PDA

View Full Version : Our Olympiad Team 2010



The_Wise_Man
17-11-2004, 12:56 PM
Anyone willing to make any bold predictions on what our team will look like in 6 years time.... :?:

Rogers on 1.... would be be my only certainty of a player and board no.

shaun
17-11-2004, 01:01 PM
Without specifying a Board order
Rogers, Johansen, Zhao, Smerdon, Xie, and <Player to be named later>

Garvinator
17-11-2004, 01:53 PM
Without specifying a Board order
Rogers, Johansen, Zhao, Smerdon, Xie, and <Player to be named later>
I disagree with this- where do you plan to place Antic if he decides to move here and play for Australia?

pax
17-11-2004, 01:59 PM
Rogers, Smerdon and Zhao seem pretty certain. Xie seems pretty likely if he continues to improve. Darryl ought to be still in there, though perhaps not as the automatic selection he has been to date. The likes of Lane and Solo will have to work hard to keep ahead of a group of pretty strong young blokes. Raymond Song will be 15, the same age Zhao was when he played his first Olympiad, so who knows?

ursogr8
17-11-2004, 02:11 PM
I disagree with this- where do you plan to place Antic if he decides to move here and play for Australia?

The Punters Club has decided not to form a market on Antic until his rating has been corrected by exposure to Australian conditions (including the weather). ;)

starter

Garvinator
17-11-2004, 02:16 PM
The Punters Club has decided not to form a market on Antic until his rating has been corrected by exposure to Australian conditions (including the weather). ;)

starter
well he has played in two Grand Prix category 3 tournaments and won them both, so i think his rating exposure will be minimally affected ;) :P

ursogr8
17-11-2004, 02:31 PM
well he has played in two Grand Prix category 3 tournaments and won them both, so i think his rating exposure will be minimally affected ;) :P

The Punters Club has some canny characters.
They are waiting for how he performs under Mexican sinister skies at Mt B.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 02:33 PM
The Punters Club has some canny characters.
They are waiting for how he performs under Mexican sinister skies at Mt B.
Or even more formidable opposition.

Garvinator
17-11-2004, 02:35 PM
The Punters Club has some canny characters.
They are waiting for how he performs under Mexican sinister skies at Mt B.
well he should do ok as the weather should be similiar to what he is used to ;)

Trent Parker
17-11-2004, 04:39 PM
ok ok ok so his decision to come to Sydney is probably more to do with other factors than weather... geez!

Recherché
18-11-2004, 09:10 AM
Anyone willing to make any bold predictions on what our team will look like in 6 years time.... :?:

Bold predictions, eh? 6 years is a long time, especially given the potential progress of various juniors who will be in their mid-late teens by 2010.

1. Ian Rogers
2. Zong-Yuan Zhao
3. David Smerdon
4. Raymond Song

And board 5 and 6 from the following list:

Dejan Antic (assuming eligibility); Stephen Solomon; Darryl Johansen; Christopher Wallis

That bold enough for you? ;)

pax
18-11-2004, 09:21 AM
And board 5 and 6 from the following list:

... Christopher Wallis


Who?

DoroPhil
18-11-2004, 09:31 AM
Anyone willing to make any bold predictions on what our team will look like in 6 years time.... :?:



Bd. 1 Rogers
Bd. 2 Smerdon
Bd. 3 Zhao
Bd. 4 Bjelobrk
Bd. 5 DoroPhil
Bd. 6 Johansen

DoroPhil
18-11-2004, 09:33 AM
Who?

C. Wallis is some BoxHill kid rated approximately 1900.

You see 1400-rated people seem to think that 1900-rated people have some sort of a talent or some such. It's quite amuzing actually.

ursogr8
18-11-2004, 10:02 AM
C. Wallis is some BoxHill kid rated approximately 1900.

You see 1400-rated people seem to think that 1900-rated people have some sort of a talent or some such. It's quite amuzing actually.

Actually Phil O'Dor, Chris Wallis is rated 1837.
And as such, he sits in 29th position on the Box Hill active players list. There are 28 active members with higher ratings at Box Hill at the moment. Would you like to bet that you remain above him by the end of March 2005?

starter

Recherché
18-11-2004, 10:42 AM
C. Wallis is some BoxHill kid rated approximately 1900.

You see 1400-rated people seem to think that 1900-rated people have some sort of a talent or some such. It's quite amuzing actually.

Given that chess ratings are supposed to be an approximate normal distribution between 0 and 3000, anyone rated 1900 is well above average. Absolute rating isn't the whole story, either. I'd call a rating increase of 510 points (to 1837, incidentally) in twelve months combined with some impressive games against strong opposition talent, regardless of who did it or what their current rating happens to be.

