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

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 !

New rating record(s)

yes, again achieved a new rating record
for standard play (mostly 16/0) on the
top (computer) chess server playchess.com !
Now in the top 10 %, on about 11th place,
with a rating of 2669, not bad with some
skulltrails or xeons (8 cpus') in higher places. And
on ICC, with standard play place nr5 has been achieved
(handle bookbuilder).

So my repertoire with 1.e4, found with Bookbuilder,
after lots of testing and fine-tuning seems to
be confirmed, and is becoming quite solid.

some recent changes:

in the Ruy Lopez Zaitsev (9..Bb7) with black, i
dont play 16..g6?! anymore, as it doesn't give
much active counterplay; better seems the old
well known variation with 16..Nd7, and after
17 Ra3 f5! 18. exf5=! (or 18.Nh2 Qe7!)
Rxe1 19. Qxe1 Nxd5!

and yes chess looks drawish again..

more news later

Practical relevance/opening repertoire

Now after the previous ideas and perfect opening lines, whereby black can maintain a draw, one can (and indeed should) ask what's the practical relevance in chess..

Well first of all, by using such almost perfect opening lines, an opening book for a chess program becomes much better of course. Much better ? Well, at least slightly better. For example i've tested my Arena book against the main book by H.Schapp, and achieved improvements of about 60 Elo points. Not really very much, and indeed, the engine/tactics still are much more important.

So what's the relevance of such opening theory for human players ? Well, having thought about this a bit more, i suspect that the approach of finding 'best' opening
moves is not really suitable for human players, having not such perfect memory as computers of course.

Yet another approach can be worthwile, namely choosing opening lines which restrict the number of playable options
for the opponent. Does this mean choosing the sharpest lines like gambits etc.?

Well, not necessarily, when playing e.g. a gambit like Kings Gambit, after 2. f4?! black still has a lot of playable options (ie. resulting in = lines) options,
and probably 2. Nf3 with such an approach still fundamentally is better.

Yet.. when looking at opening theory in such a (new?) way, other lines than 2.Nf3 also can be played, e.g
2. Nc3, or even 2.d4!? And in the latter case, after 2.exd4, white can also play interesting gambit lines
with eg. 3. c3 (Danish gambit) !

In such a way opening play is a bit similar as middle game play, in the sense that it is useful to gain
mobility of your pieces for your own side, whereas simultaneously trying to restrict mobility of
your opponent(s) pieces.. (i suspect many chess programs still are not very good in evaluating mobility,
especially not in end games, eg. when looking at positions like 'fortresses'and so on..).

Anyway, using such an approach (of trying to restrict nr of playable moves for the opponent, already
in the opening stage) of course the human player would benefit a lot of practical knowledge of the
variations he would choose, especially in sharp lines, such as the above mentioned Danish gambit.

So the practical relevance of this idea is that knowing opening theory, having a repertoire aiming for
above strategy, and using for such purposes a program like Bookbuilder, can be useful for the human chess
player in practical (otb) play !
(and yes, i've experienced this myself as well ofcourse; my standard rating on playchess.com now is more
than 1700, and still increasing..)

So, enough for the moment about computer chess, and back to the more interesting human chess again, i would say.. :)

Criticism, theory, etc.

In a recent discussion on Usenet, rec.games.chess.analysis
my 'conjecture' (hypothesis) that chess fundamentally is
a draw, was critized by some people. Trying to give
some evidence, i showed some standard comp-comp
games, eg. with Rl Zaitsev, and Queens Indian,
where black clearly could maintain a draw.
But people may still question such 'evidence'
of course, as there are many many other lines.

Yet, with perfect play for both sides, assuming
white tries to maintain some initial positional
advantage, i found that often Ruy Lopez, and
against d4 black Nimzo Indian or Queens Indian
are the result of such 'perfect'games.

Then again, one may wonder whats the relevance
of mentioning the RL Zaitsev variation as the
main drawing line for black after 1.e4 , as
white for example doesnt have to play 9.h3
in the Ruy Lopez. Well this doesnt matter,
otherwise i wouldnt have mentioned such
lines. Of course i also have analyzed other
possibilities, eg. with 9 d4, the Boguljubow
variation, but then i found even easier
drawing lines for black.

