Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Chessfun at 18 May 2000 01:39:56:
Frank,
As you were nice enough to sign my guestbook....thanks....and put
a link to my little tourney, yesterday and today I autoplayed your fav
program AnMon CB ver 5.07 v F6a and J6a. On two celeron 433's.
AnMon had an excellent performance in my Young Talents Tourney coming 4th.
All engs used F6 general.ctg, the games were played at 1 hour game.
For owners of J6 or F6 if you could look over the games and see if you can
detect any problems I would appreciate it. BTW I ask this not due to
AnMonster's winning v Fritz but due to having some problems in the past with
autoplayer and more eyes looking at the games may see something.
Therefore the games posted are with the notations of F6 and J6.
One funny thing I did notice as I watched parts of these games was sometimes
AnMon ponders a totally silly move that it may expect of it's opponent.
I noticed this a few times but specifically remember one in game 1 with F6
after AnMon played 12.....exd5 it expected F6 to play something other than
Bb3 and naturally scored it as + to black.
Now if I examine the game at that move it expects Bb3....funny thing though
first time it looked at Bb3...Qxb3 ???? cxb3 scoring it equal then passed
that line now I go back and that line is gone as I had wanted to cut and paste it.
So it seems to ponder some bad moves either way it played strong games here.
AnMon ster 3 - 2 Fritz 6
AnMon ster 1 - 3 Junior 6
[Event "Level=Blitz:60'. "]
[Site "Scarb"]
[Date "2000.05.17"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Fritz 6"]
[Black "Anmon 5.07"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B23"]
[Annotator "0.00"]
[PlyCount "88"]
[EventDate "2000.05.16"]
} 1. e4 {0} 1... c5 {1} 2. Nc3 {0} 2... Nc6 {0}
3. f4 {0} 3... g6 {0} 4. Nf3 {0} 4... Bg7 {0} 5. Bb5 {0} 5... Nd4 {0} 6. Nxd4 {
0} 6... cxd4 {0} 7. Ne2 {0} 7... Qb6 {0} 8. Bc4 {0} 8... e6 {0} 9. d3 {0} 9...
Ne7 {0} 10. O-O {0} 10... O-O {last book move 0} 11. Ng3 {0.00/12 87} 11... d5
{63} 12. exd5 {0.19/14 101} 12... exd5 {95} 13. Bb3 {0.16/14 126} 13... Bd7 {
178} 14. a4 {0.22/12 94} 14... Rac8 {47} 15. Bd2 {0.19/12 92} 15... Rfe8 {75}
16. a5 {0.13/13 27} 16... Qd6 {32} 17. Qf3 {0.13/13 58} 17... h5 {20} 18. Rfe1
{0.06/12 58} 18... Bg4 {80} 19. Qf2 {0.09/13 17} 19... h4 {135} 20. Nh1 {
0.19/13 0} 20... Nf5 {72} 21. Rxe8+ {0.03/13 0} 21... Rxe8 {115} 22. Re1 {
0.00/14 68} 22... Re3 {35} 23. Qf1 {-0.03/13 94} 23... h3 {68} 24. g3 {
-0.03/13 131} 24... Qd7 {65} 25. Bxe3 {-0.44/14 118} 25... dxe3 {103} 26. c3 {
-1.06/15 0} 26... Qb5 {67} 27. Bd1 {-1.16/14 1} 27... Bxd1 {41} 28. Rxd1 {
-1.37/14 19} 28... Qxb2 {78} 29. Rb1 {-1.69/14 24} 29... Qc2 {32} 30. Rc1 {
-3.25/13 81} 30... e2 {66} 31. Rxc2 {-3.28/16 17} 31... exf1=R+ {167} 32. Kxf1
{-3.25/7 0} 32... Ne3+ {50} 33. Ke2 {-3.28/18 24} 33... Nxc2 {25} 34. d4 {
-3.25/17 50} 34... Bf6 {2} 35. Nf2 {-3.03/16 62} 35... Bd8 {3} 36. Kd3 {
-3.12/16 82} 36... Na3 {49} 37. a6 {-3.44/17 8} 37... bxa6 {28} 38. Nxh3 {
-3.47/17 78} 38... Nc4 {3} 39. Nf2 {-3.44/16 74} 39... a5 {1} 40. Kc2 {
-3.56/15 61} 40... a4 {1} 41. Nd1 {-3.72/14 79} 41... Kg7 {27} 42. Kb1 {
-3.97/15 56} 42... Kf6 {54} 43. Kc2 {-5.09/16 145} 43... Ba5 {32} 44. Kb1 {
-4.72/15 44} 44... Ke6 {1} 0-1
[Event "Level=Blitz:60'. "]
[Site "Scarb"]
[Date "2000.05.17"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Anmon 5.07"]
[Black "Fritz 6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A29"]
[Annotator "-0.31"]
[PlyCount "107"]
[EventDate "2000.05.16"]
} 1. c4 {0} 1... e5 {0} 2. Nc3 {0} 2... Nf6 {0}
3. Nf3 {0} 3... Nc6 {0} 4. g3 {0} 4... d5 {0} 5. cxd5 {0} 5... Nxd5 {0} 6. Bg2
{0} 6... Nb6 {0} 7. O-O {0} 7... Be7 {0} 8. a3 {0} 8... O-O {0} 9. d3 {0} 9...
Re8 {0} 10. b4 {0} 10... Bf8 {0} 11. Rb1 {0} 11... Nd4 {0} 12. Nd2 {0} 12... c6
{0} 13. Nb3 {0} 13... Bg4 {0} 14. h3 {0} 14... Bh5 {0} 15. g4 {0} 15... Bg6 {0}
16. Nc5 {0} 16... Rb8 {0} 17. e3 {last book move 58} 17... Ne6 {-0.31/13 130}
18. Nxe6 {27} 18... Rxe6 {-0.31/13 0} 19. Ne4 {48} 19... Qh4 {-0.28/12 64} 20.
Nc5 {73} 20... Bxc5 {-0.28/12 98} 21. bxc5 {105} 21... Nd5 {-0.25/13 0} 22. Rb3
{110} 22... Qe7 {-0.16/12 25} 23. e4 {97} 23... Nf4 {0.12/14 89} 24. Bxf4 {55}
24... exf4 {0.12/14 0} 25. Qd2 {110} 25... Qc7 {0.00/13 130} 26. Rfb1 {44}
26... b5 {0.22/12 30} 27. a4 {63} 27... a6 {0.00/13 234} 28. Ra3 {59} 28... Rd8
{0.09/12 100} 29. Qc3 {51} 29... Qe7 {0.06/12 84} 30. Qa5 {180} 30... Re5 {
0.00/11 71} 31. Rc3 {87} 31... Qf6 {-0.06/11 53} 32. Bf3 {192} 32... Rb8 {
-0.09/11 77} 33. Qxa6 {54} 33... Ree8 {0.59/12 49} 34. Ra3 {5} 34... Ra8 {
0.59/12 55} 35. Qb7 {71} 35... Rxa4 {0.62/11 66} 36. Rxa4 {55} 36... bxa4 {
0.78/13 0} 37. Rb4 {44} 37... a3 {1.16/12 50} 38. Ra4 {2} 38... h6 {1.41/12 69}
39. Rxa3 {57} 39... Kh7 {1.81/13 21} 40. Kg2 {23} 40... Qe5 {1.94/13 113} 41.
Qxc6 {51} 41... Rd8 {2.16/13 27} 42. Qb6 {26} 42... Rc8 {2.09/12 17} 43. c6 {26
} 43... Qd6 {2.41/12 36} 44. Rc3 {46} 44... f6 {2.53/12 58} 45. d4 {32} 45...
Be8 {2.91/12 12} 46. d5 {31} 46... Qe5 {3.09/13 21} 47. Rc1 {39} 47... h5 {
3.25/12 97} 48. c7 {43} 48... Bd7 {3.37/12 52} 49. d6 {1} 49... hxg4 {
3.78/12 84} 50. hxg4 {12} 50... Kg6 {3.78/11 25} 51. Qc5 {41} 51... Kf7 {
4.00/13 36} 52. Qxe5 {13} 52... fxe5 {4.47/14 11} 53. g5 {23} 53... Rh8 {
5.09/15 45} 54. Rc5 {37} 1-0
[Event "Level=Blitz:60'. "]
[Site "Scarb"]
[Date "2000.05.17"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Fritz 6"]
[Black "Anmon 5.07"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B44"]
[Annotator "0.84"]
[PlyCount "129"]
[EventDate "2000.05.16"]
} 1. e4 {0} 1... c5 {0} 2. Nf3 {0} 2... e6 {0}
3. d4 {0} 3... cxd4 {0} 4. Nxd4 {0} 4... Nc6 {0} 5. Nb5 {0} 5... d6 {0} 6. Bf4
{0} 6... e5 {0} 7. Be3 {0} 7... a6 {0} 8. N5c3 {0} 8... Nf6 {0} 9. Na3 {0} 9...
b5 {0} 10. Nd5 {0} 10... Nxd5 {0} 11. exd5 {0} 11... Ne7 {0} 12. c4 {0} 12...
Nf5 {0} 13. Bd2 {0} 13... Be7 {last book move 0} 14. cxb5 {0.84/11 134} 14...
