Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsYou say, "4. ...a5 is also a move."
I haven't checked any books or databases but c5 looks playable. It's probably an attempt to steer away from the books.
4. ...a5 is also a move. In fact, it was recommended in a repertoire book that I own, in a similar position (substitute Nf3 for g3). The open a file can come in useful.
Just because a move isn't popular doesn't mean ition where both sides had to think (and play chess), rather than dash out theory (memory).
My reply is....
4...Nc6 or 4...Na6 are moves that defend the bishop too, but that does not mean we want to play them because a grandmaster might play them.
P.S. This grandmaster obviously had an off game with his poor matchup percentages. I say 48% is failing for a grandmaster.
Originally posted by kingshillIt might also be because she was playing against opponents of lesser ability. You ever think of that? 😏
I remember one of the female Welsh Juniors in the late 90s (Annie Powell) had c5 as part of her repertoire. She scored very well with it (possibly because it took her opponents out of book).
Many positions are playable if you know how to handle the resultant positions
Originally posted by RJHindsCalling 4...c5 "weak" is another evidence that you are stupid patzer, unable to reach 2200 here with your own skills. 4...c5 is played by strong players after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 too.
[b]1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 c5?
What book is this in?
4...c5 don't look good to me, because after 5. Bxb4 black must recapture away from the center resulting in double pawns. I do not see any advantage in that.
Even a patzer like me can see 4...Bxd2 is the best move and the only one I would consider.
How do you get all this analysis scores and percentages?[/b]
The b4 pawn does not allow white knight to be developed on c3 (which is usually the best square in such kind of setup). Also it limits options for white to advance in queenside (which also tends to of the best plan in this setup).
Originally posted by PacifiquePerhaps you are right. However, it is not something I would do, because it does not look good to me. That is, it does not fit my style. A strong player can get away with not playing the best moves at times. But as you point out I am a patzer and would probably lose with moves like that grandmaster did or maybe with moves that are even worse. Right now, I can not imagine playing any worse than that grandmaster on RHP as long as I use the analyze board, but I could imagine it for some OTB game. 😏
Calling 4...c5 "weak" is another evidence that you are stupid patzer, unable to reach 2200 here with your own skills. 4...c5 is played by strong players after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 too.
The b4 pawn does not allow white knight to be developed on c3 (which is usually the best square in such kind of setup). Also it limits options for white to advance in queenside (which also tends to of the best plan in this setup).
Originally posted by greenpawn34has the player in question made any statement, or has he simply put his hands up and said you I did it, what will happen to him, will he be given a lifetime ban from tournaments? It seems such a silly price to pay for cheating. Imagine if he did it stealthily, slowly getting his rating up instead of stupidly and blatantly cheating, he would have become a legend instead of a leg end.
The Bulgarian player Borislav Ivanov was strongly suspected of cheating
at a recent tournament in Croatia.
After pulling off some fantastic wins v 2600 GMs (Ivanov is 2200) he was
reportebly strip searched and they found nothing.
A fellow Bulgarian, FM Lilov 2433 has looked at the games from this tournament
and some tournament games prior to thi ...[text shortened]... b7 Qxb7 29. Qxf6 e3 30. fxe3 fxe3 31. Ne7 Kh7 32. Qf8 h5 33. Qg8 Kh6 34. Qh8 Bh7 35. Be4[/pgn]
Originally posted by VarenkaFixed depth to 20 ply offers better quality analysis for a single game than 30 second analysis. Generally speaking with 30 second analysis on the reasonably powerful pc I use I notice that Houdini will reach 19 or 20 ply for most moves, but in complex positions it might only reach 17 or 18 ply.
Just curious, why use a fixed depth? I'm not suggesting it's wrong but I don't see any benefit compared to e.g. 30 secs per move. The downside is that it's difficult to predict how long to analyse a whole game.
I was looking at the analysis for that game whilst it was running, and the timer reached 180+ seconds on quite a few occasions.
Fixed depth should also be more easily reproduced on other systems by other people.