Same after 1.d4 Nf6, white could play instead
of 2.c4 lines as 2.c3, or Bg5, but also then
theoretically black has no problem in
achieving drawish positions. So indeed, its
my conviction that chess fundamentally
is a draw; in case of perfect play of
both sides, of course.

Black is ok, chess is a draw with perfect play..

With some more Rybka analysis, i'm convinced that
chess is a draw, with perfect play for black.
After e4 e5!, and with the Ruy Lopez it seems not
possible anymore to obtain a structural advantage
for white. Neither with the Bobuljubow Ruy Lopez
variation (8.d4) nor with the Closed RL with 9.h3,
as not only the Zaitsev (10..Bb7) but maybe also
the Breyer (10..Nb8) can maintain equality
for black, i.e. equally valued positions.

Of course careful play for black is needed,
to anticipate any winning plans for white,
but i've analyzed these lines deep enough i think
that a draw seems 99.999 % likely with perfect
play for black.

If one would talk about 'solving' chess, ie.
trying to find a forced win for white against any
defence for black (like eg. in four-in-a-row) then
proving chess would be a draw, also would be a
'solution' of chess. So, i now can say that
chess has been 'solved', its a draw.. :)

'Proof':
*if* there would be a forced win for white, then
there would be (deep) opening lines where a clear
advantage can be obtained against any defence for
black. As this is not the case (against 1.e4 e5!),
and against d4 eg. Nimzo-Indian or Queens Indian,
we can say with almost 100 % confidence that chess
is a draw.

And with end game rules like eg. the 50 move rule,
it also is not a suprising result, as with many
conventional 'main' opening lines it already appears
almost impossible to achieve a winning endgame
for white. Also it is known that the better GM
players or computers are playing, the higher the
chance of a draw will be; nevertheless its an
interesting result, now also verified with
computer analysis.

Then why on average is white winning more than
black ? Well this answer is not so difficult, in
general there are less good (non-losing) move-
possibilities for black after every white move.
Thus the chances that black makes a mistake is
larger, especially with lower-ranked/non
perfect playing people/computers.

And think about this: after white has made a
move, i.e. a certain choice about opening strategy,
(eg 2. Nf3 after 1.e4) he is gradually revealing
his plans to black, who can respond accordingly.
Another reason that we can be confident that black
always can equalize. Theoretical we can even think
about the concept of 'zugzwang' , white *has* to
move, and black can respond accordingly. So its
probably fair enough to say that white's (positional)
starting advantage is minimal, certainly less
than 1/3 of a pawn; this seems to be confirmed by
Rybka, if i let if freely analyze the starting
position, its positional value seems to converge
to a value of only about 1/10 of a pawn..

Some another questions:
--------------------------
can white win against the Sicilian (with 1.e4)
or against queens gambit (with d4) ?

Well i don't know, probably not, the Sicilian
certainly seems more difficult to play for black
(less correct moves after every 'best' move by white),
but this is not so important anyway in our theoretical
discussion, as 1..e5! is already 'ensures' a draw;
when after 2.Nf3 black aims for Ruy Lopez 2..Nc6 !
Whereas 2.Nc3 Vienna also doesn't impose much threat.
Would Petrov 2..Nf6?! also lead to a draw for black
with perfect play ? Well, again, irrelevant, RL
is fine, and it's confirmed by a book like
'The Ruy Lopez, a guide for black' :
http://www.amazon.com/Ruy-Lopez-Guide-Black/dp/1904600670

although i have found some improvements to this
book.. And yes, other moves like 1.c4 (e5!!) or
1.Nf3 (similar to d4) of course also don't lead to
advantage for white.

So what's the practical meaning of all this ?
Well, for me at least it indicates that opening
knowledge especially is useful for black,
as its always easier to remember the
correct/non-losing moves, than having
to analyze them Otb..

For white, well moves like 1.f3!? are not
recommended of course, but in general, depending
on personal style, any starting reasonable
move seems possible.