O-O {10} 15. bxa6 {0.84/11 108} 15... Qb6 {91} 16. Bc3 {0.78/11 145} 16... Bxa6
{54} 17. Bxa6 {0.94/12 121} 17... Qxa6 {96} 18. Qe2 {0.78/13 35} 18... Nd4 {28}
19. Qxa6 {1.31/13 98} 19... Rxa6 {92} 20. Bxd4 {1.31/13 0} 20... exd4 {47} 21.
Kd2 {1.31/13 40} 21... Ra5 {81} 22. Rhe1 {1.25/13 0} 22... Bd8 {171} 23. Kd3 {
1.44/13 64} 23... Rxd5 {214} 24. Nc2 {1.41/14 0} 24... Bf6 {37} 25. a4 {
1.31/11 34} 25... Rc8 {43} 26. Ra2 {1.34/11 26} 26... Rh5 {67} 27. h3 {
1.22/12 34} 27... Rg5 {32} 28. g4 {1.28/12 92} 28... h5 {1} 29. f3 {1.41/11 32}
29... Ra5 {95} 30. f4 {1.22/10 41} 30... Rac5 {63} 31. Na1 {1.25/12 0} 31...
Bh4 {33} 32. Rb1 {1.38/10 49} 32... Bf2 {81} 33. Rf1 {1.50/11 33} 33... Be3 {66
} 34. Nb3 {1.06/13 0} 34... Rc4 {57} 35. a5 {0.94/14 43} 35... Rb4 {58} 36. Na1
{0.84/13 14} 36... hxg4 {81} 37. hxg4 {1.06/13 44} 37... d5 {201} 38. f5 {
0.91/13 57} 38... Ra8 {168} 39. Rb1 {1.31/13 47} 39... g5 {46} 40. b3 {
1.63/13 35} 40... Rc8 {63} 41. Rc2 {1.56/14 0} 41... Rcb8 {108} 42. Rc5 {
1.47/15 0} 42... Kg7 {125} 43. Rxd5 {1.34/14 0} 43... Rc8 {38} 44. a6 {
1.34/12 40} 44... Rc3+ {25} 45. Ke2 {1.03/13 58} 45... Rb8 {16} 46. a7 {
1.03/12 57} 46... Re8 {69} 47. Re5 {0.38/13 0} 47... Ra8 {28} 48. Re7 {
0.09/13 74} 48... Bf4 {8} 49. Rd1 {-0.19/12 57} 49... Bd6 {33} 50. Rd7 {
0.13/13 60} 50... Bc5 {10} 51. Rd3 {0.25/13 52} 51... Rxa7 {25} 52. Rxa7 {
0.97/16 76} 52... Bxa7 {5} 53. Rxc3 {1.28/18 46} 53... dxc3 {18} 54. Nc2 {
1.16/17 0} 54... Kf6 {63} 55. Nb4 {1.25/19 0} 55... Bc5 {13} 56. Nc6 {
1.88/18 20} 56... c2 {18} 57. Kd2 {2.06/19 8} 57... c1=B+ {62} 58. Kxc1 {
2.25/18 12} 58... Ba3+ {0} 59. Kd2 {2.16/19 36} 59... Bb2 {25} 60. Kc2 {
3.25/19 28} 60... Be5 {52} 61. Nxe5 {6.50/18 11} 61... Kxe5 {50} 62. Kd3 {
8.25/22 0} 62... Kd5 {18} 63. b4 {8.06/21 13} 63... Ke5 {61} 64. b5 {9.28/22 0}
64... f6 {56} 65. b6 {10.69/18 8} 1-0
[Event "Level=Blitz:60'. "]
[Site "Scarb"]
[Date "2000.05.17"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Anmon 5.07"]
[Black "Fritz 6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D13"]
[Annotator "-0.09"]
[PlyCount "181"]
[EventDate "2000.05.16"]
} 1. Nf3 {0} 1... d5 {0} 2. d4 {0} 2... Nf6 {0}
3. c4 {0} 3... c6 {0} 4. cxd5 {0} 4... cxd5 {0} 5. Nc3 {0} 5... a6 {0} 6. Bf4 {
0} 6... e6 {0} 7. e3 {0} 7... Be7 {0} 8. h3 {0} 8... b5 {0} 9. Bd3 {0} 9... Bb7
{0} 10. O-O {0} 10... O-O {0} 11. a4 {114} 11... b4 {0} 12. Nb1 {88} 12... Nc6
{0} 13. Re1 {last book move 176} 13... Ne4 {-0.09/13 196} 14. Nbd2 {81} 14...
f5 {0.06/12 20} 15. Ne5 {53} 15... Nxe5 {-0.06/12 231} 16. Bxe5 {73} 16... Rc8
{-0.06/12 3} 17. a5 {87} 17... Rc6 {0.00/12 192} 18. f3 {79} 18... Nd6 {
0.00/12 119} 19. Qb3 {41} 19... Nf7 {-0.09/12 157} 20. Bf4 {105} 20... Qd7 {
-0.09/13 7} 21. Rac1 {42} 21... Rfc8 {-0.13/12 69} 22. Rxc6 {109} 22... Qxc6 {
-0.06/13 0} 23. Rd1 {147} 23... Qe8 {-0.16/12 65} 24. Ra1 {146} 24... Qd7 {
-0.06/13 158} 25. g4 {57} 25... Rc6 {-0.31/11 97} 26. Kg2 {113} 26... fxg4 {
-0.25/11 160} 27. hxg4 {72} 27... Qd8 {-0.31/12 114} 28. Qa4 {26} 28... h6 {
-0.34/12 62} 29. Rh1 {91} 29... Bf8 {-0.25/12 0} 30. Rh5 {52} 30... Qf6 {
-0.25/12 68} 31. Qa2 {67} 31... Ba8 {-0.13/11 39} 32. Kf2 {90} 32... Qd8 {
-0.06/12 106} 33. Nb3 {75} 33... Qe7 {0.03/11 37} 34. Qb1 {36} 34... g5 {
0.06/12 35} 35. Be5 {21} 35... Nxe5 {0.22/13 56} 36. dxe5 {60} 36... Bb7 {
0.09/13 0} 37. Be2 {46} 37... Qf7 {-0.16/13 65} 38. Qe1 {16} 38... Rc7 {
0.03/12 57} 39. Nd4 {113} 39... Bc8 {0.06/14 0} 40. Qd2 {33} 40... Qe7 {
0.06/12 35} 41. Qd3 {31} 41... Qf7 {0.00/12 101} 42. Rh1 {11} 42... Bg7 {
-0.19/12 65} 43. Qd2 {3} 43... Bxe5 {-0.03/11 36} 44. Rxh6 {54} 44... Bg7 {
-0.06/12 0} 45. Rh1 {60} 45... Qe7 {-0.03/11 30} 46. Qd3 {29} 46... e5 {
-0.16/10 28} 47. Nf5 {29} 47... Qc5 {0.00/11 0} 48. Nxg7 {29} 48... Rxg7 {
0.47/12 0} 49. Rd1 {33} 49... Bb7 {0.47/12 0} 50. Qf5 {28} 50... Qe7 {
0.78/11 29} 51. e4 {0} 51... Rf7 {1.06/10 29} 52. Qg6+ {16} 52... Kf8 {
1.00/11 33} 53. Qh6+ {80} 53... Ke8 {0.75/11 67} 54. exd5 {51} 54... Rf6 {
0.75/11 5} 55. Qh8+ {22} 55... Rf8 {0.75/12 13} 56. Qh5+ {82} 56... Kd7 {
0.66/13 0} 57. Kg2 {74} 57... Qf6 {0.56/11 31} 58. Qh7+ {36} 58... Rf7 {
0.78/13 0} 59. Qd3 {27} 59... Kd8 {0.72/12 55} 60. Qe3 {27} 60... Rd7 {
0.87/12 0} 61. d6 {15} 61... Ke8 {0.94/12 39} 62. Rd3 {16} 62... Kf7 {
0.69/11 18} 63. Rd2 {10} 63... Qf4 {0.91/11 17} 64. Qxf4+ {18} 64... exf4 {
1.12/16 0} 65. Rd4 {17} 65... Ke6 {1.28/14 9} 66. Rxb4 {15} 66... Kxd6 {
1.28/15 14} 67. Bxa6 {15} 67... Bxa6 {1.25/15 17} 68. Rb6+ {2} 68... Ke5 {
1.31/15 27} 69. Rxa6 {18} 69... Rd2+ {1.50/15 11} 70. Kh3 {13} 70... Rd3 {
1.53/15 21} 71. Rb6 {12} 71... Rxf3+ {1.78/14 9} 72. Kg2 {6} 72... Rg3+ {
1.81/14 30} 73. Kf2 {5} 73... Rh3 {2.00/14 39} 74. a6 {12} 74... Rh8 {
2.19/13 32} 75. Rb5+ {7} 75... Ke4 {2.34/14 15} 76. a7 {8} 76... Ra8 {
2.47/14 17} 77. Rb7 {1} 77... Kd5 {2.66/14 20} 78. Kf3 {3} 78... Kc6 {
2.78/15 15} 79. Rg7 {10} 79... Kb6 {2.75/14 7} 80. Rxg5 {2} 80... Rxa7 {
2.84/13 13} 81. Rf5 {8} 81... Ra2 {3.03/12 4} 82. g5 {6} 82... Ra1 {3.53/12 16}
83. g6 {12} 83... Rg1 {3.41/13 12} 84. Rf6+ {7} 84... Kc5 {3.47/13 6} 85. Kxf4
{19} 85... Kd5 {3.62/14 0} 86. b4 {9} 86... Kc4 {3.91/14 18} 87. Rb6 {10} 87...
