Number One (on ICC)

(mainly) as result of the strong Houdini 1.5 engine(*), but
also due to the recent improvements in my Chess Partner book,
got a new 'standard' rating record of about 3050 on the
Internet Chess Club (ICC) with my 'bookbuilder' account,
on 28 December 2010, and nr 1 rating
for standard (rapid and slower_ play) !

On a 'simple' Quad comp, while there are some 6 core
comps around (with often an intel icore extreme), so
using a good book, does it matter ?

Yes, indeed it matters, especially at higher levels
of play (i.e. slower time controls, like in standard),
this now simply is proven in actual play,
and it makes sense, a chain is as weak as its weakest
part, and for a chess program this means everything has
to be without weaknesses, opening book, middlegame
(engine) practical endgame (engine) and theoretical
endgame (tablebases); have a lousy book, and against
a similar or even slightly weaker engine the
game can be lost, it makes a difference +/- 100
Elo or so, is my experience..but above a certain
level you can't increase improvement ofcourse
anymore, some booklines are perfect, others
are weak, and to some extent you can tune it
for the engine, playing style blitz/standard,
but thereafter its up to the engine (and the
hardware ofcourse); some concrete examples later
as i'm currently testing my CP book against
other CP books offline (preliminary results:
about 63 % with my recent book, vs 37% with
the older , general CP book, with the
same engine. How much Elo difference that is,
you may calculate..
:)

until next time,

jef

PS (*) quite an improvement now with Houdini,
and it plays especially well in the endgame, so with
a good book, achieving a slight advantage after the
opening, a reasonable (but not extremely) fast comp,
maintaining the advantage, Houdini often converts
such a slight advantage to a win in the endgame,
especially in slow (standard) games.

intermediate repertoire

Having found some better repertoire for advanced players,
and simplified the 1.e4 repertoire for beginners (exchange
RL instead of closed RL), a repertoire for intermediate/
average players was still lacking.

So, using some more recent analysis with Rybka4, i added
such a repertoire in my book 'better chess opening play',
and now advise the Petrov (e5 e5 Nf3 Nf6!) against e4,
instead of the Ruy Lopez (RL). Whereas i found it to be
more solid, it also avoids variations as Scotch, Giuoco
Piano, and many related gambits.

For further info see the book, a new version now has been
uploaded, and is available for registered users of Bookbuilder.

NB End of year 2010 special offer:
50 % price reduction !

While the book is not finished yet, i'm sure the latest
version can help you ie most chess players except super GM's
a lot in your chess play, and i also am getting to get
some positive feedback (eg from one user in the USA:
"excellent E-book") .
And you'll get a download link to the hugebook as well,
which you can use to practice a bit with your own repertoire
(you'll quickly discover that the advised repertoire in
the book is based on many novelties, and profound modern
chess analysis, having used the absolute top engines)

until later,
kec

advanced repertoire with 1.d4

having done some more research with Rybka4, which in many cases
gives a better evaluation of some positions than eg. Rybka3,
another repertoire, which i use in my computerbook is emerging,
namely with 1.d4 .
Against e4, having done considerable analysis on many lines
and playing some testgames both on ICC and playchess.com,
the Sicilian 1..c5!, in particular Najdorf, (with d6 and a6)
looks quite a strong defence, currently even the strongest.
In fact these developments are not surprising, as many top
players also have switched their repertoire from e4 to d4, eg
world champion Anand. Although its often said that this is because
of the Petrov or the Marshall gambit defence in the Ruy Lopez,
for me the reason is the Najdorf, which in fact is played quite
often on playchess.com against e4. Highly accurate play is
required in this sharp, double-edged defence, so for average
players - and certainly beginners- i still advocate 1.e4
as most suitable repertoire.
By starting with 1.e4, you learn variations like the CaroKann
and the French, which knowledge a more advanced players can
still use in case of 1.d4, eg in case of 1.d4 c6?! 2. e4!
or 1.d4 e6?! 2. e4 ; another reason to start with e4,
and imho continue with it a long time, eg up to about 2000
or higher, is not only the difficulty of the Sicilian, in
particular the Najdorf, but also the simple fact that by
playing e4 a player usually will learn tactics, especially
opening tactics sooner than when playing the
*initially* more 'positional' 1.d4

