro one of the matches:

[Site "Riverdale"]
[Date "2005.09.04"]
[Round "2.1"]
[White "CMX Dayffd 1.0"]
[Black "Junior 6.0"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C48"]
[BlackElo "2451"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Nd4 5. O-O Nxb5 6. Nxb5 c6 7. Nc3 d6 8.
d4 Qc7 9. Bg5 Be7 10. h3 O-O 11. Qd2 Be6 12. Rad1 Rfd8 13. d5 Bc8 14. Rfe1 h6
15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. b3 Be7 17. Ne2 Bd7 18. c4 a5 19. Ng3 a4 20. b4 cxd5 21. cxd5
Qb6 22. Nf5 Bxf5 23. exf5 Rdc8 24. Rc1 Qb5 25. a3 Rxc1 26. Rxc1 Bd8?

{Better is 26...Bf6!}

27. Qd1 Bb6 28. f6! g6 29. Nh2 h5 30. Nf1 Bd8 31. Qf3 Rb8 32. Nd2 Bb6 33. Rc4
Bd4 34. Rc7 Bb6 35. Rc2 Ba7 36. Rc3 Re8 37. Rc4 Bd4 38. Qe4 Rd8 39. Rc2 Rf8 40.
Nf3 Bb6 41. Ng5 Qd7 42. Qc4 Ra8 43. Ne4 Rf8 44. Rc1 Ra8 45. b5 Qf5 46. Qe2 Rc8
47. Rxc8+ Qxc8 48. Qd2 Bc5

{Giving up the knight to allow the king to go to h7 without being immediately
forced back by Ng5+ etc., but this sacrifice does not effect the outcome of the
game.}

49. Nxc5 Kh7 50. Ne4 Qc7 51. Ng5+ Kg8 52. Ne6 fxe6 53. dxe6 Kh7 54. b6 Qc8 55.
e7 1-0

[Event "05CMXD1.0vJunior 6"]
[Site "Riverdale"]
[Date "2005.09.04"]
[Round "6.1"]
[White "CMX Dayffd 1.0"]
[Black "Junior 6.0"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A09"]
[BlackElo "2451"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 g6 4. e3 c5 5. exd4 cxd4 6. d3 Nc6 7. Bg2 Qa5+ 8. Nbd2
Nf6 9. O-O Bg7 10. Nb3 Qb6 11. Re1 Bg4 12. h3 Be6 13. Ne5 Rc8 14. Nxc6 bxc6 15.
a4 c5 16. a5 Qa6 17. Qe2 O-O 18. Bf4 Rfe8 19. Be5 Bh6 20. g4 Nd7 21. Bg3 Bg7
22. Qf3 Rf8 23. Bf4 Kh8 24. Re2 Rg8 25. Qb7 Qxb7 26. Bxb7 Rcd8 27. Bc6 Rge8 28.
Rxe6 !!

{Junior expected 28.Bxd7 Rxd7 when it is still in the game, although
white should still win on the queenside.}

28... fxe6 29. Bc7 e5 30. Bxd8 Rxd8 31. Bxd7 Rxd7 32. Nxc5 Rd8 33. b4 Rc8 34.
Ne4 Kg8 35. b5 Rb8 36. Rb1 Kf7 37. c5 Ke6 38. b6 Kd5 39. bxa7 Ra8 40. Rb7 Kc6
41. a6 Bf6 42. g5 Bg7 43. Nd2 e4 44. Nxe4 Be5 45. Rxe7 Bf4 46. Rxh7 Kb5 47. Rb7+
Kxa6 48. c6 Ka5 49. Nc5 Bd6 50. Ne6 Ka6 51. Rd7 Be5 52. Rd5 Rc8 53. Rxe5 1-0

The exclams, queries, etc., are mine. I think it would be difficult to tell that
engines were playing the above games and not humans.

>I am
>also, but not from the point of view of making the program stronger. I would
>like to set an engine up so it plays human-like at the 2100-2200 level. I
>think it would be a good opponent for me (I'm around 1900).