Kd5 {4.37/14 7} 88. Rb5+ {2} 88... Kd6 {3.91/13 11} 89. Rg5 {10} 89... Rf1+ {
4.34/15 13} 90. Ke4 {3} 90... Re1+ {4.62/15 15} 91. Kd4 {8} 1-0
[Event "Level=Blitz:60'. "]
[Site "Scarb"]
[Date "2000.05.17"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Fritz 6"]
[Black "Anmon 5.07"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B66"]
[Annotator "0.28"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[EventDate "2000.05.16"]
} 1. e4 {0} 1... c5 {0} 2. Nf3 {0} 2... Nc6 {0}
3. d4 {0} 3... cxd4 {0} 4. Nxd4 {0} 4... Nf6 {0} 5. Nc3 {0} 5... d6 {0} 6. Bg5
{0} 6... e6 {0} 7. Qd2 {0} 7... a6 {0} 8. O-O-O {0} 8... h6 {0} 9. Be3 {0} 9...
Be7 {0} 10. f4 {0} 10... Nxd4 {0} 11. Bxd4 {0} 11... b5 {0} 12. Qe3 {0} 12...
Bb7 {0} 13. Bxf6 {0} 13... gxf6 {0} 14. Bd3 {0} 14... Qc7 {0} 15. f5 {0} 15...
b4 {0} 16. Ne2 {0} 16... e5 {0} 17. Kb1 {0} 17... d5 {last book move 108} 18.
exd5 {0.28/12 95} 18... Bxd5 {108} 19. Be4 {0.47/14 0} 19... Bxe4 {102} 20.
Qxe4 {0.47/15 0} 20... Rc8 {82} 21. Rd2 {0.50/14 0} 21... O-O {104} 22. Rhd1 {
0.50/13 73} 22... Kh7 {23} 23. c3 {0.59/13 117} 23... Qb6 {141} 24. cxb4 {
0.56/13 145} 24... Qxb4 {77} 25. Qxb4 {0.81/14 77} 25... Bxb4 {44} 26. Rd7 {
0.75/14 99} 26... Kg8 {28} 27. a3 {1.00/14 150} 27... Bc5 {71} 28. b4 {
1.06/14 0} 28... Rb8 {100} 29. Kc2 {1.13/13 42} 29... Bf2 {40} 30. Nc3 {
1.22/12 20} 30... a5 {111} 31. Ne4 {1.28/12 91} 31... Bd4 {171} 32. Nxf6+ {
1.31/13 0} 32... Kg7 {29} 33. Nh5+ {1.44/12 68} 33... Kh8 {62} 34. Rb1 {
1.13/12 74} 34... Rg8 {56} 35. Kd3 {1.13/11 56} 35... Rxg2 {69} 36. Rxf7 {
1.38/12 0} 36... Kg8 {87} 37. Rd7 {1.59/12 0} 37... Rf8 {31} 38. bxa5 {
2.31/12 75} 38... Bb2 {35} 39. a6 {2.38/12 87} 39... Rxh2 {160} 40. a7 {
2.50/13 0} 40... Rh3+ {132} 41. Kc4 {2.72/13 0} 41... Rh4+ {54} 42. Kb3 {
3.72/13 0} 42... Rxh5 {85} 43. Rg1+ {5.72/13 0} 43... Kh8 {149} 44. Rgg7 {
6.03/11 18} 44... Rg5 {116} 45. f6 {6.69/13 0} 45... Bc1 {123} 46. a8=Q {
adjud. #10/11 0} 1-0
[Event "Level=Blitz:60'. "]
[Site "Scarb"]
[Date "2000.05.17"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Junior 6.1"]
[Black "Anmon 5.07"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C45"]
[Annotator "-0.53"]
[PlyCount "112"]
[EventDate "2000.05.16"]
} 1. e4 {0} 1... e5 {0} 2. Nf3 {0} 2... Nc6 {0}
3. d4 {0} 3... exd4 {0} 4. Nxd4 {0} 4... Bc5 {0} 5. Be3 {0} 5... Qf6 {0} 6. c3
{0} 6... Nge7 {0} 7. Bc4 {0} 7... Ne5 {0} 8. Be2 {0} 8... Qg6 {0} 9. O-O {0}
9... d6 {0} 10. f4 {0} 10... Qxe4 {0} 11. Bf2 {0} 11... Bxd4 {0} 12. cxd4 {0}
12... N5g6 {0} 13. g3 {0} 13... O-O {0} 14. Nc3 {0} 14... Qf5 {0} 15. Bf3 {0}
15... d5 {last book move 72} 16. Re1 {-0.53/16 148} 16... c6 {1} 17. b4 {
-0.55/16 138} 17... Bd7 {58} 18. b5 {-0.48/16 98} 18... Rfc8 {99} 19. Rc1 {
-0.41/15 131} 19... cxb5 {90} 20. Qb3 {-0.47/15 143} 20... Rc7 {2} 21. Nxd5 {
-0.03/14 67} 21... Nxd5 {16} 22. Qxd5 {0.08/14 73} 22... Qxd5 {97} 23. Bxd5 {
0.02/17 1} 23... Rac8 {58} 24. Rxc7 {0.01/18 46} 24... Rxc7 {114} 25. Be4 {
-0.01/18 94} 25... f5 {62} 26. Bd5+ {0.02/18 1} 26... Kf8 {56} 27. Bb3 {
-0.01/19 1} 27... b6 {142} 28. d5 {-0.05/18 96} 28... Be8 {74} 29. Bd4 {
-0.11/18 1} 29... Bf7 {83} 30. Bb2 {-0.27/17 1} 30... Rd7 {69} 31. Ba3+ {
-0.10/17 110} 31... Kg8 {58} 32. Rc1 {-0.09/18 1} 32... Rd8 {86} 33. d6 {
-0.19/18 17} 33... Bxb3 {44} 34. axb3 {-0.24/17 27} 34... Nf8 {22} 35. Rc7 {
-0.30/17 65} 35... a5 {78} 36. Bb2 {-0.39/18 56} 36... Ne6 {76} 37. Rc6 {
-0.33/17 43} 37... Nc5 {16} 38. Be5 {-0.67/17 98} 38... Kf7 {5} 39. Rxb6 {
-0.73/17 91} 39... b4 {46} 40. Rb5 {-0.74/17 17} 40... Nxb3 {49} 41. Rb7+ {
-0.77/18 136} 41... Ke6 {10} 42. Re7+ {-0.80/18 231} 42... Kd5 {0} 43. Rxg7 {
-0.80/18 334} 43... Nd4 {0} 44. Rxh7 {-0.61/15 43} 44... Nf3+ {67} 45. Kf2 {
-0.36/17 72} 45... Nxe5 {113} 46. fxe5 {-0.33/17 1} 46... Kxe5 {40} 47. Ra7 {
-0.33/17 244} 47... Rxd6 {2} 48. Rxa5+ {-0.33/16 12} 48... Rd5 {87} 49. Rxd5+ {
-0.31/12 26} 49... Kxd5 {35} 50. Ke3 {0.00/18 1} 50... Kc4 {29} 51. h4 {
0.09/16 28} 51... b3 {165} 52. Kd2 {0.52/14 8} 52... Kd4 {21} 53. Kc1 {
0.00/21 1} 53... b2+ {26} 54. Kb1 {0.00/28 20} 54... Ke4 {48} 55. h5 {
0.00/29 19} 55... Ke5 {0} 56. Kxb2 {0.00/32 19} 56... Kf6 {2} 1/2-1/2
[Event "Level=Blitz:60'. "]
[Site "Scarb"]
[Date "2000.05.17"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Anmon 5.07"]
[Black "Junior 6.1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B23"]
[Annotator "-0.89"]
[PlyCount "92"]
[EventDate "2000.05.16"]
} 1. e4 {0} 1... c5 {0} 2. Nc3 {0} 2... Nc6 {0}
3. f4 {0} 3... g6 {0} 4. Nf3 {0} 4... Bg7 {0} 5. Bb5 {0} 5... Nd4 {0} 6. Nxd4 {
0} 6... cxd4 {0} 7. Ne2 {0} 7... Nf6 {0} 8. Bd3 {0} 8... d6 {0} 9. O-O {0} 9...
O-O {0} 10. c3 {0} 10... dxc3 {0} 11. bxc3 {0} 11... b6 {0} 12. Bc2 {0} 12...