But for beginners, as they anyway often have
to face 1.e4 as black, i still would recommend
to often start with 1.e4, as described in my
e-book; which soon will be updated with the
latest variations; ie equalizing for black..

And for advanced players, well instead of
a draw you can always aim for a win with
black of course, choosing gambits like Benko,
Marshall, or other dynamic & well established
gamits which are hard (or impossible) to refute;
depending on style & preferences..
Books by A.Adorjan (Black is ok) confirm this:
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Forever-Chess-Andras-Adorjan/dp/0713489421

Opening theory and the art of bookmaking

Having looked more in detail into 'my' repertoire,
i.e. the opening book(s) i made for Arena it
appears that gradually i'm getting into new theory.

This is because conventional theory, and also
most 'conventional' opening books are based on (top)
GM games. But the deeper you get into a line, the
fewer games there are, after which the theory gets
very dependent on just one or a few games.

The statistics then get unreliable, and it the of
course is interesting to analyze some of the most important/frequent positions with the top engine
Rybka (in the past most computer chess programs,
i.e. 'engines' were positionally not good enough
to make good moves/ evaluations, but with the latest
Rybka 2.3.2 i believe it can be used to make
professional/GM quality evaluations); this sometimes
leads to interesting results, eg. more solid defences
for black in lines such as the closed Ruy Lopez,
Zaitsev or Breyer variations (doing a full minimax
with the old Bookbuilder 3.6 certainly was useful
in such cases, a/o because of transpositions;
but ofcourse much depends then on the
engine evaluation, and the subvariations which
are already in the book, whether played by GM's ,
having been analyzed myself, or being added
as result of computergames, either downloaded
or played myself in some Arena tournaments..)

In some cases i've checked the results against the
latest Rybka book (rybka2.ctg), and in the
Ruy Lopez i found some improvements for black;
with, i must confess, the conclusion that black is ok.

A similar exercise to check my repertoire against
d4 confirmed that black also is ok in this case,
although the defence with the QueensIndian
(against 1.d4 2.c4 3.Nf3!) was most difficult.

So although we cannot say that 1.e4 is the best
move, but for beginners of course it still is
highly recommended.
This also in some ways 'follows' the history
of chess, where initially (19th century) almost
only 1.e4 was played, whereas the more positional
1.d4 (with sometimes some highly complex play
, eg. against the Benko gambit) came
later, i.e. in the 20th century.

Some preliminary conclusions:
------------------
1) conventional chess is a draw (but not dead,
as RJ Fischer who passed away just recently,
claimed in his later years)
2) the repertoire given in my e-book basically
still is correct and can be used both by
beginners as well as more advanced players,
especially if they play against players of almost
equal ability
3) with Rybka analysis the lines have been improved
although i still have to write them down in detail
4) as a result some of the recommended subvariations
eg. against Caro Kann have changed again a bit
5) against weaker players it would be interesting
to develop a gambit repertoire, both for white
(then i still recommend e4) and with black (where
possible); currently i'm in the process of
researching such a repertoire and making a 2nd
Arena 'gambit' book
6) when becoming stronger chess players can
also develop a '3rd' repertoire with 1.d4 also
this will be a tedious task if it is done
in detail, but the spinoff could be it would
be useful against highly tactical (better?)
players; in such a way it might also be
useful to aim for a draw against stronger players
(maybe later i'll make a 3rd Arena book with
d4 for white but i like to do this as thoroughly
as i've done for e4, so it might take a few years..)

A new start

First of all best wishes to all for the new year 2008.

For this year, i've got some plans to renew my chess repertoire.
After comprehensive analysis and computer games with
the top engine Rybka, it appears that 1 e4 still is
slightly better than d4. Games by Rybka with the Noomen book,
and also human games by Anand seem to confirm this idea.

In my own computer-repertoire, there will be some changes,
and i will write them down in the e-book 'better chess opening play',
so i'm planning a new version, probably ready in a few months.
Writing down the new variations will take less time,
probably only a few weeks.

Some noticeable changes: the Caro Kann defense has become
stronger for black, and the 'best' line for white now isnt
the advance line anymore, but more in line with the
classical lines, with a few improvements of course.
Against Sicilian, both in the Kalashnikov/Pelikan/Sveshnikov
as well as the Najdorf (English attack with Be3!) it appears white
can maintain a positional advantage, according to the Rybka
analysis. So also for advanced players, 1 ..e5 ! now seems the
best defense. Especially the Zaitsev defense (9..Bb7) seems
strong, especially when first 9.. Rfe8! is played, and then
later either 10 .. Bb7 (after 10.d4) or 10.. Bd7 (after 10.d3).

Yes i found some improvements, but i'll have to do some
more testing for a while before i will mention them here.

Until later,
Jef

Some (but slow) progress..

Well, my windoze64 expired, so i did an upgrade with a Vista OEM;
for the rest, updated my positional database again, with lots
of games analyzed (endnode values) with Rybka, now
more than 15 million positions. Full minimax again, and started some
finetuning/checks of the 'best' lines; then had to struggle quite a bit
with the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian.

First it appears that the variation with Bg5 was the best for white,
and i had to look a bit further to the complex poisoned pawn
variation. But in the end i went back to a more common variation,
namely with Be3, the English attack. With a plan of long castling
(after Qd2), it looks promising for white, but i have to play
much more games before i have a conclusive result.

Any other results ? Well not many, i'm starting to update my
main lines of the closed Ruy Lopez (in which i still managed
to keep a slight advantage , ie += for white), and then
have to plug them into my Arena book. Have played
some comp tournaments with the new Arena beta4,
which again looks much better, but unfortunately
it doesnt seem to play on the internet yet.

And still have to update my 'superchess' website,
coming year trying to switch it to my domain name
bookbuilder.nl, and maybe add some more fancy
stuff about opening theory and/or computer chess.

Last rating record ? Well with quite a big selfmade book now
with Arena (50M), almost the size of the 'Schnapps' book,
and the latest Rybka (using the lkmp64 version), i achieved
a new bullet record on ICC in March, namely 2994.
Latest records were from November last year (standard),
but i'll try to improve on that again coming months..
:)

Until later,
jef

Back to 1.e4..

First of all best wishes for the new year 2007 to you all.

Then a remark about the Bookbuilder site: unfortunately
the server superchess.com is not working at the moment,
but the site is still available at:
http://home.wxs.nl/~k.e.c/chess.html

Now some recent results:
having played some gambit lines in recent times with
my bookbuilder/rybka account on ICC, i now switched
back to the 1.e4 repertoire again. First of all, although
some gambit lines looked promising, in general the
results were not as good as i expected, eg. when
comparing with the nr 1 on FICS in standard,
Spike with a unorthodox/gambit book.
Secondly, having done some more analysis
on the Zaitsev line as described in my previous
message, i found out that with d4 (instead of
d3) in longer term still advantage with white
could be obtained, so my old 'philosophy' of
trying to obtain an advantage in all cases
for white with e4 seems possible again.

Ofcourse it still is a hypothesis, occasionally
some defence is encountered which leads
to drawish lines, but then i usually do
some more analysis and try to improve
the book. As a result the standard rating
on ICC is going up again. The Arena interface
is costing me some rating points when bugs
occur, but the opening book is getting better.

For black i'm certainly not ready yet, against
e4 , most often ..e5 is chosen, but against d4
it's not clear to me which defence is the 'best'.
Nimzo-Indian is ok when Nc3 is played,
but in other cases QGD or Slav may
be preferred above the Queens Indian which
i formally recommended.

In a few more weeks i expect to know more..

The best defence against e4 ?

with some more analysis i found a strong line for black in the
closed Ruy Lopez, namely in the Zaitsev variation.
After 9.h3 Bb7 (Zaitsev) 10. d4 Re8! 11. Nbd2 Na5 12. Bc2 black
usually plays c5 (transpositions in black move order are possible)
but what next ? For example, after 13.Ndf1 (or d5) black often
plays 13 .. Bf8, a good move, which after .. g6 (to prevent the
white Nf1g3 and then Ng3f5) makes the fianchetto Bf8g7 possible.

But black has an even stronger move, namely 13 .. exd4 !
Now after 14. cxd4, black can bring his knight on a5 back
to c6, and also later still can play Bf8, making it very hard
maybe even impossible for white to achieve advantage.

In fact, because of this defence, it might even be better
to play 10 d3. for white, or 9 d4 (Boguljubow) but
in these cases also no structural advantage is achieved.

What does this mean ?
Well, having analysed many white openings, it appeared
that in most cases with e4 white could achieve a slight
advantage. But not anymore in above line.

S.. is that black move .. exd4! a novelty ?
Well, not exactly, in the high level -Chessbase sponsored-
'freestyle' (man+computer) tournament in *this* year,
2006, Rybka, the topengine played this move against
the engine Goldbar and the game ended in a draw.

For my personal research, and the E-book better
chess opening play, it means that now other opening moves
as 1.d4, or Nf3, or even 1.c4 are fundamentally just
as good as 1.e4. A major change ?

Well not really, for beginners i still recommend
1.e4, even although you might encounter a defence
like the one give above, or difficult Sicilian lines.
Medium/tactical players probably could better
switch to a gambit repertoire, which even would
be sharper than a general 1.e4 repertoire
more about that later (i'm thinking about
listing a general gambit repertoire, when always
starting with e4, eg. 1.e4 d5 2.d4!? etc.

And indeed, advanced players can maybe better
use a more positional repertoire with 1.d4, but..
also with this move i believe not fundamental
advantage can be achieved for white, which
means chess indeed is a draw; as was expected
already many years by those knowledgeable in
the subject (and top-GM's like Anand and Karpov).

Back to the Rossolimo

With white i got some problems against the accelerated fianchetto
in the Sicilian, even when going for the Maroczy variation,
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 g6!! c4! etc.
So i tried to improve my Rossolimo variations with Bb5 instead
of d4 in the line above, and i now again achieve advantage for white.

So with these improvements my computer rating is going up again,
now with standard nr 5 on ICC.
To a large extent still due to the improved performance of Rybka
on my new AMD X2, with Windows X64 installed,
but the opening book used must also be good of course.

In fact, the higher the ratings of the opponents playing me,
the more important the quality of the book becomes,
as i've clearly seen. Small 'errors' , ie deviations from the
best book move can have big consequences, a well known
fact in chess; at least with respect to tactical errors.

New bullet record

well, as could be expected with the strong Rybka engine,
now i've also achieved a new 'bullet' (lightning/speedchess)
rating on the Internet Chess Club with the Bookbuilder account.

And upgraded my computer again, now running
with the multiprocessor version of Rybka 2.1
with a AMD X2 dual core (4200+ type).

New goal: increasing the standard rating again..
And new idea: uploading my largest Bookbuilder database
(more then 13 million positions) via the Internet
to a site like www.filestore.com; only for registered
Bookbuilder users though; as the support otherwise will
take me too much time of course.

For those interested in downloading Bookbuilder:


14 days trial
And don't forget to have fun with your chess
:)

improvements with Rybka analysis

Recent months i've checked the opening variations in my
E-book (better chess opening play) with the top engine
Rybka, now version 2.1-o UCI.
Initially it appeared to become more difficult to obtain
a structural advantage for white as result of the
less optimistich Rybka analysis, eg. when compared
with Shredder. But while continuing the analysis
new variations were found !

This new analysis is not completed yet, i'm working
on an update of the book, and testing new variations
on ICC (latest standard rating record 2851
on August this year).

Some new findings:
- against the Caro Kann the advance variation again now is preferred
again, instead of the 'English' variations with c4.
- for the Sicilian it is difficult, if not impossible
to find the 'best' defence variation for black; it appears
that different strategies are possible; currently i'm still
experimenting, eg. with Pelikan, Taimanov, and Najdorf
- also after .. e5, when white plays Bb5, the Ruy Lopez,
many different defence variations seem to be equally good,
e.g. Berlin, Cordell, closed, etc.

Yet after renewed analysis and gradually improving the
best lines for white, certain patterns in middle game
planning appear, whereby the advantage for white
with 1.e4 still remains clear in all cases.