That can be done, although it is best done with engines that have changable
parameters, such as values for center control, piece/pawns values, mobility,
combinations, etc., rather than in Fritz or cousins "handicap" modes and the
like. There the results tend to be to extreme, with the engine making a childish
blunder by poitching a piece or two, then playing like a GM, and so on. It
requires a finer touch. Other than that, there are numerous free engines that
are simply "weaker" than the other engines. For example, BamBam may give you a
good game, or Doctor? 3.0,. And a number of both uci and wb engines.

>I'll send you those files as zipped PGN tomorrow or Tuesday. I'd like to
>wait for the results of the G/60s.

Ok.

>BTW, as these engines become capable of beating a higher and higher
>percentile of GMs, I believe human analysis is becoming irrelevant.

I disagree with you on this. It is true that chess is 99% or so tactics. It is
also true that these engines seldom make tactical errors, at least within the
first move or two. But for an overall plan, and recognition, you still need a
human to advise or suggest what would be a goal to shoot at. For instance, 3 - 4
months ago I was playing with a weak chess player, and during one game, late in
the middle game, I mentioned that she should take care of her bishop and not let
me exchange it since her one passed pawn queening square was the same color as
her bishop. Now, any reasonably competent player would know that all other
things being equal, that bishop gains in significance as the pawn moves closer
to that square, where a computer engine cannot tell you that at some point in
the undefined future a piece's value may be more than it's current value.

It is true, also, that as you say, "There was a time when a GM or strong IM
could poke fun at chess engines," but that time is certainly over, and has been.

> I have a position from one of my games, where I beat a much-higher rated
>player in a study-like ending. I saw the long series of moves that won the
>game by force, but to this day my Shredder cannot.

Ummmmmm....how long have you let Shredder work on it? If the entire line was
forced, Shredder may be able to find the line given enough time. Do you have the
game score handy?

>Still, I would trade any 2600 player's (and probably any 2800 player's)
>chess knowledge and strategy -- all the stock "plans" for playing the
>canonical positions -- for the sheer calculating power of one of these top
>engines. They will beat any Nimzoindian expert (or Kalashnikhov expert, or
>Benoni expert, etc.) at their own game time after time. It is becoming
>difficult, even silly, to argue with that kind of success.
>
>What do you think?

That is a hard question! Think I'll pass - I would prefer to combine both. I'll
tell you one thing that has surprised me the most, I think. If you look at the
analysis of old tournaments by the old masters, for example St. Petersburg,
1909, or Nottingham, 1936, and so on - the ones that have good game annotations,
it has surprised me how often some of the top engines, such as Fritz 6, 7, 8,
and others, offer the same tactical suggestions as the old masters did. I don't
know if it is that the engines offer the same lines that the masters did, or
vice versa.


No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 12:01:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Hi!

"Angelo DePalma"
> Actually the results of the G/10 + 3 secons was Fruit 18, Shredder 14.
> That's a significant difference to me.

Shredder 9? Or Shredder 7? or 7.04?
Do you used TBS?

Regards
SoloMoon
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 12:21:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

It's Shredder 7 under the Fritz UI (I bought it as such from ChessBase).

What's a TBS? Table base? In the case I mentioned, Shredder screwed up with
about 12 pieces/pawns on the board. By the time they were in table base
territory Shredder was lost.

I don't believe in using TBs in engine-engine matches. It's cheating!!
They're playing engines, after all. Let 'em play.

Angelo

"Solomon Nuffert" <snuff@vmail.ru> wrote in message
news:D fi0gl$ebr$1@serv3.vsi.ru...
> Hi!
>
> "Angelo DePalma"
> > Actually the results of the G/10 + 3 secons was Fruit 18, Shredder 14.
>> That's a significant difference to me.
>
> Shredder 9? Or Shredder 7? or 7.04?
> Do you used TBS?
>
> Regards
> SoloMoon
>
>
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 12:35:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Here is the position with White to move in DePalma (1860) vs. Fernandez
(2139):

W: Ka2, Qb3, pc5, pg5
B: pa5, Qc2, pf7, pg6 and Black has just moved his Kh7-g7, which loses by
force.

My Shredder 7 has been analyzing this position for 4 minutes now and gives
the evaluation as -0.44.