Bb7 {0} 13. d3 {0} 13... Qc7 {0} 14. Kh1 {0} 14... Rac8 {0} 15. f5 {0} 15... d5
{0} 16. Bf4 {0} 16... Qc6 {0} 17. Ba4 {0} 17... b5 {0} 18. Nd4 {0} 18... Qc5 {0
} 19. e5 {0} 19... bxa4 {0} 20. exf6 {0} 20... Bxf6 {0} 21. fxg6 {
last book move 181} 21... hxg6 {-0.89/14 1} 22. Qxa4 {52} 22... Qxc3 {
-1.09/15 173} 23. Qxa7 {1} 23... Qxd4 {-1.09/14 88} 24. Qxb7 {8} 24... Rc2 {
-1.05/14 89} 25. Qb3 {22} 25... Rc3 {-1.18/14 65} 26. Qb5 {170} 26... g5 {
-1.28/15 95} 27. Bg3 {61} 27... Qxd3 {-1.19/15 0} 28. Qxd3 {81} 28... Rxd3 {
-1.18/16 1} 29. Rae1 {81} 29... Ra8 {-1.20/16 1} 30. Bd6 {75} 30... Ra7 {
-1.31/16 156} 31. a4 {149} 31... Rd2 {-1.27/16 18} 32. Bc5 {106} 32... Rd7 {
-1.32/16 26} 33. a5 {71} 33... Ra2 {-1.43/17 43} 34. Bb6 {86} 34... Bc3 {
-1.56/17 80} 35. Rc1 {244} 35... d4 {-1.45/18 1} 36. h3 {70} 36... e6 {
-1.88/17 151} 37. Kh2 {214} 37... Kg7 {-1.94/15 116} 38. Rfd1 {71} 38... Rd5 {
-1.90/16 1} 39. Rxc3 {54} 39... dxc3 {-2.17/15 31} 40. Rxd5 {78} 40... exd5 {
-2.28/17 1} 41. Bd4+ {127} 41... Kg6 {-2.73/21 1} 42. Bxc3 {40} 42... Kf5 {
-2.82/20 75} 43. Kg1 {81} 43... Ke4 {-3.18/19 1} 44. Bf6 {34} 44... g4 {
-3.47/18 71} 45. hxg4 {73} 45... Rxa5 {-3.42/19 18} 46. g3 {80} 46... Ra6 {
-3.83/18 73} 0-1
[Event "Level=Blitz:60'. "]
[Site "Scarb"]
[Date "2000.05.17"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Junior 6.1"]
[Black "Anmon 5.07"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B90"]
[Annotator "-0.04"]
[PlyCount "139"]
[EventDate "2000.05.16"]
} 1. e4 {0} 1... c5 {0} 2. Nf3 {0} 2... d6 {0}
3. d4 {0} 3... cxd4 {0} 4. Nxd4 {0} 4... Nf6 {0} 5. Nc3 {0} 5... a6 {0} 6. Be3
{0} 6... Ng4 {0} 7. Bg5 {0} 7... h6 {0} 8. Bh4 {0} 8... g5 {0} 9. Bg3 {0} 9...
Bg7 {0} 10. Be2 {0} 10... h5 {0} 11. h4 {0} 11... gxh4 {0} 12. Rxh4 {0} 12...
Nc6 {0} 13. Nb3 {0} 13... Be6 {0} 14. Qd2 {0} 14... Qb6 {0} 15. Nd5 {0} 15...
Bxd5 {0} 16. exd5 {0} 16... Nce5 {0} 17. O-O-O {0} 17... Ng6 {0} 18. Rh3 {0}
18... Bh6 {0} 19. f4 {0} 19... Qe3 {0} 20. Bxg4 {0} 20... Qxd2+ {0} 21. Nxd2 {0
} 21... hxg4 {0} 22. Rh5 {0} 22... Kd7 {0} 23. Rf5 {0} 23... f6 {0} 24. Nc4 {0}
24... Rag8 {0} 25. Ne3 {0} 25... Bf8 {0} 26. a4 {last book move -0.04/17 69}
26... Nh4 {52} 27. Bxh4 {-0.09/18 1} 27... Rxh4 {200} 28. Kd2 {0.06/19 75}
28... g3 {133} 29. Ke2 {0.24/18 116} 29... Bh6 {46} 30. Kf3 {0.26/18 78} 30...
Rg6 {120} 31. Rd4 {0.23/18 94} 31... Rh1 {77} 32. a5 {0.26/18 1} 32... Kc8 {123
} 33. Rd1 {0.21/16 86} 33... Rh4 {98} 34. Re1 {0.20/18 27} 34... Kd8 {147} 35.
c3 {0.31/19 97} 35... Ke8 {70} 36. Re2 {0.46/18 86} 36... Kd7 {100} 37. Nf1 {
0.42/19 68} 37... Rgg4 {10} 38. Re4 {0.39/18 91} 38... Rg8 {51} 39. Rb4 {
0.49/18 372} 39... Kc8 {0} 40. Nxg3 {0.59/17 56} 40... Rhg4 {3} 41. Ne4 {
0.58/17 68} 41... Rxg2 {5} 42. Rh5 {0.64/17 156} 42... Bf8 {2} 43. Ng5 {
0.71/17 163} 43... Rg1 {74} 44. Ne6 {0.72/17 72} 44... Rf1+ {43} 45. Ke2 {
0.82/17 96} 45... Ra1 {13} 46. Rc4+ {1.25/14 35} 46... Kb8 {224} 47. Rc7 {
1.10/18 1} 47... Rxa5 {30} 48. Rd7 {1.34/16 47} 48... Ra2 {62} 49. Rd8+ {
1.54/16 32} 49... Ka7 {0} 50. Kd3 {1.42/17 301} 50... Rg3+ {105} 51. Ke4 {
1.37/18 1} 51... Bg7 {38} 52. Rg8 {1.24/16 20} 52... Rxb2 {6} 53. Rxg7 {
1.29/17 69} 53... Re2+ {52} 54. Kf5 {1.20/19 1} 54... Rxg7 {58} 55. Nxg7 {
1.39/18 1} 55... a5 {80} 56. Kg6 {1.58/20 1} 56... a4 {29} 57. Kf7 {1.80/19 17}
57... b5 {64} 58. Ne6 {2.39/19 38} 58... Re3 {43} 59. Kxe7 {2.44/17 22} 59...
Rxc3 {17} 60. Kxd6 {2.44/15 1} 60... a3 {30} 61. Nd4 {1.77/15 39} 61... a2 {37}
62. Rh1 {1.77/16 1} 62... Rc4 {57} 63. Nb3 {2.00/16 48} 63... Rb4 {26} 64. Rh7+
{2.07/14 10} 64... Kb8 {99} 65. Na5 {3.22/19 1} 65... Rc4 {68} 66. Rh1 {
3.30/17 1} 66... Rc2 {66} 67. Nc6+ {3.26/18 1} 67... Kb7 {34} 68. Nb4 {
3.33/17 12} 68... Rc4 {80} 69. Nxa2 {3.56/15 17} 69... Kb6 {44} 70. f5 {
3.93/16 52} 1-0
[Event "Level=Blitz:60'. "]
[Site "Scarb"]
[Date "2000.05.17"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Anmon 5.07"]
[Black "Junior 6.1"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B22"]
[Annotator "0.52"]
[PlyCount "90"]
[EventDate "2000.05.16"]
} 1. e4 {0} 1... c5 {0} 2. c3 {0} 2... Nf6 {0}
3. e5 {0} 3... Nd5 {0} 4. d4 {0} 4... cxd4 {0} 5. Nf3 {0} 5... e6 {0} 6. cxd4 {
0} 6... b6 {0} 7. Nc3 {0} 7... Nxc3 {0} 8. bxc3 {0} 8... Qc7 {0} 9. Bd2 {0}
9... d6 {0} 10. Bd3 {0} 10... Bb7 {0} 11. O-O {0} 11... Nd7 {0} 12. Re1 {0}
12... dxe5 {0} 13. Nxe5 {0} 13... Nxe5 {0} 14. Rxe5 {0} 14... Bd6 {0} 15. Rh5 {
0} 15... g6 {0} 16. Rh3 {0} 16... O-O {0} 17. Qg4 {0} 17... f5 {0} 18. Qe2 {0}
18... Rae8 {0} 19. Bb5 {0} 19... Bc6 {0} 20. a4 {last book move 90} 20... f4 {
0.52/16 246} 21. Qc4 {89} 21... Bxb5 {0.42/15 61} 22. Qxc7 {110} 22... Bxc7 {
0.35/17 50} 23. axb5 {119} 23... Bb8 {0.36/19 59} 24. c4 {9} 24... Rc8 {
0.13/16 75} 25. Ra4 {29} 25... Rf7 {0.03/17 66} 26. Rd3 {88} 26... Rfc7 {
-0.18/17 211} 27. Rc3 {80} 27... Rd7 {-0.39/15 120} 28. Rd3 {6} 28... Rcd8 {
-0.25/15 54} 29. Bc3 {4} 29... Be5 {-0.22/16 115} 30. h4 {77} 30... Bf6 {
-0.20/15 1} 31. d5 {66} 31... Bxc3 {-0.28/15 93} 32. Rxc3 {2} 32... exd5 {
-0.17/17 69} 33. cxd5 {41} 33... Rxd5 {-0.17/16 46} 34. Rb3 {32} 34... Rd3 {
-0.14/16 95} 35. Rxd3 {77} 35... Rxd3 {-0.13/19 1} 36. Rxf4 {70} 36... Rb3 {
-0.13/20 22} 37. Ra4 {28} 37... Rxb5 {-0.21/20 207} 38. Rxa7 {52} 38... h5 {
-0.19/18 22} 39. Rb7 {104} 39... Rb2 {-0.34/19 67} 40. g3 {98} 40... b5 {
-0.15/19 60} 41. Kg2 {4} 41... b4 {-0.01/20 84} 42. Kf3 {36} 42... Kf8 {
0.11/18 47} 43. Ke3 {39} 43... Ke8 {0.04/19 85} 44. f3 {63} 44... Kf8 {
0.42/19 29} 45. g4 {60} 45... g5 {0.43/16 2220} 1/2-1/2
Thanks.
