Can someone analyze this game?

I'm no chess expert. I have been following this game for sometime. Would someone please take the time to analyze the moves? Thanks. This game was completed some days ago between Kings and Pawns (white, RHP 2400) and cohonas (black, RHP 2397)

I'll do the first 5½ moves.

Originally posted by DerJager
I'm no chess expert. I have been following this game for sometime. Would someone please take the time to analyze the moves? Thanks. This game was completed some days ago between Kings and Pawns (white, RHP 2400) and cohonas (black, RHP 2397)

[pgn][Event "Clan challenge"] [Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"] [Date "2011.11.05"] [EndDate "2012.01.09"] [Round ...[text shortened]... 28. Bd3e2 Qd6e5 29. cxd4 cxd4 30. Qd2d3 Kg8g7 31. Qd3c2 1/2-1/2[/pgn]

How did this game arouse your interest?

Originally posted by torten
How did this game arouse your interest?

Clash of the engineers, sorry Titans

Sorry about that Derjager. I'll try again

[/b]

Originally posted by DerJager
I'm no chess expert. I have been following this game for sometime. Would someone please take the time to analyze the moves? Thanks. This game was completed some days ago between Kings and Pawns (white, RHP 2400) and cohonas (black, RHP 2397)

[pgn][Event "Clan challenge"] [Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"] [Date "2011.11.05"] [EndDate "2012.01.09"] [Round ...[text shortened]... 28. Bd3e2 Qd6e5 29. cxd4 cxd4 30. Qd2d3 Kg8g7 31. Qd3c2 1/2-1/2[/pgn]

Such a game would appear normal to many top players here. 😕

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
Such a game would appear normal to many top players here. 😕

I could be mistaken. But I fail to see any strategy. I don't see any long term ideas... just a bunch of tactical parries leading to a boring position. I'm not sure what you would even say about it.

It doesn't look like either player was interested in an advantage...just constantly hoping the other would choke? Thats how I'd analyze this; two tactical players bashing each others brains. The last technique to obtain the passed pawn was pretty...but was so deep candidate wise that I don't see how it could have been planned very far out. I'd move onto a better game Mr. Jager.

Q

Quite a few forcing/obvious moves & not many which are non-database, but anyway:

4 x AMD Phenom 2.30 Ghz 4GB RAM
Houdini 1.5a x64 Hash:512 Time:60s Fixed Depth:20ply

Game 8830857
{ White: Kings and Pawns }
{ Top 1 Match: 16/19 ( 84.2% )
{ Top 2 Match: 16/19 ( 84.2% )
{ Top 3 Match: 16/19 ( 84.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 18/19 ( 94.7% )

{ Black: cohonas }
{ Top 1 Match: 14/18 ( 77.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 17/18 ( 94.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 17/18 ( 94.4% )
{ Top 4 Match: 17/18 ( 94.4% )

Originally posted by DerJager
I'm no chess expert. I have been following this game for sometime. Would someone please take the time to analyze the moves? Thanks. This game was completed some days ago between Kings and Pawns (white, RHP 2400) and cohonas (black, RHP 2397)

[pgn][Event "Clan challenge"] [Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"] [Date "2011.11.05"] [EndDate "2012.01.09"] [Round 28. Bd3e2 Qd6e5 29. cxd4 cxd4 30. Qd2d3 Kg8g7 31. Qd3c2 1/2-1/2[/pgn]

In my opinion 3.d4 is played for quick opening development.
I think Black should take the d4 pawn and white should continue his
development of his pieces by playing 4.Bc4 (Scotch Gambit). White
however, plays 4. Nxd4 in order to maintain a material balance, but
it seems to violate opening principle by moving the knight twice. The
result of White's last two moves is to allow Black to gain a tempo by
attacking with 4...Nf6. Here White should defend the attacked pawn
with 5.NC3, but he moves the same Knight a third time in the opening
5.Nxc6. Black must recapture to keep material even with 5...bxc6. If
5...dxc6, then White plays 6.Qxd8+ and the advantage goes to White
since Black is prevented from castling. White has some compenstation
for the wasted moves of the knight by doubling Black's pawns and
isolating the rook pawn, but this seems to be offset by giving an open
file for Blacks's rook and providing spaces for his bishop to move.

That completes my analysis of the first five moves.
I don't know how to make the diagram like you and greenpawn34 so
I will let greenpawn34 continue and only post if I see anything he does
not cover.

Originally posted by Zygalski
Houdini 1.5a x64 Hash:512 Time:60s Fixed Depth:20ply

Just curious, when does the analysis of each position terminate? 60s? 20 ply? Whatever happens first?

If 60s, why 60 and not 30?

Why the top 4 rather than top 3?

Trying to understand your method better.

The set depth was 20 ply; the setting was min depth =20 ply, max depth =20 so in this case the time limit of 60 secs was superfluous.

I agree now adding it in the analysis header could cause confusion!

Edit:

Batch Analyzer is set to automatically search for top 4 lines multi-pv, so I have no control over that.

With a setting like
analysis time 30sec & min depth = 12 max depth = 20 ply
the engine is allowed the 30 sec constraint & so long as the minimum depth is reached for all 4 lines (in the above case 12) it will automatically roll over to the next ply.
The engine is allowed to finish analysing the current line if the minimum depth is reached, so the time limit of 30sec can be over-ran (and quite often is) by some consdierable amount.

The reason the constraints are used are to limit the amount of time taken to analyse a batch.
20 games which each have 20 or more non-database moves typically yield around 600-800 analysed moves. This takes between 10-15 hours on a setting of 30sec, min depth 12, max depth 20.
With these constraints a fast engine like Houdini on my system usually seems to reach a depth of at least 18 or 19 ply & frequently 20 ply.

Originally posted by Zygalski
20 games which each have 20 or more non-database moves typically yield around 600-800 analysed moves. This takes between 10-15 hours on a setting of 30sec, min depth 12, max depth 20.

Thanks.

Considering that a chess engine running on 4 cores is not 4 times as fast as a single core (e.g. 2 cores is something like 1.7 times quicker rather than 2), I’m wondering how complicated it would be to run a separate Batch Analyser on each core? So, Houdini using a single core. Maybe you’d give each one more analysis time since its only running on a single core but you’d be analysing multiple games in parallel and hence get more throughput of games. Of course, you’d need enough RAM for the multiple hash tables. I don’t have Batch Analyser or know much about it, so maybe I’m overlooking issues.

Originally posted by DerJager
I'm no chess expert. I have been following this game for sometime. Would someone please take the time to analyze the moves? Thanks. This game was completed some days ago between Kings and Pawns (white, RHP 2400) and cohonas (black, RHP 2397)

[pgn][Event "Clan challenge"] [Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"] [Date "2011.11.05"] [EndDate "2012.01.09"] [Round 28. Bd3e2 Qd6e5 29. cxd4 cxd4 30. Qd2d3 Kg8g7 31. Qd3c2 1/2-1/2[/pgn]

I've looked over the game pretty good and it appears to me than both
players did not want to take any chances and played to keep their
Kings safe from attack. There is just a few series of direct attacks
with either direct defenses or a counter attsck and jocking for position.
I might have missed it but I really didn't see any tactics at all. They
apparently were both satisfied with a draw and agreed on a draw when
they could see no good way to play for an advantage when they reached
their final position. I agree that this is not a very interesting game.

P.S. I took another quick run through of the game and I did see one
tactic. It was a double attack that attacked both queen and bishop,
with 16...Bg4. There were some pins too, however, they are so normal
that I don't consider them as tactics unless they win material.

Originally posted by DerJager
This game was completed some days ago between Kings and Pawns (white, RHP 2400) and cohonas (black, RHP 2397)

My amateur analysis is that neither player took any risks whatsoever, and as a result this wasn't a fun game to look through

Originally posted by morgski
My amateur analysis is that neither player took any risks whatsoever, and as a result this wasn't a fun game to look through

My amateur analysis is that Black should get himself a different nick.

Richard