Now move 63. Qb2+ and see what Herr Shredder says. Mine initially jumps to
a -2 evaluation, but after about 20 seconds says White is winning. If B goes
over to the Q side via f8 W captures on a5 and defends c5. The threat of
queening that pawn wins the game. If black tries ...f5 at any point (which
my opponent did after moving his king) he loses just as badly.

Players as bad as me hardly get to play interesting endings like that (or
play them well). I'm proud of that game because I noticed the f7 pawn in the
way and that I'd be able to outflank my opponent in all variations (or
simply queen).

Angelo


<Chaos@chaos.org> wrote in message
news:D 05ph15dom89me8sdll638164jchiq9m42@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:56:43 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> using recycled electrons muttered
> something
> about:
>>I'm fascinated that you're interested in human-like computer play.
>
> Actually, it was not until I was watching this engine/settings play that I
> became interested in seeing how like a human this one plays. Here are a
> couple
> of games fro one of the matches:
>
> [Site "Riverdale"]
> [Date "2005.09.04"]
> [Round "2.1"]
> [White "CMX Dayffd 1.0"]
> [Black "Junior 6.0"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C48"]
> [BlackElo "2451"]
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Nd4 5. O-O Nxb5 6. Nxb5 c6 7. Nc3 d6
> 8.
> d4 Qc7 9. Bg5 Be7 10. h3 O-O 11. Qd2 Be6 12. Rad1 Rfd8 13. d5 Bc8 14. Rfe1
> h6
> 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. b3 Be7 17. Ne2 Bd7 18. c4 a5 19. Ng3 a4 20. b4 cxd5 21.
> cxd5
> Qb6 22. Nf5 Bxf5 23. exf5 Rdc8 24. Rc1 Qb5 25. a3 Rxc1 26. Rxc1 Bd8?
>
> {Better is 26...Bf6!}
>
> 27. Qd1 Bb6 28. f6! g6 29. Nh2 h5 30. Nf1 Bd8 31. Qf3 Rb8 32. Nd2 Bb6 33.
> Rc4
> Bd4 34. Rc7 Bb6 35. Rc2 Ba7 36. Rc3 Re8 37. Rc4 Bd4 38. Qe4 Rd8 39. Rc2
> Rf8 40.
> Nf3 Bb6 41. Ng5 Qd7 42. Qc4 Ra8 43. Ne4 Rf8 44. Rc1 Ra8 45. b5 Qf5 46. Qe2
> Rc8
> 47. Rxc8+ Qxc8 48. Qd2 Bc5
>
> {Giving up the knight to allow the king to go to h7 without being
> immediately
> forced back by Ng5+ etc., but this sacrifice does not effect the outcome
> of the
> game.}
>
> 49. Nxc5 Kh7 50. Ne4 Qc7 51. Ng5+ Kg8 52. Ne6 fxe6 53. dxe6 Kh7 54. b6 Qc8
> 55.
> e7 1-0
>
> [Event "05CMXD1.0vJunior 6"]
> [Site "Riverdale"]
> [Date "2005.09.04"]
> [Round "6.1"]
> [White "CMX Dayffd 1.0"]
> [Black "Junior 6.0"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "A09"]
> [BlackElo "2451"]
>
> 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 d4 3. g3 g6 4. e3 c5 5. exd4 cxd4 6. d3 Nc6 7. Bg2 Qa5+ 8.
> Nbd2
> Nf6 9. O-O Bg7 10. Nb3 Qb6 11. Re1 Bg4 12. h3 Be6 13. Ne5 Rc8 14. Nxc6
> bxc6 15.
> a4 c5 16. a5 Qa6 17. Qe2 O-O 18. Bf4 Rfe8 19. Be5 Bh6 20. g4 Nd7 21. Bg3
> Bg7
> 22. Qf3 Rf8 23. Bf4 Kh8 24. Re2 Rg8 25. Qb7 Qxb7 26. Bxb7 Rcd8 27. Bc6
> Rge8 28.
> Rxe6 !!
>
> {Junior expected 28.Bxd7 Rxd7 when it is still in the game, although
> white should still win on the queenside.}
>
> 28... fxe6 29. Bc7 e5 30. Bxd8 Rxd8 31. Bxd7 Rxd7 32. Nxc5 Rd8 33. b4 Rc8
> 34.
> Ne4 Kg8 35. b5 Rb8 36. Rb1 Kf7 37. c5 Ke6 38. b6 Kd5 39. bxa7 Ra8 40. Rb7
> Kc6
> 41. a6 Bf6 42. g5 Bg7 43. Nd2 e4 44. Nxe4 Be5 45. Rxe7 Bf4 46. Rxh7 Kb5
> 47. Rb7+
> Kxa6 48. c6 Ka5 49. Nc5 Bd6 50. Ne6 Ka6 51. Rd7 Be5 52. Rd5 Rc8 53. Rxe5
> 1-0
>
> The exclams, queries, etc., are mine. I think it would be difficult to
> tell that
> engines were playing the above games and not humans.
>
>>I am
>>also, but not from the point of view of making the program stronger. I
>>would
>>like to set an engine up so it plays human-like at the 2100-2200 level. I
>>think it would be a good opponent for me (I'm around 1900).
>
> That can be done, although it is best done with engines that have
> changable