Winboard Forum
Discussions (not only) about Xboard/Winboard, Computer Chess and Chess Programming
For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
by Chessfun » 18 May 2000, 00:44
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Chessfun at 18 May 2000 01:44:43:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Chessfun at 18 May 2000 01:39:56:
I should have noted this last game with J6 terminates abruptly as can be
seen by Junior last move 45... g5 {0.43/16 2220} 1/2-1/2 as the 2220 is the
time for the move. Autoplayer had terminated at this point, so at least
that's one plus that it seems now if it has a problem it terminates rather
than carry's on.
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Chessfun at 18 May 2000 01:39:56:
I should have noted this last game with J6 terminates abruptly as can be
seen by Junior last move 45... g5 {0.43/16 2220} 1/2-1/2 as the 2220 is the
time for the move. Autoplayer had terminated at this point, so at least
that's one plus that it seems now if it has a problem it terminates rather
than carry's on.
[Event "Level=Blitz:60'. "]
[Site "Scarb"]
[Date "2000.05.17"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Anmon 5.07"]
[Black "Junior 6.1"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B22"]
[Annotator "0.52"]
[PlyCount "90"]
[EventDate "2000.05.16"]
} 1. e4 {0} 1... c5 {0} 2. c3 {0} 2... Nf6 {0}
3. e5 {0} 3... Nd5 {0} 4. d4 {0} 4... cxd4 {0} 5. Nf3 {0} 5... e6 {0} 6. cxd4 {
0} 6... b6 {0} 7. Nc3 {0} 7... Nxc3 {0} 8. bxc3 {0} 8... Qc7 {0} 9. Bd2 {0}
9... d6 {0} 10. Bd3 {0} 10... Bb7 {0} 11. O-O {0} 11... Nd7 {0} 12. Re1 {0}
12... dxe5 {0} 13. Nxe5 {0} 13... Nxe5 {0} 14. Rxe5 {0} 14... Bd6 {0} 15. Rh5 {
0} 15... g6 {0} 16. Rh3 {0} 16... O-O {0} 17. Qg4 {0} 17... f5 {0} 18. Qe2 {0}
18... Rae8 {0} 19. Bb5 {0} 19... Bc6 {0} 20. a4 {last book move 90} 20... f4 {
0.52/16 246} 21. Qc4 {89} 21... Bxb5 {0.42/15 61} 22. Qxc7 {110} 22... Bxc7 {
0.35/17 50} 23. axb5 {119} 23... Bb8 {0.36/19 59} 24. c4 {9} 24... Rc8 {
0.13/16 75} 25. Ra4 {29} 25... Rf7 {0.03/17 66} 26. Rd3 {88} 26... Rfc7 {
-0.18/17 211} 27. Rc3 {80} 27... Rd7 {-0.39/15 120} 28. Rd3 {6} 28... Rcd8 {
-0.25/15 54} 29. Bc3 {4} 29... Be5 {-0.22/16 115} 30. h4 {77} 30... Bf6 {
-0.20/15 1} 31. d5 {66} 31... Bxc3 {-0.28/15 93} 32. Rxc3 {2} 32... exd5 {
-0.17/17 69} 33. cxd5 {41} 33... Rxd5 {-0.17/16 46} 34. Rb3 {32} 34... Rd3 {
-0.14/16 95} 35. Rxd3 {77} 35... Rxd3 {-0.13/19 1} 36. Rxf4 {70} 36... Rb3 {
-0.13/20 22} 37. Ra4 {28} 37... Rxb5 {-0.21/20 207} 38. Rxa7 {52} 38... h5 {
-0.19/18 22} 39. Rb7 {104} 39... Rb2 {-0.34/19 67} 40. g3 {98} 40... b5 {
-0.15/19 60} 41. Kg2 {4} 41... b4 {-0.01/20 84} 42. Kf3 {36} 42... Kf8 {
0.11/18 47} 43. Ke3 {39} 43... Ke8 {0.04/19 85} 44. f3 {63} 44... Kf8 {
0.42/19 29} 45. g4 {60} 45... g5 {0.43/16 2220} 1/2-1/2
Thanks.
- Chessfun
Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
by Frank Quisinsky » 18 May 2000, 19:18
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 18 May 2000 20:18:59:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Chessfun at 18 May 2000 01:39:56:
a lot of games. I replay the games tomorrow, I have not the time today !
But thanks for your message and games, I think Christian Barreteau replay your
games !
Yes AnMon play very strong and AnMon can win against all TOP programs in 30 moves.
I play under Chess Assistant 5.1 last months with AnMon my last games ...
AMD K6-3 450 MHz, 32 MB for hashtables, 40 moves in 20 minutes ...
AnMon 5.06 - Chess Tiger 12.0e
8:12
AnMon 5.06 - Shredder 4
7.5 : 12.5
AnMon 5.06 - WChess 1.2
10:10
And AnMon won more games under 35 moves than the professional programs. For me is not important that Shredder 4 or WChess 1.2 won more games, for me is the play style important.
Under Chess-Base GUIs I play games with AnMon against Nimzo 7-32, Fritz 6, Junior 6 and Hiarcs 7-32. A very good result (9:11, Nunn 1, 10+2) against Nimzo 7-32. Not a chance against Hiarcs 7-32 (4.5 : 15.5).
From the free WinBoard engines I think SOS and LGoliath play a little bit stronger than AnMon. Crafty is in my eyes the best free program.
Furthermore ...
I think the Autoplayer is out, an Autoplayer for 10 programs
)
I have not interest on this 10 programs and 10 difficult GUIs !
Engines for a good GUIs are IN !
Here I can play with 60 or more engines without autoplayer !
I can make analyzes with all this engines (it is so simply to switch).
My next computer is an dual system and NT4 SP6 !
I found your tourneys very interesting and I hope that you play more tourneys !
Regards
Frank
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Chessfun at 18 May 2000 01:39:56:
Hi,Frank,
As you were nice enough to sign my guestbook....thanks....and put
a link to my little tourney, yesterday and today I autoplayed your fav
program AnMon CB ver 5.07 v F6a and J6a. On two celeron 433's.
AnMon had an excellent performance in my Young Talents Tourney coming 4th.
All engs used F6 general.ctg, the games were played at 1 hour game.
For owners of J6 or F6 if you could look over the games and see if you can
detect any problems I would appreciate it. BTW I ask this not due to
AnMonster's winning v Fritz but due to having some problems in the past with
autoplayer and more eyes looking at the games may see something.
Therefore the games posted are with the notations of F6 and J6.
One funny thing I did notice as I watched parts of these games was sometimes
AnMon ponders a totally silly move that it may expect of it's opponent.
I noticed this a few times but specifically remember one in game 1 with F6
after AnMon played 12.....exd5 it expected F6 to play something other than
Bb3 and naturally scored it as + to black.
Now if I examine the game at that move it expects Bb3....funny thing though
first time it looked at Bb3...Qxb3 ???? cxb3 scoring it equal then passed
that line now I go back and that line is gone as I had wanted to cut and paste it.
a lot of games. I replay the games tomorrow, I have not the time today !
But thanks for your message and games, I think Christian Barreteau replay your
games !
Yes AnMon play very strong and AnMon can win against all TOP programs in 30 moves.
I play under Chess Assistant 5.1 last months with AnMon my last games ...
AMD K6-3 450 MHz, 32 MB for hashtables, 40 moves in 20 minutes ...
AnMon 5.06 - Chess Tiger 12.0e
8:12
AnMon 5.06 - Shredder 4
7.5 : 12.5
AnMon 5.06 - WChess 1.2
10:10
And AnMon won more games under 35 moves than the professional programs. For me is not important that Shredder 4 or WChess 1.2 won more games, for me is the play style important.
Under Chess-Base GUIs I play games with AnMon against Nimzo 7-32, Fritz 6, Junior 6 and Hiarcs 7-32. A very good result (9:11, Nunn 1, 10+2) against Nimzo 7-32. Not a chance against Hiarcs 7-32 (4.5 : 15.5).
From the free WinBoard engines I think SOS and LGoliath play a little bit stronger than AnMon. Crafty is in my eyes the best free program.
Furthermore ...
I think the Autoplayer is out, an Autoplayer for 10 programs
)I have not interest on this 10 programs and 10 difficult GUIs !
Engines for a good GUIs are IN !
Here I can play with 60 or more engines without autoplayer !
I can make analyzes with all this engines (it is so simply to switch).
My next computer is an dual system and NT4 SP6 !
I found your tourneys very interesting and I hope that you play more tourneys !
Regards
Frank
- Frank Quisinsky
Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
by Chessfun » 19 May 2000, 03:08
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Chessfun at 19 May 2000 04:08:19:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 18 May 2000 20:18:59:
I never noticed it was this strong as a winboard engine ver 5.06.
5.07 is clearly a strong engine hopefully soon it will be available
for free as a winboard engine.