If anyone analysed that game with a 3000+ elo rated engine at a fixed depth of 20 ply & got very different results to those I posted, I'd be amazed.
Originally posted by thaughbaerRunning this game now:
Got time to do a similar analysis on his "awful" game ?
[Event "19th Open A"]
[Site "Zadar"]
[Date "2012.12.21"]
[EventDate "2012.12.16"]
[Round "8.1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Borislav Ivanov"]
[Black "Borki Predojevic"]
[ECO "D11"]
[WhiteElo "2227"]
[BlackElo "2600"]
[PlyCount "68"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Qc2 dxc4 5. Qxc4 Bg4 6. Ne5
Be6 7. Qd3 Nbd7 8. Nf3 Bg4 9. Nc3 e6 10. g3 Be7 11. Bg2 O-O
12. O-O Rc8 13. Rd1 Qa5 14. Bd2 Rfd8 15. h3 Bh5 16. Qc4 b5
17. Qb3 Qb6 18. g4 Bg6 19. Bf4 a5 20. a3 a4 21. Qa2 Bc2
22. Rd2 Bb3 23. Qb1 c5 24. e3 b4 25. axb4 Qxb4 26. Ne5 Nxe5
27. Bxe5 Nd7 28. Bg3 Nb6 29. Qe4 Nc4 30. Re2 cxd4 31. exd4
Nxb2 32. Rxb2 Qxc3 33. Qe2 Qxd4 34. Be5 Qd3 0-1
Same conditions as before...
Originally posted by ZygalskiFair comments but I only gave 30 seconds as an example. If you want better quality than 30 seconds then just increase the time.
Fixed depth to 20 ply offers better quality analysis for a single game than 30 second analysis. Generally speaking with 30 second analysis on the reasonably powerful pc I use I notice that Houdini will reach 19 or 20 ply for most moves, but in complex positions it might only reach 17 or 18 ply.
I was looking at the analysis for that game whilst it was run ...[text shortened]... ngine at a fixed depth of 20 ply & got very different results to those I posted, I'd be amazed.
in complex positions it might only reach 17 or 18 ply
Yes, but it will still be looking at approx. the same number of positions per second. Ok, it may not be as deep but it will be a broader search, and I don't think that a broader search is necessarily any less quality than a deeper search.
Fixed depth should also be more easily reproduced on other systems by other people.
If people are running engines on multiples cores/CPUs then the search is too undeterministic anyway. Take a look at people analysing test positions at the Computer Chess Club site; some of them even have trouble reproducing their own results sometimes! 🙂
In short, I can analyse a position for 2 minutes and get to depth 18. I can analyse another position for 1 minute and get to depth 20 (same hardware/engine). But it's the first position that has been analysed most in terms of positions examined. Depth is just one dimension of the search. Kotov's tree of analysis terminology with "the trunk, "the shrub", etc. comes to mind.
Also, if you're trying to match a suspected cheat then they're not going to be analysing to a fixed depth on every move. They would be playing to a time control while having to subtract time for move relaying back and forth.
None of this makes your results invalid or unappreciated. You just don't know how long it will take to analyse a given game.. why not make things simpler for yourself?! 🙂
Here's the game where Ivanov gets hammered:
[Event "19th Open A"]
[Site "Zadar"]
[Date "2012.12.21"]
[Round "8.1"]
[White "Borislav Ivanov"]
[Black "Borki Predojevic"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D11"]
[WhiteElo "2227"]
[BlackElo "2600"]
[PlyCount "68"]
[Analysis "Houdini 1.5a x64 Hash:640 Time:N/A Max Depth:20ply"]
{ Book Moves: }
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Qc2 dxc4 5. Qxc4 Bg4 6. Ne5 Be6 7. Qd3 Nbd7
{ Analyzed: }
8. Nf3 { Nf3 6 20 : f4 -14 20 : Nxd7 -17 20 : Nd2 -24 20 }
8... Bg4 { Bg4 0 20 : Qb6 5 20 : Qc7 6 20 : Nb6 13 20 }
9. Nc3 { Nc3 0 20 : h3 -3 20 : Nbd2 -5 20 : Bd2 -10 20 }
9... e6 { Qb6 -2 20 : Qc7 0 20 : Qa5 8 20 : e6 12 20 }
10. g3 { e4 7 20 : h3 5 20 : a3 -5 20 : Bf4 -9 20 }
10... Be7 { Be7 -6 20 : h6 -6 20 : Rc8 -2 20 : Bb4 0 20 }
11. Bg2 { Bg2 -5 20 : h3 -11 20 : a3 -18 20 : Bf4 -19 20 }
11... 0-0 { 0-0 -5 20 : Bf5 -3 20 : Qb6 0 20 : Rc8 3 20 }
12. 0-0 { 0-0 0 20 : a3 -18 20 : h3 -18 20 : Qd2 -19 20 }
12... Rc8 { Qb6 0 20 : Rc8 0 20 : Bf5 0 20 : h6 9 20 }
13. Rd1 { Rd1 12 20 : Re1 0 20 : e4 -3 20 : Qc2 -4 20 }
13... Qa5 { h6 7 20 : Bh5 14 20 : Bb4 16 20 : Qa5 16 20 }
14. Bd2 { h3 18 20 : Bd2 10 20 : Bf4 6 20 : Nh4 0 20 }
14... Rfd8 { Qb6 7 20 : Rcd8 13 20 : Rfd8 13 20 : Bh5 16 20 }
15. h3 { h3 15 20 : Nh4 2 20 : Rac1 -7 20 : Qc2 -11 20 }
15... Bh5 { Bh5 12 20 : Bxf3 24 20 : Bf5 46 20 : Nc5 217 20 }
16. Qc4 { e4 11 20 : a3 0 20 : g4 0 20 : Rac1 0 20 }
16... b5 { b5 -24 20 : Qb6 -8 20 : h6 -3 20 : Bg6 -2 20 }
17. Qb3 { Qd3 -24 20 : Qb3 -28 20 : b4 -70 20 : Nd5 -203 20 }
17... Qb6 { b4 -20 20 : Qb6 -19 20 : Qa6 -4 20 : Qc7 10 20 }
18. g4 { Bg5 -14 20 : Rac1 -17 20 : a3 -18 20 : Bf4 -27 20 }
18... Bg6 { Bg6 -21 20 : Bxg4 153 20 : Nxg4 159 20 : e5 249 20 }
19. Bf4 { g5 -24 20 : Nh4 -30 20 : a3 -31 20 : Rac1 -37 20 }
19... a5 { b4 -28 20 : a5 -22 20 : h6 -20 20 : Nd5 -17 20 }
20. a3 { Nh4 -19 20 : Ne5 -33 20 : a3 -37 20 : Rdc1 -44 20 }
20... a4 { a4 -34 20 : h6 -32 20 : Qa6 -21 20 : Nd5 -21 20 }
21. Qa2 { Qa2 -38 20 : Nxa4 -298 20 : Bc7 -543 20 : Bd6 -865 20 }
21... Bc2 { Nd5 -43 20 : h6 -34 20 : Bc2 -33 20 : h5 -32 20 }
22. Rd2 { Rdc1 -34 20 : Re1 -45 20 : Rd2 -63 20 : Rf1 -70 20 }
22... Bb3 { Bb3 -54 20 : Nd5 -35 20 : Bg6 -31 20 : Be4 -8 20 }
23. Qb1 { Qb1 -62 20 : Nxa4 -442 20 : Bc7 -570 20 : g5 -632 20 }
23... c5 { Nd5 -57 20 : h6 -46 20 : h5 -43 20 : c5 -39 20 }
24. e3 { e4 -33 20 : Qe1 -39 20 : Be3 -39 20 : e3 -45 20 }
24... b4 { Nd5 -43 20 : h6 -35 20 : h5 -32 20 : Bc4 -31 20 }
25. axb4 { axb4 -2 20 : dxc5 -60 20 : Ne2 -83 20 : Ne4 -127 20 }
25... Qxb4 { Qxb4 0 20 : cxb4 0 20 : c4 27 20 : cxd4 38 20 }