> parameters, such as values for center control, piece/pawns values,
> mobility,
> combinations, etc., rather than in Fritz or cousins "handicap" modes and
> the
> like. There the results tend to be to extreme, with the engine making a
> childish
> blunder by poitching a piece or two, then playing like a GM, and so on. It
> requires a finer touch. Other than that, there are numerous free engines
> that
> are simply "weaker" than the other engines. For example, BamBam may give
> you a
> good game, or Doctor? 3.0,. And a number of both uci and wb engines.
>
>>I'll send you those files as zipped PGN tomorrow or Tuesday. I'd like to
>>wait for the results of the G/60s.
>
> Ok.
>
>>BTW, as these engines become capable of beating a higher and higher
>>percentile of GMs, I believe human analysis is becoming irrelevant.
>
> I disagree with you on this. It is true that chess is 99% or so tactics.
> It is
> also true that these engines seldom make tactical errors, at least within
> the
> first move or two. But for an overall plan, and recognition, you still
> need a
> human to advise or suggest what would be a goal to shoot at. For instance,
> 3 - 4
> months ago I was playing with a weak chess player, and during one game,
> late in
> the middle game, I mentioned that she should take care of her bishop and
> not let
> me exchange it since her one passed pawn queening square was the same
> color as
> her bishop. Now, any reasonably competent player would know that all other
> things being equal, that bishop gains in significance as the pawn moves
> closer
> to that square, where a computer engine cannot tell you that at some point
> in
> the undefined future a piece's value may be more than it's current value.
>
> It is true, also, that as you say, "There was a time when a GM or strong
> IM
> could poke fun at chess engines," but that time is certainly over, and has
> been.
>
>> I have a position from one of my games, where I beat a much-higher rated
>>player in a study-like ending. I saw the long series of moves that won the
>>game by force, but to this day my Shredder cannot.
>
> Ummmmmm....how long have you let Shredder work on it? If the entire line
> was
> forced, Shredder may be able to find the line given enough time. Do you
> have the
> game score handy?
>
>>Still, I would trade any 2600 player's (and probably any 2800 player's)
>>chess knowledge and strategy -- all the stock "plans" for playing the
>>canonical positions -- for the sheer calculating power of one of these top
>>engines. They will beat any Nimzoindian expert (or Kalashnikhov expert, or
>>Benoni expert, etc.) at their own game time after time. It is becoming
>>difficult, even silly, to argue with that kind of success.
>>
>>What do you think?
>
> That is a hard question! Think I'll pass - I would prefer to combine both.
> I'll
> tell you one thing that has surprised me the most, I think. If you look at
> the
> analysis of old tournaments by the old masters, for example St.
> Petersburg,
> 1909, or Nottingham, 1936, and so on - the ones that have good game
> annotations,
> it has surprised me how often some of the top engines, such as Fritz 6, 7,
> 8,
> and others, offer the same tactical suggestions as the old masters did. I
> don't
> know if it is that the engines offer the same lines that the masters did,
> or
> vice versa.
>
>
> No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
September 6, 2005 4:38:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:35:10 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> using recycled electrons muttered something
about:
>Here is the position with White to move in DePalma (1860) vs. Fernandez
>(2139):
>
>W: Ka2, Qb3, pc5, pg5
>B: pa5, Qc2, pf7, pg6 and Black has just moved his Kh7-g7, which loses by
>force.