Is this AnMon 5.06? what were time controls?, hash settings?, I assume
ponder was off?.
I think I agree when it comes to 5.06, with 5.07 I'm not that sure yet,
5.07 is very strong, we shall see how it compares with SOS and LG when 5.07
for winboard comes out. BTW any idea as to the version # of SOS in "Young Talents"? But I do agree, I have no doubt Crafty is the best free program.
I agree with the engines for GUI's are better but what do you think of
the issue of ponder=on or ponder = off?, as it seems that playing in one
GUI with ponder=on allocates different CPU utilization and possibly some
programs will do better with ponder=on.
The dual system will naturally solve the ponder question, I assume most
of the winboard tourneys at your site are ponder=off? unless played on a
dual processor.
Thank you....and I shall !!
Thanks.
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 18 May 2000 20:18:59:
Hi,
a lot of games. I replay the games tomorrow, I have not the time today !
But thanks for your message and games, I think Christian Barreteau replay your
games !
Yes AnMon play very strong and AnMon can win against all TOP programs in 30 moves.
I play under Chess Assistant 5.1 last months with AnMon my last games ...
AMD K6-3 450 MHz, 32 MB for hashtables, 40 moves in 20 minutes ...
AnMon 5.06 - Chess Tiger 12.0e
8:12
AnMon 5.06 - Shredder 4
7.5 : 12.5
AnMon 5.06 - WChess 1.2
10:10
And AnMon won more games under 35 moves than the professional programs. For me is not important that Shredder 4 or WChess 1.2 won more games, for me is the play style important.
Under Chess-Base GUIs I play games with AnMon against Nimzo 7-32, Fritz 6, Junior 6 and Hiarcs 7-32. A very good result (9:11, Nunn 1, 10+2) against Nimzo 7-32. Not a chance against Hiarcs 7-32 (4.5 : 15.5).
From the free WinBoard engines I think SOS and LGoliath play a little bit stronger than AnMon. Crafty is in my eyes the best free program.
Furthermore ...
I think the Autoplayer is out, an Autoplayer for 10 programs
I have not interest on this 10 programs and 10 difficult GUIs !
Engines for a good GUIs are IN !
Here I can play with 60 or more engines without autoplayer !
I can make analyzes with all this engines (it is so simply to switch).
My next computer is an dual system and NT4 SP6 !
I found your tourneys very interesting and I hope that you play more tourneys !
Regards
Frank
I never noticed it was this strong as a winboard engine ver 5.06.
5.07 is clearly a strong engine hopefully soon it will be available
for free as a winboard engine.
Is this AnMon 5.06? what were time controls?, hash settings?, I assume
ponder was off?.
I think I agree when it comes to 5.06, with 5.07 I'm not that sure yet,
5.07 is very strong, we shall see how it compares with SOS and LG when 5.07
for winboard comes out. BTW any idea as to the version # of SOS in "Young Talents"? But I do agree, I have no doubt Crafty is the best free program.
I agree with the engines for GUI's are better but what do you think of
the issue of ponder=on or ponder = off?, as it seems that playing in one
GUI with ponder=on allocates different CPU utilization and possibly some
programs will do better with ponder=on.
The dual system will naturally solve the ponder question, I assume most
of the winboard tourneys at your site are ponder=off? unless played on a
dual processor.
Thank you....and I shall !!
Thanks.
- Chessfun
Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
by Frank Quisinsky » 19 May 2000, 05:58
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 19 May 2000 06:58:42:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Chessfun at 19 May 2000 04:08:19:
Christian wrote me that he will send a new version after the tourney !
01) I play for 3 or 4 month with AnMon 5.03 !
02) 32 MB for hash !
03) Ponder = Off
04) Time control 10+2 (fisher clock) !
The AnMon 5.03 version has a time problem with the WinBoard Adapter under Chess-Base GUI ! But the WB version 5.06 play mutch better under Chess-Base GUI.
I wrote about this test in CSS forum !
Yes, I think Crafty play with 2525 ELO, SOS with 2475 (the new Native Chess-Base version is stronger), LGoliath with 2475 and AnMon with 2450 ELO !
Fritz or Junior with 2600 ELO !
I make me a lot of work with the ponder = on/off problem. I think that for 90% of all programs = ponder on 20-40 ELO.
I see the following problem ... !
I play a match with ponder = off with WinBoard debug file. Now I replay the moves from the first engine in the time which I see in the debug file and the second engine play now with ponder = off.
OK ...
(I made this experiment with a lot of programs)
I see in Crafty for an example ...
Without ponder Crafty play move 20. in 2:30 !
With ponder Crafty play direct the move 20. !
And now the problem.
In move 19. calculate the other program not 2:30, the other program calculate 1:00. And without ponder Crafty play an better move !
I postet the complete log files from this match and my results for the ponder analyze for 5 months in CCC !
Not an answere from Prof. Dr. Robert Hyatt or ... Ed Schroeder
But he agree with the opinion from Ed Schröder Ponder is ~100 ELO !
)
20 - 40 ELO not more !!
In the complete match 37 moves (20 moves in the game who I can compare ponder on/off) Crafty play 2 other moves. The other move are not better then the moves with ponder = off !
I made the experiments with 40 moves in 40 minutes games !
I replay a game with 80 moves (64 moves for compare). Here 3 other moves and the moves from Crafty are not better !
Furthermore it is right that the engines have an other time control with ponder = off !!
OK = 10 ELO not more because with ponder = off the engines use the full 40 minutes or 35, 38 ... minutes !
And now I think ...
Whích people can see when an engine play 20-40 ELO weaker ?
Important is that the people have fun to play eng-eng matches and I think the results are good enough. But it is not 100 ELO ! For statistics it is not important that I play with ponder = off or on ! The results are the same in my eyes !
Yes I will make more experiments with a dual processor !
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Chessfun at 19 May 2000 04:08:19:
Sunday is the tourney in Massy (France, see the message in my News Ticker) !Hi,
a lot of games. I replay the games tomorrow, I have not the time today !
But thanks for your message and games, I think Christian Barreteau replay your
games !
Yes AnMon play very strong and AnMon can win against all TOP programs in 30 moves.
I play under Chess Assistant 5.1 last months with AnMon my last games ...
AMD K6-3 450 MHz, 32 MB for hashtables, 40 moves in 20 minutes ...
AnMon 5.06 - Chess Tiger 12.0e
8:12
AnMon 5.06 - Shredder 4
7.5 : 12.5
AnMon 5.06 - WChess 1.2
10:10
And AnMon won more games under 35 moves than the professional programs. For me is not important that Shredder 4 or WChess 1.2 won more games, for me is the play style important.
Under Chess-Base GUIs I play games with AnMon against Nimzo 7-32, Fritz 6, Junior 6 and Hiarcs 7-32. A very good result (9:11, Nunn 1, 10+2) against Nimzo 7-32. Not a chance against Hiarcs 7-32 (4.5 : 15.5).
From the free WinBoard engines I think SOS and LGoliath play a little bit stronger than AnMon. Crafty is in my eyes the best free program.
Furthermore ...
I think the Autoplayer is out, an Autoplayer for 10 programs
I have not interest on this 10 programs and 10 difficult GUIs !
Engines for a good GUIs are IN !
Here I can play with 60 or more engines without autoplayer !
I can make analyzes with all this engines (it is so simply to switch).
My next computer is an dual system and NT4 SP6 !
I found your tourneys very interesting and I hope that you play more tourneys !
Regards
Frank
I never noticed it was this strong as a winboard engine ver 5.06.
5.07 is clearly a strong engine hopefully soon it will be available
for free as a winboard engine.
Is this AnMon 5.06? what were time controls?, hash settings?, I assume
ponder was off?.
I think I agree when it comes to 5.06, with 5.07 I'm not that sure yet,
5.07 is very strong, we shall see how it compares with SOS and LG when 5.07
for winboard comes out. BTW any idea as to the version # of SOS in "Young Talents"? But I do agree, I have no doubt Crafty is the best free program.
I agree with the engines for GUI's are better but what do you think of
the issue of ponder=on or ponder = off?, as it seems that playing in one
GUI with ponder=on allocates different CPU utilization and possibly some
programs will do better with ponder=on.
The dual system will naturally solve the ponder question, I assume most
of the winboard tourneys at your site are ponder=off? unless played on a
dual processor.
Thank you....and I shall !!
Thanks.
Christian wrote me that he will send a new version after the tourney !
01) I play for 3 or 4 month with AnMon 5.03 !
02) 32 MB for hash !
03) Ponder = Off
04) Time control 10+2 (fisher clock) !
The AnMon 5.03 version has a time problem with the WinBoard Adapter under Chess-Base GUI ! But the WB version 5.06 play mutch better under Chess-Base GUI.
I wrote about this test in CSS forum !
Yes, I think Crafty play with 2525 ELO, SOS with 2475 (the new Native Chess-Base version is stronger), LGoliath with 2475 and AnMon with 2450 ELO !
Fritz or Junior with 2600 ELO !
I make me a lot of work with the ponder = on/off problem. I think that for 90% of all programs = ponder on 20-40 ELO.
I see the following problem ... !
I play a match with ponder = off with WinBoard debug file. Now I replay the moves from the first engine in the time which I see in the debug file and the second engine play now with ponder = off.
OK ...
(I made this experiment with a lot of programs)
I see in Crafty for an example ...