Obviously the progress of any junior (or adult) chess player is uncertain, and guesses about the 2010 Olympiad team can't be anything more than guesses; on those grounds you are quite welcome to criticise my selections. However to deride any of the people I chose as being without talent is arrogant, and just simply wrong. They are all talented chess players.

For what it's worth, I didn't choose Chris because of his rating, or even because of his results. There are many very talented juniors around right now who have the potential to end up on a hypothetical 2010 olympiad team. I think the biggest factors in the progress of any talented junior is their level of interest in the game, their dedication to it, and the opportunities they get. I don't know Chris, in fact I've hardly spoken to him, but he comes across as mature and dedicated, and he seems to be interested in chess for its own sake. He also seems to be ambitious about his goals for future progress. On those grounds, he seems more likely than the average junior to pursue and fulfill his talent, which is why I chose him.

As for my own rating, I'm not ashamed of it (1404 as of Sep), or my chess results so far. I started playing last year, and when the December ratings come out, I'll have been rated for 12 months. I'm happy with my progress, especially since it has come without coaching (though I do acknowledge the valuable assistance of various Box Hill players, including my opponents, in the analysis of some of my games), and I believe I can keep improving. I don't claim to have any particular talent, and you'll notice I didn't put myself in the 2010 Olympiad team guess-list. My own ambitions aren't currently any higher than to win the BHCC Club Championship one year, or perhaps to play in the Victorian Championship.

I don't believe my rating really has much influence over my ability to guess at the 2010 Olympiad team. You could much more effectively (and less disparagingly) criticize my lack of knowledge about strong interstate (and even non-Box Hill) juniors - something I'll freely acknowledge. For instance, I was going to include Igor Bjelobrk in my board 5 and 6 list, but since I knew nothing about him but his current rating, I left him out.

I don't know who you are, but I hope you're more polite than this over the chessboard.

ursogr8
18-11-2004, 12:19 PM
Actually Phil O'Dor, Chris Wallis is rated 1837.
And as such, he sits in 29th position on the Box Hill active players list. There are 28 active members with higher ratings at Box Hill at the moment. Would you like to bet that you remain above him by the end of March 2005?

starter

Christopher Wallis was rated 1200 in June 2003 and is now 1837 in November 2004.
A graph of his progress can be viewed via. (http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=ratings#search)

starter

Recherché
18-11-2004, 12:45 PM
Christopher Wallis was rated 1200 in June 2003 and is now 1837 in November 2004.
A graph of his progress can be viewed at. (http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=ratings#search)

starter

You can't link directly to a page with Chris' graph on it. However anyone who follows that link and searches for "Wallis" or "Wallis, Christopher" will get the relevant graph.

ursogr8
18-11-2004, 01:12 PM
You can't link directly to a page with Chris' graph on it. However anyone who follows that link and searches for "Wallis" or "Wallis, Christopher" will get the relevant graph.

Rob
I was writing with Welshers in mind; and therefore expected they would just naturally navigate as you have spelt out. ;)

But since you are a stickler...I have adjusted the post.

auriga
18-11-2004, 01:17 PM
Rob
I was writing with Welshers in mind; and therefore expected they would just naturally navigate as you have spelt out. ;)

try the direct link below.

http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=ratings&a=Wallis,%20Christopher#search

also, if you check below chris is no.10 on the under 15 list.

http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=age&a=all&b=15

pax
18-11-2004, 01:23 PM
Christopher Wallis was rated 1200 in June 2003 and is now 1837 in November 2004.
A graph of his progress can be viewed via. (http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=ratings#search)

starter

That's quite some improvement. I think that must be the sharpest improvement I have seen over that sort of period. Max Illingworth has a similar improvement, though over a slightly longer period.

Recherché
18-11-2004, 01:23 PM
try the direct link below.

http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=ratings&a=Wallis,%20Christopher#search

Ahh, well done. I tried briefly to find that, but had no success. I should have just looked in the page source. :doh:

Bill Gletsos
18-11-2004, 02:01 PM
That's quite some improvement. I think that must be the sharpest improvement I have seen over that sort of period. Max Illingworth has a similar improvement, though over a slightly longer period.
Chris had been fairly static between Dec 2002 and June 2003 with his rating going from 1252 to 1259. In Sept 2003 he rose 117 to 1376 and hit 1461 in Dec 2003. He then rose to 1572 in March 2004 but it must be remembered this included 70 points of uplift so in reality a modest improvement. He then rose 80 to 1652 in June 2004 and then an impressive 185 to 1837 in Sept 2004.

Max on the other hand was 1296 in June 2003 rising to 1343 in Sept 2003. He then had a large increase in Dec 2003 to hit 1471. This was followed by another good increase in March 2004 even taking into account the 70 point uplift when his rating hit 1603. This was followed by a very good increase of 145 points to 1748 in June 2004 and another 72 increase to 1825 in Sept 2004.

Of course Junta Ikeda had an exceptional rating rise from 649 in Dec 2001 to 962 in April 2002 and a staggering 377 increase to 1339 in June 2002. This increased to 1419 then 1477 and on to 1595 by June 2003. This is a total increase of 946 points in 18 mths.

pax
18-11-2004, 02:08 PM
Of course Junta Ikeda had an exceptional rating rise from 649 in Dec 2001 to 962 in April 2002 and a staggering 377 increase to 1339 in June 2002. This increased to 1419 then 1477 and on to 1595 by June 2003. This is a total increase of 946 points in 18 mths.
(or 1292 in 3 years)

Crikey! No wonder those Canberrans were complaining about underrated juniors.

Credit to the system, though for correcting the rating in such a short time. In the 80's he'd still be 1400.

DoroPhil
18-11-2004, 02:19 PM
Actually Phil O'Dor Would you like to bet that you remain above him by the end of March 2005?
starter

Yes, I would. Of course, I'll remain above him by the end of March 2005.

But then again, as I chose not to reveal my identityt here it would be kinda difficult to see if I won that bet, now wouldn't it, starter?

Bill Gletsos
18-11-2004, 02:56 PM
Yes, I would. Of course, I'll remain above him by the end of March 2005.
Probably not if he goes up 400 odd points in that time. :hmm:

pax
18-11-2004, 03:24 PM
Probably not if he goes up 400 odd points in that time. :hmm:

Hey, maybe DoroPhil is Ian Rogers... Then again, maybe not :hmm:

Ian Rout
18-11-2004, 03:29 PM
Hey, maybe DoroPhil is Ian Rogers... Then again, maybe not :hmm:
See no. 13 - unless he's trying to throw us off the track by picking himself twice he isn't Rogers, Smerdon, Zhao, Bjelobrk or Johansen.

pax
18-11-2004, 03:45 PM
How old is Bjelobrk?

shaun
18-11-2004, 03:53 PM
How old is Bjelobrk?
Around 20/21 but instead ask
"What country does he play for?"

pax
18-11-2004, 04:04 PM
Around 20/21 but instead ask
"What country does he play for?"

I'm aware that he's listed as NZL, but I also know that he didn't play for NZL at this Olympiad, and seems to live in (and play most of his chess in) Australia. And after all, we are talking about the 2010 olympiad here...

The_Wise_Man
18-11-2004, 04:20 PM
I think Solo has maybe only 1-2 Olympiads before he gets overtaken.
Xie said he waited 5 years to beat Solo in Coffs and would be looking in 2 years time (given he is still improving) to push his way into the team...

:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

Smerdon will maybe get ahead of Zhao as his study intensifies and more than likely plays less often.....

:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

ursogr8
18-11-2004, 04:39 PM
Yes, I would. Of course, I'll remain above him by the end of March 2005.

But then again, as I chose not to reveal my identityt here it would be kinda difficult to see if I won that bet, now wouldn't it, starter?

OK....You have given a few clues here Phil O'Dor, unless you are very subtle.
> Your rating is above CW's.
>> You read chess books
>>> You like DCC
>>>> You have fat hands as in identityt
Can I ask...do you like Maccas?

starter

Oepty
18-11-2004, 07:20 PM
I think that Moulthun Ly would also be a strong chance to be around the selection. On the womens side I think that Angela Song would have to be very close to the mark by then.

Denis_Jessop
18-11-2004, 08:04 PM
Of course Junta Ikeda had an exceptional rating rise from 649 in Dec 2001 to 962 in April 2002 and a staggering 377 increase to 1339 in June 2002. This increased to 1419 then 1477 and on to 1595 by June 2003. This is a total increase of 946 points in 18 mths.

Just to bring the picture up-to-date, Junta's September 2004 rating is 1941.

Of course, all the predictions about which juniors may be in the Olympiad team in 2010 assume that they will still be playing chess, which is a perennial problem. It doesn't necessarily follow that event the strongest will keep it up in the current social climate. That's one of the problems chess administrators would love to solve.

Denis Jessop

Recherché
18-11-2004, 10:07 PM
Of course, all the predictions about which juniors may be in the Olympiad team in 2010 assume that they will still be playing chess, which is a perennial problem. It doesn't necessarily follow that event the strongest will keep it up in the current social climate. That's one of the problems chess administrators would love to solve.

It's not really a solvable problem though, is it? We can only seek to minimise it as best we can.

