Some updates

As result of many testgames on playchess.com
and including the games with Rybka analysis
in my large database, some variations in my
book have been updated. For example in the
Queens Indian, after d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6!
g3! i've replaced the bookmove Bb7 with
the more modern Ba6.

Also, against the Sicilian Najdorf, my
preferred bookmove is now Bc4!, the Fischer
attack. While not always getting an advantage
for white, at least the results are better
than with the English attack, Be3, which
still is played often, but against which
black can hold equality with carefult defence.

For the rest many update were made to my book
'Better chess opening play', of which you can
see some selected pages at:



More in general, when comparing the results
achieved when looking for the 'best' bookmoves
or opening variations -as result of Rybka3 analysis-
seem to become in line with mainstream theory,
as published in many specialized opening books,
which in principle is an encouraging result;
and proves that the evaluations made with
the Rybka 3 engine indeed make sense.

When appropriate, and possible, with deeper
analysis ofcourse some improved lines can
be found, and in such a way computer chess
is getting ahead of GM games, even games
played by the top-GM's..

'best' opening lines

sometimes, -less advanced- chess players ask me what are
the best opening lines ? well such an answer cant be
given, as it depends on personal style, but for
average players some solid advice can be given,
as developed over the years with the program Bookbuilder:

- start with 1.e4! aiming for Spanish (Ruy Lopez), closed Sicilian,
or others (the program Chess openings Wizard is advising
1.d4 aiming for the London system, which also is good,
but more for advanced players i would say)

- answer 1.e4 with 1... e5! and aim for closed Spanish (Ruy Lopez)
- answer 1.d4 with 1.. Nf6 aiming for Indian systems (Nimzo-
Indian or Queens Indian)

that's all, for more advise see

http://superchess.com

and eg. order our book 'better chess opening play'
where some 'perfect' (and drawish) variations are
analysed in detail (with world champion chess program Rybka)
eg. the Ruy Lopez Zaitsev, and many more

good luck with your chess

and beginners remember:
first study elementar chess, and
especially tactics !

look eg at:

http://www.stappenmethode.nl/stepsmethod/index.html

jef

new update for Bookbuilder

it took some time (busy with the e-book) but now
there's a new update for the program Bookbuilder,
4.08 ! For download (two-week trial) go to:

http://shareit.com/product.html?productid=184868

Newer book (analyzed with Rybka3), UCO names added, etc.
and a newer Crafty engine; setup file now about 6.8 Mb
for other changes see the readme.txt

jef

chess solved in a few centuries ??

according to a recent article in the magazine of the Dutch
computer chess association, chess could be 'solved' (like
checkers) in a few centuries, e.g. by approx. the year 2600.

well, if the Fide rules are applied, the result will
a draw, according to the following reasoning:

1) due to the 50-move draw rule- and 3 move repetition,
the maximum length of a chess game is about 6000 moves
(haven't found the proof for this, but by computer
simulation we probably could confirm this, in
fact i suspect 6000 is already quite high)
2) if chess would be a forced win for white, then
in the final stages of the game, i.e. the transition
to the endgame, lets say by move 4000, but probably
much earlier, the evaluation function (or simply
material balance) for white should definitely be
an advantage, otherwise the endgame cant be
won in a sufficiently small nr of moves

but.. 3) due to the fact that all openings can result
in drawish positions -provided black plays
correctly-, in about 50 moves, often earlier,
the above criterium, i.e. a white advantage
cannot be achieved, and certainly not in *all*
cases (ie. when investigating all possible defences
for black after either 1.d4, 1.e4, 1.Nf3 etc.

Ergo, chess is a draw.
QED.

A useless exercise to let computers crunch
on this game with these endgame rules for
the coming centuries..
:)

or we should change the rules for computer chess,
which certainly would make endgame theory a
lot more interesting, for the coming future !