Without ponder Crafty play move 20. in 2:30 !
With ponder Crafty play direct the move 20. !
And now the problem.
In move 19. calculate the other program not 2:30, the other program calculate 1:00. And without ponder Crafty play an better move !
I postet the complete log files from this match and my results for the ponder analyze for 5 months in CCC !
Not an answere from Prof. Dr. Robert Hyatt or ... Ed Schroeder
But he agree with the opinion from Ed Schröder Ponder is ~100 ELO !
)20 - 40 ELO not more !!
In the complete match 37 moves (20 moves in the game who I can compare ponder on/off) Crafty play 2 other moves. The other move are not better then the moves with ponder = off !
I made the experiments with 40 moves in 40 minutes games !
I replay a game with 80 moves (64 moves for compare). Here 3 other moves and the moves from Crafty are not better !
Furthermore it is right that the engines have an other time control with ponder = off !!
OK = 10 ELO not more because with ponder = off the engines use the full 40 minutes or 35, 38 ... minutes !
And now I think ...
Whích people can see when an engine play 20-40 ELO weaker ?
Important is that the people have fun to play eng-eng matches and I think the results are good enough. But it is not 100 ELO ! For statistics it is not important that I play with ponder = off or on ! The results are the same in my eyes !
Yes I will make more experiments with a dual processor !
- Frank Quisinsky
Ponder on / Ponder off tournament
by Volker Pittlik » 19 May 2000, 09:23
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Volker Pittlik at 19 May 2000 10:23:07:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 19 May 2000 06:58:42:
[...]
Regards
Volker
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 19 May 2000 06:58:42:
[...]
I'm just playing a "ponder on /ponder off"-tournament on my dualboard. 12 engines, lightning, 20 games per match, ~1200 games have been played so far. The "ponder on" games are nearly finished. Unfortunately something went wrong and some games have been played two times. I think it will take some days to inspect the pgn what was going wrong. I will post the results on sunday. The "ponder off" games will be played after this. This will take about 10 days.Yes I will make more experiments with a dual processor !The dual system will naturally solve the ponder question, I assume most
of the winboard tourneys at your site are ponder=off? unless played on a
dual processor.
Regards
Volker
- Volker Pittlik
Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
by Mogens Larsen » 19 May 2000, 09:48
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 19 May 2000 10:48:18:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 19 May 2000 06:58:42:
).
Shouldn't it be ponder on?
Where the moves identical until then?
No, I agree that it's probably not anywhere close to a 100 ELO points, even though it's almost impossible to estimate and confusing to most. I think ponder on is an advantage with tournament timecontrol or something similar.
What kind of dual system are you considering buying? I'm waiting for the Duron CPU to arrive in Europe before making my purchase.
Sincerely,
Mogens
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 19 May 2000 06:58:42:
I guessed correctly then. How niceSunday is the tourney in Massy (France, see the message in my News Ticker) !
Christian wrote me that he will send a new version after the tourney !
I make me a lot of work with the ponder = on/off problem. I think that for 90% of all programs = ponder on 20-40 ELO.
I see the following problem ... !
I play a match with ponder = off with WinBoard debug file. Now I replay the moves from the first engine in the time which I see in the debug file and the second engine play now with ponder = off.
OK ...
(I made this experiment with a lot of programs)
I see in Crafty for an example ...
Without ponder Crafty play move 20. in 2:30 !
With ponder Crafty play direct the move 20. !
And now the problem.
In move 19. calculate the other program not 2:30, the other program calculate 1:00. And without ponder Crafty play an better move !
20 - 40 ELO not more !!
In the complete match 37 moves (20 moves in the game who I can compare ponder on/off) Crafty play 2 other moves. The other move are not better then the moves with ponder = off !
I made the experiments with 40 moves in 40 minutes games !
I replay a game with 80 moves (64 moves for compare). Here 3 other moves and the moves from Crafty are not better !
Furthermore it is right that the engines have an other time control with ponder = off !!
OK = 10 ELO not more because with ponder = off the engines use the full 40 minutes or 35, 38 ... minutes !
And now I think ...
Whích people can see when an engine play 20-40 ELO weaker ?
Important is that the people have fun to play eng-eng matches and I think the results are good enough. But it is not 100 ELO ! For statistics it is not important that I play with ponder = off or on ! The results are the same in my eyes !
Yes I will make more experiments with a dual processor !
).Shouldn't it be ponder on?
Where the moves identical until then?
No, I agree that it's probably not anywhere close to a 100 ELO points, even though it's almost impossible to estimate and confusing to most. I think ponder on is an advantage with tournament timecontrol or something similar.
What kind of dual system are you considering buying? I'm waiting for the Duron CPU to arrive in Europe before making my purchase.
Sincerely,
Mogens
- Mogens Larsen
Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
by Frank Quisinsky » 19 May 2000, 15:45
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 19 May 2000 16:45:25:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 19 May 2000 10:48:18:)
I hope that AnMon win the tourney in Massy, AnMon is strong enough ! But it is not easy (Chess Wizard, Capture and Chess Tiger are very strong) !
I replay a lot of testgames. I play the move from engine A in the same time and engine B play with ponder = on !
I can not see in my 15 replayed games that ponder = 100 ELO !
I have ~ 4 other moves in this 15 games. But the 4 other moves must not been better !!
I will not buy an half pentium) (Celeron) !
Here I can play with my AMD K6-3 and I must not buy a dual Celeron for 20-40 ELO in eng-eng matches. A Celeron processor with 500 MHz is not faster then my AMD K6-3 processor.
The problem is that I can not found a dual board for AMD K7(
I think a good combination is:
Asus dual board and 2x Pentium III 600e, 256 MB Ram and Windows NT SP6 !
The Duron CPU is interesting but I think to expensive !
Regards
Frank
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 19 May 2000 10:48:18:
It is a top secret messageI guessed correctly then. How niceSunday is the tourney in Massy (France, see the message in my News Ticker) !
Christian wrote me that he will send a new version after the tourney !
I make me a lot of work with the ponder = on/off problem. I think that for 90% of all programs = ponder on 20-40 ELO.
I see the following problem ... !
I play a match with ponder = off with WinBoard debug file. Now I replay the moves from the first engine in the time which I see in the debug file and the second engine play now with ponder = off.
OK ...
(I made this experiment with a lot of programs)
I see in Crafty for an example ...
Without ponder Crafty play move 20. in 2:30 !
With ponder Crafty play direct the move 20. !
And now the problem.
In move 19. calculate the other program not 2:30, the other program calculate 1:00. And without ponder Crafty play an better move !
20 - 40 ELO not more !!
In the complete match 37 moves (20 moves in the game who I can compare ponder on/off) Crafty play 2 other moves. The other move are not better then the moves with ponder = off !
I made the experiments with 40 moves in 40 minutes games !
I replay a game with 80 moves (64 moves for compare). Here 3 other moves and the moves from Crafty are not better !
Furthermore it is right that the engines have an other time control with ponder = off !!
OK = 10 ELO not more because with ponder = off the engines use the full 40 minutes or 35, 38 ... minutes !
And now I think ...
Whích people can see when an engine play 20-40 ELO weaker ?
Important is that the people have fun to play eng-eng matches and I think the results are good enough. But it is not 100 ELO ! For statistics it is not important that I play with ponder = off or on ! The results are the same in my eyes !
Yes I will make more experiments with a dual processor !
Shouldn't it be ponder on?
Where the moves identical until then?
No, I agree that it's probably not anywhere close to a 100 ELO points, even though it's almost impossible to estimate and confusing to most. I think ponder on is an advantage with tournament timecontrol or something similar.
What kind of dual system are you considering buying? I'm waiting for the Duron CPU to arrive in Europe before making my purchase.
Sincerely,
Mogens
)I hope that AnMon win the tourney in Massy, AnMon is strong enough ! But it is not easy (Chess Wizard, Capture and Chess Tiger are very strong) !
I replay a lot of testgames. I play the move from engine A in the same time and engine B play with ponder = on !
I can not see in my 15 replayed games that ponder = 100 ELO !
I have ~ 4 other moves in this 15 games. But the 4 other moves must not been better !!
I will not buy an half pentium
) (Celeron) !Here I can play with my AMD K6-3 and I must not buy a dual Celeron for 20-40 ELO in eng-eng matches. A Celeron processor with 500 MHz is not faster then my AMD K6-3 processor.
The problem is that I can not found a dual board for AMD K7
(I think a good combination is:
Asus dual board and 2x Pentium III 600e, 256 MB Ram and Windows NT SP6 !
The Duron CPU is interesting but I think to expensive !
Regards
Frank
- Frank Quisinsky
Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
by Mogens Larsen » 19 May 2000, 17:20
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 19 May 2000 18:20:50:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 19 May 2000 16:45:25:).
I'm hoping for Chess Tiger and I'm not that fond of AnMon, I don't know why.
That's because ponder on is more important at a longer timecontrol, since it saves time and may cause (if the pondered move is correct) extra search depth. At shorter timecontrols this isn't as important because the saved time isn't sufficient to reach an extra ply in the search. It might be harmful instead, if the pondered move is incorrect and the program is forced to start from scratch. The hashtable conflicts may thereby increase and make the search less effective. At blitz the ponder on option is insignificant IMO. Even under perfect circumstances there isn't a 100 ELO points to be gained. Something like 20-40 at tournament time control is more realistic. That's my thoughts about the subject of ponder.