There is a problem with the set up as given above: Black's queen cannot be on c2
since white is in check. So, first question: where is black's queen? I tried
putting the queen on c7 and below is a sample with white to move:
(First time I tried my CMX settings in analysis mode. Interesting in that I also
would have chosen 1.Qb6 on a very fast look, but I quickly came to the
conclusion that 1.Qb6 only draws.)
=========================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by CMX Dayffd 1.1:

1.Qb6 Qh2+ 2.Kb3 Qg3+ 3.Ka4 Qf4+ 4.Kxa5 Qxg5 5.Ka6 f5 6.c6 Qg2 7.Kb7 Kf6
= (0.23) Depth: 11 00:01:37 11086kN

========================================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by CMX Dayffd 1.0:

1.Qb6 Qh2+ 2.Kb3 Qg3+ 3.Ka4 Qf4+ 4.Kxa5 Qxg5 5.Ka6 f5 6.c6 Qg2 7.Kb7 Kf6
= (0.23) Depth: 11 00:01:39 10975kN

=================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by CM9000 Slayer:

1.Qc3+ Kf8 2.c6 Ke7 3.Qf6+ Ke8 4.Kb3 Qb8+ 5.Kc4 Qb4+ 6.Kd3 Qb3+ 7.Kd2 Qb4+ 8.Kd1
Qb3+ 9.Kc1 a4 10.Qh8+ Ke7
+/= (0.31) Depth: 10 00:02:07 2625kN

==================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Chess Tiger 15.0:

1.Qb6 Qe5 2.c6 Qd6 3.Qb2+ Kf8 4.Qc3 Qc7 5.Kb3 Ke7 6.Qf6+ Kf8 7.Kc4 Ke8 8.Kb5
= (0.06) Depth: 13 00:02:15 14079kN, tb=136

===================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Fritz 8:

1.Qb6 Qh2+ 2.Kb3 Qe5 3.c6 a4+ 4.Kxa4 Qa1+ 5.Kb5 Qf1+ 6.Ka4
= (0.00) Depth: 13/37 00:01:01 28426kN, tb=199

===================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Gandalf 6.0:

1.Qb2+ Kf8 2.Qh8+ Ke7 3.Qf6+ Ke8 4.c6 Qg3 5.Qh8+ Ke7 6.Qf6+ Ke8
= (0.00) Depth: 13/40 00:03:06 7114kN, tb=10848

====================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Hiarcs 9:

1.Qb6 Qf4 2.c6 Qc4+ 3.Kb2 Qe2+ 4.Ka3 Qd3+ 5.Ka4
= (0.04) Depth: 12/34 00:01:13 12392kN, tb=2661

=====================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Junior 9:

1.Qb6 Qf4 2.c6 Qc4+ 3.Ka3 Qd3+ 4.Ka4 Qc4+ 5.Kxa5 Qa2+ 6.Kb4 Qb2+ 7.Kc5 Qf2+
8.Kb5 Qe2+ 9.Kb4
² (0.58) Depth: 14 00:00:29 19007kN, tb=3399

======================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Shredder 7.04:

1.Qc3+ Kf8 2.Kb3 Qc6 3.Qxa5 Qd5+ 4.Kb4 Qxg5 5.c6 Qd2+ 6.Kb5 Qb2+ 7.Kc4 Qc2+
8.Kb5 Qb1+ 9.Kc4 Qf1+ 10.Kc5 Qf5+ 11.Kb6 Qh3 12.Kb7
= (0.03) Depth: 13/33 00:01:00 11847kN, tb=16623

======================================================
======================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/8/KQ6/8 b - - 0 1

Analysis by Shredder 7.04:

1...Kf8 2.Qh8+ Ke7 3.Qf6+ Kf8 4.Qh8+ Ke7 5.Qf6+ Kf8 6.Qh8+ Ke7
= (0.01) Depth: 15/37 00:01:14 15497kN, tb=24721

======================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/8/KQ6/8 b - - 0 1

Analysis by Junior 9:

1...Kf8 2.Qb6 Qf4 3.c6 Qd2+ 4.Ka3 Qc3+ 5.Ka4 Qc2+ 6.Kxa5 Qa2+ 7.Kb5 Qe2+ 8.Kb4
Qb2+ 9.Ka5
= (0.00) Depth: 15 00:00:30 26695kN, tb=6034

======================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/8/KQ6/8 b - - 0 1

Analysis by CMX Dayffd 1.1:

1...Kf8 2.Qh8+ Ke7 3.Qf6+ Kf8 4.c6 Ke8 5.Kb3 Qb6+ 6.Kc2 Qb5 7.Qh8+ Ke7 8.Qf6+
Ke8
= (0.00) Depth: 12 00:01:05 7553kN

=======================================================

New game,
8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/8/KQ6/8 b - - 0 1

Analysis by Fritz 8:

1...Kf8 2.Qh8+ Ke7 3.Qf6+ Kf8 4.c6 Ke8 5.Kb3 Qb6+ 6.Ka3 Qb4+ 7.Ka2 Qc4+ 8.Ka3
Qb4+
= (0.00) Depth: 14/34 00:00:22 10452kN, tb=148



No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 4:38:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

So sorry. The White K is on a3, not a2.

Angelo


<Chaos@chaos.org> wrote in message
news:ut2rh1t5ibkjoa36jjpv7pm0i4afcfleiv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:35:10 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> using recycled electrons muttered
> something
> about:
>>Here is the position with White to move in DePalma (1860) vs. Fernandez
>>(2139):
>>
>>W: Ka2, Qb3, pc5, pg5
>>B: pa5, Qc2, pf7, pg6 and Black has just moved his Kh7-g7, which loses by
>>force.
>
> There is a problem with the set up as given above: Black's queen cannot be
> on c2
> since white is in check. So, first question: where is black's queen? I
> tried
> putting the queen on c7 and below is a sample with white to move:
> (First time I tried my CMX settings in analysis mode. Interesting in that
> I also
> would have chosen 1.Qb6 on a very fast look, but I quickly came to the
> conclusion that 1.Qb6 only draws.)
> =========================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by CMX Dayffd 1.1:
>
> 1.Qb6 Qh2+ 2.Kb3 Qg3+ 3.Ka4 Qf4+ 4.Kxa5 Qxg5 5.Ka6 f5 6.c6 Qg2 7.Kb7 Kf6
> = (0.23) Depth: 11 00:01:37 11086kN
>
> ========================================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by CMX Dayffd 1.0:
>
> 1.Qb6 Qh2+ 2.Kb3 Qg3+ 3.Ka4 Qf4+ 4.Kxa5 Qxg5 5.Ka6 f5 6.c6 Qg2 7.Kb7 Kf6
> = (0.23) Depth: 11 00:01:39 10975kN
>
> =================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by CM9000 Slayer:
>
> 1.Qc3+ Kf8 2.c6 Ke7 3.Qf6+ Ke8 4.Kb3 Qb8+ 5.Kc4 Qb4+ 6.Kd3 Qb3+ 7.Kd2 Qb4+
> 8.Kd1
> Qb3+ 9.Kc1 a4 10.Qh8+ Ke7
> +/= (0.31) Depth: 10 00:02:07 2625kN
>
> ==================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by Chess Tiger 15.0:
>
> 1.Qb6 Qe5 2.c6 Qd6 3.Qb2+ Kf8 4.Qc3 Qc7 5.Kb3 Ke7 6.Qf6+ Kf8 7.Kc4 Ke8
> 8.Kb5
> = (0.06) Depth: 13 00:02:15 14079kN, tb=136
>
> ===================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by Fritz 8:
>
> 1.Qb6 Qh2+ 2.Kb3 Qe5 3.c6 a4+ 4.Kxa4 Qa1+ 5.Kb5 Qf1+ 6.Ka4
> = (0.00) Depth: 13/37 00:01:01 28426kN, tb=199
>
> ===================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by Gandalf 6.0:
>
> 1.Qb2+ Kf8 2.Qh8+ Ke7 3.Qf6+ Ke8 4.c6 Qg3 5.Qh8+ Ke7 6.Qf6+ Ke8
> = (0.00) Depth: 13/40 00:03:06 7114kN, tb=10848
>
> ====================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by Hiarcs 9:
>
> 1.Qb6 Qf4 2.c6 Qc4+ 3.Kb2 Qe2+ 4.Ka3 Qd3+ 5.Ka4
> = (0.04) Depth: 12/34 00:01:13 12392kN, tb=2661
>
> =====================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by Junior 9:
>
> 1.Qb6 Qf4 2.c6 Qc4+ 3.Ka3 Qd3+ 4.Ka4 Qc4+ 5.Kxa5 Qa2+ 6.Kb4 Qb2+ 7.Kc5
> Qf2+
> 8.Kb5 Qe2+ 9.Kb4
> ² (0.58) Depth: 14 00:00:29 19007kN, tb=3399
>
> ======================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/1Q6/K7/8 w - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by Shredder 7.04:
>
> 1.Qc3+ Kf8 2.Kb3 Qc6 3.Qxa5 Qd5+ 4.Kb4 Qxg5 5.c6 Qd2+ 6.Kb5 Qb2+ 7.Kc4
> Qc2+
> 8.Kb5 Qb1+ 9.Kc4 Qf1+ 10.Kc5 Qf5+ 11.Kb6 Qh3 12.Kb7
> = (0.03) Depth: 13/33 00:01:00 11847kN, tb=16623
>
> ======================================================
> ======================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/8/KQ6/8 b - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by Shredder 7.04:
>
> 1...Kf8 2.Qh8+ Ke7 3.Qf6+ Kf8 4.Qh8+ Ke7 5.Qf6+ Kf8 6.Qh8+ Ke7
> = (0.01) Depth: 15/37 00:01:14 15497kN, tb=24721
>
> ======================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/8/KQ6/8 b - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by Junior 9:
>
> 1...Kf8 2.Qb6 Qf4 3.c6 Qd2+ 4.Ka3 Qc3+ 5.Ka4 Qc2+ 6.Kxa5 Qa2+ 7.Kb5 Qe2+
> 8.Kb4
> Qb2+ 9.Ka5
> = (0.00) Depth: 15 00:00:30 26695kN, tb=6034
>
> ======================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/8/KQ6/8 b - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by CMX Dayffd 1.1:
>
> 1...Kf8 2.Qh8+ Ke7 3.Qf6+ Kf8 4.c6 Ke8 5.Kb3 Qb6+ 6.Kc2 Qb5 7.Qh8+ Ke7
> 8.Qf6+
> Ke8
> = (0.00) Depth: 12 00:01:05 7553kN
>
> =======================================================
>
> New game,
> 8/2q2pk1/6p1/p1P3P1/8/8/KQ6/8 b - - 0 1
>
> Analysis by Fritz 8:
>
> 1...Kf8 2.Qh8+ Ke7 3.Qf6+ Kf8 4.c6 Ke8 5.Kb3 Qb6+ 6.Ka3 Qb4+ 7.Ka2 Qc4+
> 8.Ka3
> Qb4+
> = (0.00) Depth: 14/34 00:00:22 10452kN, tb=148
>
>
>
> No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
September 8, 2005 1:06:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:31:37 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> using recycled electrons muttered something
about:
>So sorry. The White K is on a3, not a2.
>
>Angelo

No problem. The black queen is on c2?

I'll have to come back to this in a couple of days...
Have some medical stuff to take care of.



No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 4:30:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Yes, the W K is on a3, B Q is on c2.

<Chaos@chaos.org> wrote in message
news:ghluh1p1ts82ognl2p99akj9ufg3nknkm4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:31:37 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> using recycled electrons muttered
> something
> about:
>>So sorry. The White K is on a3, not a2.
>>
>>Angelo
>
> No problem. The black queen is on c2?
>
> I'll have to come back to this in a couple of days...
> Have some medical stuff to take care of.
>
>
>
> No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
!