Ofcourse i've updated my demo bookbuilder book (>500,000
positions) which you can download for free at:

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

(14 days trial, and you clearly can see after 1.e4
the Sicilian, .. c5 as preferred defence).
More detailed lines can be seen in my hugebook, now
almost 20 million positions, available for registered
users; results of coming testgames, mainly on
playchess.com will be included in coming months;
lets see if the Najdorf can still hold against the
English attack (with 6.Be3) ; and as 1.d4 is scoring
quite well i probably also will do some research
into the 'best' (more advanced) defence against 1.d4.

until later
jef

Improvements in the Ruy Lopez

found the Russian Firebird 64mp engine, of which it is said that it
has been made with reversed engineering of Rybka. Well anyway
tried some new analysis. While less solid than Rybka, Fire(bird)
very fast sometimes finds interesting lines, and i seemed
to be able to maintain some slight advantage against both
the Zaitsev (9.. Bb7) and the Chigorin defences in the Ruy Lopez.

For example, whereas i previously thought black is ok in the
main line Zaitsev (9..Bb7 10.d4 Te8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.a4 h6 etc.),
with new analysis a rather obscure line, namely with 12.Ng5
seems to be able to achieve a white advantage.
After 12.Ng5 black plays 12.. Re7 to cover f7, and now
the (rare) move is 13.Ndf3! In Guez(2177)-Colin(2402),2005 black
played exd4?! (.. h6 also has been played, but 12.. Qe8N is
probably best), white played 14.cxd4 (Nxf7 would have been
better), and after 14. .. Qe8?! (Na5 would have been better)
we get the following position:


Now white could have got the advantage with 15.e5!N but
being a lower rated - and most likely worse- player,
he played 15.Bc2? and lost the game.

Well anyway the Zaitsev is anyway difficult to play,
especially for beginners, but the Chigorin still (9.. Na5)
is useful in practical play, because of the complexity
and many sideslines despite the slight advantage for white
according to my extensive analysis. For a similar reason,
black can also choose for other defences than the closed
defence, eg. 3.. g6 (Smyslov/fianchetto defence), etc.
See for example a recent book by Solokov on such lines.


But for advanced players, well now my analysis indeed points
to the Sicilian 1..c5 as 'best' defence for black.
Especially the lines with ..d6, possibly leading to
the Najdorf are solid, eg. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 but sometimes very sharp,
eg. with 6.Bc4!

And black also needs to know how to maintain equality
against 3.Bb5! instead of d4, with 3..Bd7 4.Bxd7 Nxd7
(or Qd7 c4!) etc. as described eg in a book by Pedersen.

One chessplayer advised me, that one should not
play the Sicilian below 2000, and he might be right,
a few weeks ago i played a youthful player who
in retrospect told me he wanted to play the Dragon.
But i simply tried the wing gambit, 4.b4!? after 3..d6
and won the game. So i'll keep on recommending
1..e5! in my book, except for advanced players.

and as for Fire(bird), well i expect the new version
Rybka 4 will be stronger again, especially if you
hire the online version, eg. on a cluster with 16 cpu's.

So more theoretical improvements expected to come
(update Dec 2010): with Rybka 4 the variation with Ng5
isnt best anymore, instead now against the Zaitsev
'best' play is going like 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Rfe8 11.Nbd2 Bf8
12.a3! with only a slight advantage for white.
Also with some new analysis in the Chigorin defence
against the RL (9..Na5) this variation appears to be
just as 'solid' as the Zaitsev, but also quite difficult.
(note: as result now the Petrov is advised for average
players with black, see the latest message in this blog