Hehe...
I know what you mean, it's very frustrating.
The Duron is cheaper than Athlon AFAIK, which is why I'm interested. A dual PIII board is a good option too.
Sincerely,
Mogens
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 19 May 2000 16:45:25:
I promise not to tell a single soulIt is a top secret message
I hope that AnMon win the tourney in Massy, AnMon is strong enough ! But it is not easy (Chess Wizard, Capture and Chess Tiger are very strong) !
I can not see in my 15 replayed games that ponder = 100 ELO !
I have ~ 4 other moves in this 15 games. But the 4 other moves must not been better !!
I will not buy an half pentium
The problem is that I can not found a dual board for AMD K7
I think a good combination is:
Asus dual board and 2x Pentium III 600e, 256 MB Ram and Windows NT SP6 !
The Duron CPU is interesting but I think to expensive !
).I'm hoping for Chess Tiger and I'm not that fond of AnMon, I don't know why.
That's because ponder on is more important at a longer timecontrol, since it saves time and may cause (if the pondered move is correct) extra search depth. At shorter timecontrols this isn't as important because the saved time isn't sufficient to reach an extra ply in the search. It might be harmful instead, if the pondered move is incorrect and the program is forced to start from scratch. The hashtable conflicts may thereby increase and make the search less effective. At blitz the ponder on option is insignificant IMO. Even under perfect circumstances there isn't a 100 ELO points to be gained. Something like 20-40 at tournament time control is more realistic. That's my thoughts about the subject of ponder.
Hehe...
I know what you mean, it's very frustrating.
The Duron is cheaper than Athlon AFAIK, which is why I'm interested. A dual PIII board is a good option too.
Sincerely,
Mogens
- Mogens Larsen
Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
by Frank Quisinsky » 19 May 2000, 18:38
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 19 May 2000 19:38:41:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 19 May 2000 18:20:50:
Hi Mogens,
OK, OK !
The Celeron is for chess not bad and fast ! But for people with an AMD K6-2 or K6-3 processor not interesting.
A dual celeron system is not expensive ...
In Germany:
Arbit motherboard 229,-- DM
Celeron 500 MHz, 249,-- DM x 2 !
= ~ 750,-- DM !!
The price for 1 pentium III 600e processor is 729,-- DM !
Yes, my mistake (I think on an other AMD processor) !
Regards
Frank
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 19 May 2000 18:20:50:
Hi Mogens,
It is an interesting opinion !That's because ponder on is more important at a longer timecontrol, since it saves time and may cause (if the pondered move is correct) extra search depth. At shorter timecontrols this isn't as important because the saved time isn't sufficient to reach an extra ply in the search. It might be harmful instead, if the pondered move is incorrect and the program is forced to start from scratch. The hashtable conflicts may thereby increase and make the search less effective. At blitz the ponder on option is insignificant IMO. Even under perfect circumstances there isn't a 100 ELO points to be gained. Something like 20-40 at tournament time control is more realistic. That's my thoughts about the subject of ponder.Hehe...I will not buy an half pentium
The Duron is cheaper than Athlon AFAIK, which is why I'm interested. A dual PIII board is a good option too.
OK, OK !
The Celeron is for chess not bad and fast ! But for people with an AMD K6-2 or K6-3 processor not interesting.
A dual celeron system is not expensive ...
In Germany:
Arbit motherboard 229,-- DM
Celeron 500 MHz, 249,-- DM x 2 !
= ~ 750,-- DM !!
The price for 1 pentium III 600e processor is 729,-- DM !
Yes, my mistake (I think on an other AMD processor) !
Regards
Frank
- Frank Quisinsky
Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
by Mogens Larsen » 19 May 2000, 18:57
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 19 May 2000 19:57:14:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 19 May 2000 19:38:41:
The price for a 750MHz AMD Duron CPU is below 500,- DM I think. If only there were a dual AMD board available(.
Sincerely,
Mogens
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Frank Quisinsky at 19 May 2000 19:38:41:
Thanks, I tried to do some thinking, I'm not sure I succeeded. I think that's why it doesn't matter that much if AnMon ponders stupid moves, since the advantage of correct ponder by the opponent is small with less time on the clock.Hi Mogens,
It is an interesting opinion !
The price for 1 pentium III 600e processor is 729,-- DM !
The price for a 750MHz AMD Duron CPU is below 500,- DM I think. If only there were a dual AMD board available
(.Sincerely,
Mogens
- Mogens Larsen
Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
by Chessfun » 19 May 2000, 22:23
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Chessfun at 19 May 2000 23:23:55:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 19 May 2000 19:57:14:
I know....I'm getting into this thread a bit late....but hey
summers here !!.
I love the 1/2 pentium's they are good fast and cheap !!.
The AnMon pondering stupid moves is interesting as I have played move
AnMon games and it seems to do this whenever I watch a game. It is very
strange as after the game in analysis it never considers it, but will
look at other silly lines with strange evals. And yet after all that it
plays a mean game.
This pondering of silly moves I agree means less at shorter time controls,
the games I played and posted were 1 hour which though still blitz will
naturally make a difference for the odd move.
Have others noticed this pondering oddity by AnMon?.
I don't know much about "Duron" though I like AMD here you can get a
Athlon 900 for about $500. So if you set up yourself I assume 2 x $500
plus say $200 motherboard and use existing hardrives, ram, keyboard,
software, etc...$1,200.00 a deal. I paid $1,700.00 for my old P150 3 years
ago.
Thanks.
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Mogens Larsen at 19 May 2000 19:57:14:
Hi guys,Thanks, I tried to do some thinking, I'm not sure I succeeded. I think that's why it doesn't matter that much if AnMon ponders stupid moves, since the advantage of correct ponder by the opponent is small with less time on the clock.Hi Mogens,
It is an interesting opinion !
The price for 1 pentium III 600e processor is 729,-- DM !
The price for a 750MHz AMD Duron CPU is below 500,- DM I think. If only there were a dual AMD board available
Sincerely,
Mogens
I know....I'm getting into this thread a bit late....but hey
summers here !!.
I love the 1/2 pentium's they are good fast and cheap !!.
The AnMon pondering stupid moves is interesting as I have played move
AnMon games and it seems to do this whenever I watch a game. It is very
strange as after the game in analysis it never considers it, but will
look at other silly lines with strange evals. And yet after all that it
plays a mean game.
This pondering of silly moves I agree means less at shorter time controls,
the games I played and posted were 1 hour which though still blitz will
naturally make a difference for the odd move.
Have others noticed this pondering oddity by AnMon?.
I don't know much about "Duron" though I like AMD here you can get a
Athlon 900 for about $500. So if you set up yourself I assume 2 x $500
plus say $200 motherboard and use existing hardrives, ram, keyboard,
software, etc...$1,200.00 a deal. I paid $1,700.00 for my old P150 3 years
ago.
Thanks.
- Chessfun
Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster
by Mogens Larsen » 19 May 2000, 22:38
Geschrieben von: / Posted by: Mogens Larsen at 19 May 2000 23:38:53:
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Chessfun at 19 May 2000 23:23:55:(.
Yes, a single move now and then might be affected. The problem is most probable when there's little time left in the endgame and the silly moves steals time from the correct search. This might be counteraffected (is that a word?) by fewer possible moves and a less likelihood for pondering silly moves. Like Frank I'm a non-ponder, so I haven't discovered the problem myself.
Athlon is about 760$ US in Denmark, the price will probably fall when the chips arrive, but expensive nonetheless. The problem is that double socket A boards aren't available AFAIK.
Sincerely,
Mogens
Als Antwort auf: / As an answer to: Re: For Frank Quisinsky AnMon = AnMon ster geschrieben von: / posted by: Chessfun at 19 May 2000 23:23:55:
Better late than never and it's raining hereHi guys,
I know....I'm getting into this thread a bit late....but hey
summers here !!.
I love the 1/2 pentium's they are good fast and cheap !!.
The AnMon pondering stupid moves is interesting as I have played move
AnMon games and it seems to do this whenever I watch a game. It is very
strange as after the game in analysis it never considers it, but will
look at other silly lines with strange evals. And yet after all that it
plays a mean game.
This pondering of silly moves I agree means less at shorter time controls,
the games I played and posted were 1 hour which though still blitz will
naturally make a difference for the odd move.
Have others noticed this pondering oddity by AnMon?.
I don't know much about "Duron" though I like AMD here you can get a
Athlon 900 for about $500. So if you set up yourself I assume 2 x $500
plus say $200 motherboard and use existing hardrives, ram, keyboard,
software, etc...$1,200.00 a deal. I paid $1,700.00 for my old P150 3 years
ago.
(.Yes, a single move now and then might be affected. The problem is most probable when there's little time left in the endgame and the silly moves steals time from the correct search. This might be counteraffected (is that a word?) by fewer possible moves and a less likelihood for pondering silly moves. Like Frank I'm a non-ponder, so I haven't discovered the problem myself.
Athlon is about 760$ US in Denmark, the price will probably fall when the chips arrive, but expensive nonetheless. The problem is that double socket A boards aren't available AFAIK.
Sincerely,
Mogens
- Mogens Larsen
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Archive (Old Parsimony Forum)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests