The CCC challenge: Possioto vs Tsvetkov

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
IQ
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:46 am

Re: The CCC challenge: Possioto vs Tsvetkov

Post by IQ » Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:56 pm

Dear Lyudmil,

please do not spam this thread with off-topic positions and posts. Just state with a simple "yes" or "no" whether you intend to continue our game after my move e4 or not. Your posts are sometimes a bit confusing and contradictory - at least to me, which might be entirely my fault - so please refrain from any explanatory text and stick to "yes" or "no". If you chose "no" we can end this thread and i could share some of my analysis in the other thread.

best regards,

Roberto

fastgm
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Contact:

Re: second fortress

Post by fastgm » Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:58 pm

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:[pgn][Event "Blitz 1m"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2017.06.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "SF 8, owner"]
[Black "myself"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. Ba5 {0} f6 {1.20/23 4} 2. f3 {1.21/21 0} Kf7 {1.18/22 0}
3. Kf2 {1.27/21 0} e5 {1.02/24 0} 4. dxe5 {1.10/25 0} fxe5 {1.21/24 0} 5. Ke2 {
1.07/27 0} Nd7 {1.16/24 0} 6. Bb6 {1.00/23 0} g5 {1.06/23 0} 7. Kd3 {0.97/24 0}
Ke6 {0.94/22 0} 8. Kc4 {1.05/24 0} Nf6 {1.09/23 0} 9. Bd8 {1.05/27 0} Nd5 {1.
13/26 0} 10. Kd3 {1.04/29 0} Nb4+ {1.01/28 0} 11. Kc3 {1.04/27 0} Nd5+ {1.13/
25 0} 12. Kd2 {0.99/29 0} Kd7 {1.13/23 0} 13. Ba5 {0.99/27 0} h5 {1.11/26 0}
14. e4 {1.20/27 0} Nf4 {1.04/28 0} 15. g3 {1.01/29 0} Ng6 {1.08/27 0} 16. Ke3 {
1.04/29 0} Nf8 {1.06/27 0} 17. Bc3 {1.17/25 0} Ng6 {1.32/27 1} 18. Bd2 {1.12/
27 0} Ke7 {1.39/24 0} 19. Kf2 {1.47/29 0} Kf6 {1.43/30 0} 20. Ba5 {1.43/32 0}
Ke7 {1.43/31 0} 21. Bc7 {1.50/29 0} Kd7 {1.50/31 0} 22. Bd6 {1.43/32 0} Ke6 {
1.43/35 0} 23. Ke3 {1.51/28 0} Kf7 {1.50/32 0} 24. Kd2 {1.50/33 0} h4 {1.50/30
0} 25. Bc7 {1.50/30 0} hxg3 {1.50/36 0} 26. hxg3 {1.50/38 0} Ke7 {1.50/31 0}
27. Kc3 {1.50/36 0} Kd7 {0} 28. Bd6 {1.50/41 2} Ke6 {1.50/45 0} 29. Kd3 {1.50/
46 0} Kf6 {1.50/34 0} 30. Ke3 {1.58/35 0} Ke6 {1.58/34 0} 31. Kf2 {1.62/32 0}
Kf7 {1.52/34 0} 32. Kg1 {1.52/35 0} Ke6 {1.52/32 0} 1/2-1/2

[/pgn]

[d]8/8/2pBk1n1/2P1p1p1/4P3/5PP1/8/6K1 w - - 0 33
Here even the final fortress position is won for white :-)
Until now I thought you were an excellent chess player and analyst... :roll:

[d]8/8/2pBk1n1/2P1p1p1/4P3/5PP1/8/6K1 w - - 0 33

McBrain 2.5 64 BMI2:

64/113 13:04 67.675.363k 86.233k +15,70 33.Kh2 Nh8 34.Kh3 Kf6 35.Kg4 Nf7 36.Bf8 Kg6 37.Be7 Nh6+ 38.Kh3 Nf7 39.Kg2 Kh6 40.Kf1 Nh8 41.Bf6 Ng6 42.g4 Nf4 43.Bxe5 Ne6 44.Bd6 Kg7 45.Ke2 Kf7 46.Kd3 Ke8 47.Kc3 Kd7 48.Kc4 Nd8 49.Kb4 Kc8 50.Be5 Ne6 51.Kc4 Kd7 52.Bd4 Nd8 53.Kb4 Kc8 54.Kc3 Kd7 55.Be3 Nf7 56.Kd3 Ne5+ 57.Ke2 Nf7 58.Bd4 Nd8 59.Ke3 Ke8 60.f4 gxf4+ 61.Kxf4 Ne6+ 62.Ke5 Kf7 63.Be3 Nf8 64.g5 Ke7 65.Kf5 Kf7 66.Bf4 Ng6 67.Bd6 Nh4+ 68.Kg4 Ng2 69.Kh5 Ne3 70.g6+ Kg7 71.Kg5 Nc2 72.Be5+ Kg8 73.Kf6 Ne3 74.Bf4 Ng4+ 75.Ke6 Kf8 76.Kf5 Nf2 77.Be3 Nd3 78.Bd4 Ne1 79.Be5

Komodo 11.01 64-bit:

57 28:52 140.023.268k 80.821k +4,16 33.Kh2 Nh8 34.Kh3 Nf7 35.Bf8 Kf6 36.Kg4 Kg6 37.Be7 Nh6+ 38.Kh3 Nf7 39.Kg2 Nh8 40.Kf2 Kh6 41.Ke3 Ng6 42.Bd8 Nf8 43.Bc7 Ng6 44.g4 Nf4 45.Bxe5 Ne6 46.Bd4 Kg6 47.Kd3 Kf7 48.Kc3 Ke8 49.Be3 Kd7 50.Kb4 Kc8 51.Ka5 Kb7 52.Bf2 Nf8 53.Bg1 Ne6 54.Be3 Ka7 55.Kb4 Kb7 56.Kc3 Ka6 57.Kc4 Ka5 58.e5 Ka4 59.Kd3 Kb4 60.Ke4 Kc4 61.Kf5 Kd5 62.Bxg5 Nxc5 63.Be3

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 23523
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: Lyudmil on his way to a forfeit?

Post by hgm » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:00 pm

Well, ignoring might not be optimal. Lyudmil's claims can be very useful. You cannot be more certain that something is not true then when Lyudmil claims it is.

Vinvin
Posts: 4341
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:40 am
Full name: Vincent Lejeune

Re: Lyudmil on his way to a forfeit?

Post by Vinvin » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:06 pm

Jeroen wrote:He just floods the thread with postings not related to the subject, to divert attention.

Because Lyudmil very well knows that if he accepts the challenge, Possioto will beat him.
He already done that in other threads.
Lyudmil has big trouble to accept he is wrong.
I never know anyone who was always right in his whole live.
He should accept that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

Jeroen
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Lyudmil on his way to a forfeit?

Post by Jeroen » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:16 pm

Perhaps we must just let the case to rest and try to ignore his bloating statements
Yeah, that might be best. It is a pity this site doesn't have an ignore button.

MikeB
Posts: 3292
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:34 am
Location: Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania

Re: first fortress

Post by MikeB » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:18 pm

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:[pgn][Event "Blitz 1m"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2017.06.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT"]
[Black "myself, owner"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. e4 {1.23/17 0} f5 {1.29/16 0} 2. e5 {1.37/24 0} Kf7 {1.39/
23 0} 3. f3 {1.36/27 0} g5 {1.35/26 0} 4. Kf2 {1.44/25 0} Kg6 {1.47/21 0} 5.
Ke3 {1.42/25 0} Kf7 {1.47/24 0} 6. h3 {1.49/23 0} Kg6 {1.39/25 0} 7. Ke2 {1.40/
25 0} Nd7 {1.40/27 0} 8. Kd3 {1.34/25 0} Nb8 {1.33/29 0} 9. Kc4 {1.33/29 0} Na6
{1.33/31 0} 10. Ba5 {1.33/26 0} Kf7 {1.33/33 0} 11. Kd3 {1.33/31 0} Kg7 {1.33/
32 0} 12. g4 {7} f4 {1.15/28 1} 13. Kc3 {1.46/28 0} Kf7 {1.15/29 0} 14. Bd8 {
1.08/31 0} Ke8 {1.10/36 0} 15. Bf6 {1.08/33 0} Kf7 {1.08/35 0} 16. h4 {1.08/33
0} gxh4 {1.77/33 1} 17. Bxh4 {1.07/34 0} Nc7 {1.07/34 0} 18. Bf2 {1.07/33 0}
Nd5+ {1.07/33 0} 19. Kb3 {1.07/38 0} Ke7 {1.07/36 0} 20. Be1 {1.07/39 0} Kf7 {
1.07/40 0} 1/2-1/2

[/pgn]

first fortress position:

[d]8/5k2/2p1p2p/2PnP3/3P1pP1/1K3P2/8/4B3 w - - 0 21
you will never get the truth with 1 minute blitz games in this position - way too complicated... lines presented are full of holes, but I think you know that and you're just having fun :D

fastgm
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Contact:

Re: 3rd fortress

Post by fastgm » Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:33 pm

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:[pgn][Event "Blitz 1m"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2017.06.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "SF 8, owner"]
[Black "myself"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "48"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. Ba5 {0} f5 {0} 2. Kf1 {1.46/23 1} Nd7 {5} 3. Ke2 {1.50/28
0} Nf6 {3} 4. Bc7 {1.54/26 1} g5 {7} 5. f3 {1.54/30 0} h5 {8} 6. Bd8 {1.68/25 1
} Nh7 {4} 7. h4 {1.84/32 1} gxh4 {1.82/35 0} 8. Bxh4 {1.76/34 1} Ke8 {1.73/36 1
} 9. Kd2 {1.73/29 0} Nf8 {1.73/31 0} 10. Kc3 {1.73/32 0} Ng6 {1.73/34 0} 11.
Bg5 {1.73/33 0} Kd7 {1.73/33 0} 12. Kc4 {1.73/34 0} Kc7 {1.73/34 0} 13. e4 {1.
73/36 0} fxe4 {1.73/37 0} 14. fxe4 {1.73/37 0} Kd7 {1.73/36 0} 15. g3 {1.73/33
0} Nh8 {1.73/38 0} 16. Kb4 {1.73/34 0} Nf7 {1.73/32 0} 17. Be3 {1.73/37 0} Kc7
{1.73/33 0} 18. Bf4+ {1.73/35 0} Kd7 {1.73/40 0} 19. Kc3 {1.73/43 0} Nd8 {1.73/
43 0} 20. Kd3 {1.73/44 0} Nf7 {1.73/44 0} 21. Be3 {1.73/37 0} Nh8 {1.73/34 0}
22. Bg5 {1.73/37 0} Nf7 {1.73/39 0} 23. Bf4 {1.73/38 0} Kd8 {1.73/37 0} 24. Be3
{1.73/35 0} Kd7 {1.73/39 0} 1/2-1/2

[/pgn]

[d]8/3k1n2/2p1p3/2P4p/3PP3/3KB1P1/8/8 w - - 0 25
Again no fortress!

[d]8/3k1n2/2p1p3/2P4p/3PP3/3KB1P1/8/8 w - - 0 25

McBrain 2.5 64 BMI2:

65/106+ 15:56 82.489.714k 86.262k +11,52 25.Bf4
65/108+ 31:11 164.302.732k 87.780k +19,79 25.Bf4

User avatar
Guenther
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:33 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Full name: Guenther Simon
Contact:

Re: Lyudmil on his way to a forfeit?

Post by Guenther » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:24 pm

hgm wrote:Well, ignoring might not be optimal. Lyudmil's claims can be very useful. You cannot be more certain that something is not true then when Lyudmil claims it is.
I agree that he can be useful, if you see him as a kind of 'inverted' oracle,
as you described above.
Current foe list count : [91]
http://rwbc-chess.de/chronology.htm

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Thank you all!