26. Ne5 { dxc5 0 20 : Bg5 -26 20 : e4 -27 20 : Ne1 -28 20 }
26... Nxe5 { Nxe5 -72 20 : g5 -31 20 : Nd5 -23 20 : Nb6 39 20 }
27. Bxe5 { Bxe5 -84 20 : Bh2 -585 20 : Bg3 -594 20 : g5 -622 20 }
27... Nd7 { Nd7 -101 20 : cxd4 -89 20 : Qa5 -61 20 : h6 -30 20 }
28. Bg3 { Bf4 -88 20 : Bg3 -101 20 : Qe1 -115 20 : Bh2 -115 20 }
28... Nb6 { Nb6 -114 20 : Nf6 -60 20 : h5 -45 20 : Bf6 -27 20 }
29. Qe4 { Be5 -100 20 : Re2 -120 20 : Be4 -130 20 : Bf1 -146 20 }
29... Nc4 { Nc4 -293 20 : a3 -159 20 : Qa5 -134 20 : cxd4 -89 20 }
30. Re2 { Re2 -290 20 : Rdd1 -514 20 : Qd3 -673 20 : Rd3 -689 20 }
30... cxd4 { cxd4 -318 20 : Nxb2 -229 20 : Bf6 -137 20 : a3 -124 20 }
31. exd4 { exd4 -318 20 : Na2 -629 20 : Nxa4 -674 20 : Nd5 -801 20 }
31... Nxb2 { Nxb2 -318 20 : a3 -184 20 : h6 -128 20 : Bf8 -117 20 }
32. Rxb2 { Na2 -322 20 : Nb5 -327 20 : Rxb2 -369 20 : Qb7 -414 20 }
32... Qxc3 { Rxc3 -362 20 : Qxc3 -360 20 : Rxd4 -180 20 : a3 -153 20 }
33. Qe2 { Qe2 -363 20 : Rab1 -552 20 : Rbb1 -554 20 : Qb1 -646 20 }
33... Qxd4 { a3 -365 20 : Bf6 -346 20 : Qxd4 -343 20 : h6 -325 20 }
34. Be5 { Be5 -348 20 : Rbb1 -368 20 : Re1 -449 20 : Rab1 -472 20 }
34... Qd3 { Qc5 -358 20 : Qd3 -353 20 : Qc4 -349 20 : Qd7 -334 20 }
0-1
{ Game Summary }
{ White: Borislav Ivanov }
{ Top 1 Match: 14/27 ( 51.9% )
{ Top 2 Match: 17/27 ( 63.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 20/27 ( 74.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 21/27 ( 77.8% )
{ Black: Borki Predojevic }
{ Top 1 Match: 15/27 ( 55.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 20/27 ( 74.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 23/27 ( 85.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 26/27 ( 96.3% )
Originally posted by Zygalski{ Game Summary }
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1703505
[Event "19th Open A"]
[Site "Zadar"]
[Date "2012.12.17"]
[Round "3.12"]
[White "Borislav Ivanov"]
[Black "Bojan Kurajica"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E00"]
[WhiteElo "2227"]
[BlackElo "2565"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[Analysis "Houdini 1.5a x64 Hash:640 Time:N/A Fixed Depth:20ply"]
{ Book Moves: }
1. ...[text shortened]... tead played the 2nd choice move with very little difference in score...
{ White: Borislav Ivanov }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/25 ( 84.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 25/25 ( 100.0% )
{ Black: Bojan Kurajica }
{ Top 1 Match: 12/25 ( 48.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 16/25 ( 64.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 20/25 ( 80.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 21/25 ( 84.0% )
I do not understand how it is possible to get 100% match on the top 2, the top 3, and the top 4 move.