Against 1.d4, the Nimzovitch and Queens Indian
defences remain the 'best' defences in practice,
as result of a complete minimax of my large database.
Having recently acquired part 2 of Shereshky's
excellent book Endgame strategy, closed games,
it appeared that i've discovered something which
some Russian top chessanalysts apparently already knew,
namely that the above mentioned 'light square' (bish0p)
strategy is better for black than the black square strategy
like Kings Indian, Slav (with c6), etc. And if black would choose
the QGD it has to be played very carefully, i.e. with moves
like Bb4, in order to adhere to the black square strategy.

It certainly is encouraging that i've achieved similar
conclusions with my own computer analysis, which
means that for th 1.e4 variations we are not far away
of almost 'perfect' results. NB for such results i've
have to extend the analysis as done by Shereshevky
in his Endgame strategy part I book (open games)
to deeper lines, and the results will soon be puslished
in the latest version of the E-book 'better chess opening
play' on www.superchess.com

NB believe it or not, the second hand version of
the excellent, highly original, and apparenlty quite
rare book part I for open games by Shereshvky
now is selling at Amazon.com for a price
of more than 1000 dollars.

So buying my E-book book, including the new version
-when it becomes available in a few weeks- certainly
won't be a bad deal, as it is much more up to date
compared with the rather oldfashioned variations
and games as published by S., and..
last but not least you get the computer
program Bookbuilder included..
:)

ICC standard rating record

not suprising, with the new engine Rybka 1.1 achieved a new
rating record on ICC (2843), at about 10th place. With faster
hardware i believe an even higher rating could easily be achieved.
No human GM is capable of achieving such ratings on ICC..

All games played with self made book, own 1.e4! repertoire,
sometimes 1.a3 as suprise, and the Arena chess interface.

The eval of this super engine Rybka clearly is different
from Shredder, which we still use in FICS, so some lines
eg. in the Ruy Lopez are played a bit differently.

As a result next action will be to update our 'best'
variants again on our site www.superchess.com.
And yes, thereafter the goal is to achieve
yet another new rating record..
:)

new computer chess engines

this year (2005) a new engine came into the market,
started as an amateur engine, but being able to
beat some of the top commercial programs,
and quickly became commercial as well.

which it will do simply after some testing and, then adding
endgame database probing, some more tuning, and finally
a lot of brouhaha on discussion list such as www.icdchess.com

this latest hype was the socalled Rybka engine,
from obviously another gifted programmer (from MIT,
so no surprise that he's a top IT profession )
and.. het is an IM chess player !

Now programming a chess program at top level of
course is far from easy, but there is a lot of competition,
and basically the top programs are not so
different in strenght, compared to each other.

But in general the modern chess programs are still gaining
an amazing improvement every year, not only because
of some very clever programming innovations
w.r.t. to search techniques, but also adding chess knowledge
without slowing down the program (the latter must be some
modern type of secret invented by some top programmers)
And also simply because of law's Moore, namely the increase
in hardware speed, the programs get stronger every year.

As result of the inherent complexities in the chess middle
game, playing against a chess computer is becoming more
and more difficult for human chess players, and that includes even
the top grand masters such as Michael Adams who was crushed
this year by the hardware monster Hydra (software programmed
mainly by C.Donninger, programmer of former PC program Nimzo).

Where will this lead in a few decades ?
Nobody knows, there still are obvious weaknesses in many
chess programs, in middle game planning, and in endgame
strategy; they currently for example usually cannot foresee
socalled fortresses, even when a strong human chess
player can use such 'tricks' in trying to keep
a draw against these monsters..

maybe we should give up chess and go to Go ?
:) Well i don't know, but anyway,
Best wishes for the end of year holidays
and a happy new year 2006

New blitz rating record

well, my computer chess repertoire with e4 still seems to work,
achieved a blitz rating record with my Kec(C) account on Fics,
above 2600, and entered now also the ranks of the highest ten :)

a new update of my book now is available !

with a more appropriate title:
"How to improve your opening play" !

see selected pages at: www.superchess.com