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:16 am

will briefly post here, as everyone understands I can not physically post in 3 threads, 10 subthreads, while answering the messages of 20 unfriendly users.

ust do not know what to say, but it will better to just remain silent and let the truth out in the future.

it will certainly out, truth always outs. :)

well, let me just count the number of haters, to have things clear:

- Roberto Possioto (che possa morire :), just kidding, do you understand Italian?)
- Jeroen Noomen
- Andreas Strangmueller
- Guenther Simon
- Bram Mourik(why did you join, Bram?)
- Kai Laskos( you certainly have some problems, Kai)
- Vincent Lejeune( that one was not such a hater, maybe my anti-Rybka sentiments threw him off balance?); nul nést prophete dans sons pays, Vincent, nul
- Herbert L. (this one is certainly a spammer, and definitely a Rybka follower, too bad for him)
- etc., etc., I already forgot the rest, drained by stupidity and obnoxiousness

dozens of them.

why are you really so bad, so hating?

so far, no one has proven the ending, either with or without rooks, is lost for black, why should the burden of proof be on me?
I am alone, and you are dozens.

chess is played with probabilities, and black always has good drawing chances in this ending, Carlsen and Aronian are not unerrable.

stats in terms of drawn games are also quite good for black, so I made the right choice.


why no one is comenting my Bd6 line, a rich mg position, and vital for the assessment if a3 pawn should be captured?

because you know I am right and Bd6 retreat scores better for white, right? :)

I was right the pawn on a3 should be captured, Carlsen too, at least we are on the same side with Magnus. :)

after Bd6 c5 Bc7 e4, white wins almost by force, why do not you have the courage to comment/analyse this?

because you are good, only when you run SF on strong hardware on simple endgames, right?

when it is difficult to go astray.

but are completely helpless in a rich mg position.

Andreas is showing some fortresses, possibly debunked in some 50 moves(!), 100 plies, by engine output.
do you know what 100 plies in chess are, Andreas?
the engine could certainly have gone wrong somewhere.

people only concentrate on positions where I might have gone wrong, not mentioning the many more when I have been completely right.

why so?
because you are haters?

and, even if I have gone wrong somewhere, this has been very much human, and my lines have been still very strong indeed, if you need a couple of hours SF analysis to show some possible weakness, and that at depth 60+
finding a win at depth 60+ is not a big mistake, if available, by any standard.

why do not you mention the alternatives?

as said, a3 capture is forced.
what is the alternative?

I want to thank a few people here, for not joining into the hateful bashing:

- thank you, Eelco, for that
- thank you, jon, that you stopped when this was due
- thank you, Peter, that did not bother me with one more opponent :)

I remember the good all times, when people were not that hateful.

where are you, Carl?
where are you, Louis? :(

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Thank you all!

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:36 am

I will post, if anything just on this thread, as I can not post 100 replies in 5 threads.

will wait for the truth outing at some propicious point in time.

in the meantime, I would request pretty much everyone in this hating bunch, primarily Bram, Andreas, Possioto, Herbert, Vincent, etc., not to use SF for their analyses, as in SF code there have been at least 20 successful evaluation patches based on my ideas, and without those, SF would never have reached its current status.

do you want me to enumerate them all?

- advanced levers
- blocked storming pawns on the 6th rank
- edge a/h storming pawn, blocked by king
- minor-queen imbalances
- penalty for doubled pawns in terms of distnace between the pawns
- center bind bonus
- penalty for low mobility pieces on the edge

etc., etc., at least 20!

other ideas of mine have served for successful patches too, indirectly, because the primary notion has been mine, or because my suggestions have spurred thoughts along similar lines.

for example, a piece protector bonus has been proposed by me and tested at the framework long time ago.
attacking squares on the king side, not part of the shelter, too
bonus for penetration points, currently, minors attacking an outpost square
etc., etc.

also, pawn push threat, and
most importantly, psqt bonus for connected defended and duo pawns in terms of rank, implemented in late 2013 by Joerg Oster and Ralph Stoesser.

do you know that this patch was a turning point in SF's development?
omly after it, SF began playing in a more positional vein, considering its advanced pawns.

only after it, SF was able to become the strongest engine on the planet!
without it, quite probably it would not have done so.

because of it, SF is currently playing KIDs best.

all these patches and the subsequent SF rise would have been impossible without me.

do you consider that at all, when attacking me in such an atrocious manner?

do you?

that is why, I would kindly ask you not to use SF any more in your tests and analyses.

Locked