Kids, even extremely talented ones, will naturally leave chess. It happens with every kind of game/sport. They hit puberty and discover new relationships; they hit VCE (or the interstate equivalent) and focus on their study; they lose interest over time; they come out from under the influence of parents who have been pushing them (I'm not implying this is the case with every junior, but it happens); it's a fairly predictable process.

I believe the best thing we can do for junior chess retention rates is to get the national, adult chess system running as fluidly and successfully as possible. Role models are very important, as are goals to aspire to (such as "Australian Champion").

DoroPhil
19-11-2004, 07:09 AM
OK....You have given a few clues here Phil O'Dor, unless you are very subtle.
> Your rating is above CW's.
>> You read chess books
>>> You like DCC
>>>> You have fat hands as in identityt
Can I ask...do you like Maccas?

starter

I don't think you are on your way to the correct guess here, starter. Not sure what made you think that I read chess books. And no, I am not a big fan of Maccas. Does that help?

ursogr8
19-11-2004, 07:42 AM
I don't think you are on your way to the correct guess here, starter. Not sure what made you think that I read chess books. And no, I am not a big fan of Maccas. Does that help?

Well everything in your post helps, my friend Phil O'Dor.

You only denied two out of 5 sign-posts; so that leaves the other 3 as confirmed or not-denied. (Do you know Boolean algebra heuristics and algorithms btw Phil?)

But, nevertheless, if your denials are true, then I am off the pace. But closer. :uhoh:


starter

What the heck...I will try another
>>>>> Do you know where I go to get taxi-licence?

DoroPhil
19-11-2004, 07:51 AM
Well everything in your post helps, my friend Phil O'Dor.

You only denied two out of 5 sign-posts; so that leaves the other 3 as confirmed or not-denied. (Do you know Boolean algebra heuristics and algorithms btw Phil?)

But, nevertheless, if your denials are true, then I am off the pace. But closer. :uhoh:


starter

What the heck...I will try another
>>>>> Do you know where I go to get taxi-licence?

Taxi-licence? Wouldn't have a clue. I am not Mr. Hacche if that's where that was going.

ursogr8
19-11-2004, 07:59 AM
Taxi-licence? Wouldn't have a clue. I am not Mr. Hacche if that's where that was going.

B.ugger :doh:



But every cloud has a silver lining according to Boole.; you do know his theorem?

starter

Rincewind
19-11-2004, 08:14 AM
But every cloud has a silver lining according to Boole.; you do know his theorem?

Do you mean

P(union(E_i,i=1..N)) <= sum(P(E_i),i=1..N)

?

DoroPhil
19-11-2004, 08:18 AM
Do you mean

P(union(E_i,i=1..N)) <= sum(P(E_i),i=1..N)

?

yeah, methinks that's exactly what he meant.

ursogr8
19-11-2004, 08:28 AM
Do you mean

P(union(E_i,i=1..N)) <= sum(P(E_i),i=1..N)

?

BAZ :doh: :hand: :rolleyes:

If you are going to give the answers away then the questions are meaningless. ;)

starter

Rincewind
19-11-2004, 09:10 AM
If you are going to give the answers away then the questions are meaningless. ;)

Just might be better to call that Boole's inequality to avoid confusion.

ursogr8
19-11-2004, 08:39 PM
OK....You have given a few clues here Phil O'Dor, unless you are very subtle.
> Your rating is above CW's.
>> You read chess books
>>> You like DCC
>>>> You have fat hands as in identityt
Can I ask...do you like Maccas?

starter

Hi Phil O'Dor

What do we know about the topics that make you post?
1 Early this year you were not a member of an affiliated Club...because you winced at the pricing schedule of the VIC OPEN w/e
2 You are a player in contention for the top prize in a w/e because you winced at the egalitarian rating prizes in the same tourney
3 You declared that you will not be going to Mt bloody (sic) Buller. So that puts your consideration of the GURUs offer into perspective.
4 You knew Denis' handle.
5 You sling off at the MCC w/e.
6 An interest in the venues for the VIC Championships. (By now you must be a member of an affiliated Club).
7 An interest in the Geelong w/e.
8 Previous form re Chris Wallis. Gave me some idea.


Gee...it's a tough one
Excuse me I have to sign off.
Taxi!


starter

ps It would really help if DCC had the previous VIC OPEN w/e on a web-site. Are you sure you did not play in 2003?

DoroPhil
19-11-2004, 09:27 PM
Hi Phil O'Dor

What do we know about the topics that make you post?
1 Early this year you were not a member of an affiliated Club...because you winced at the pricing schedule of the VIC OPEN w/e
2 You are a player in contention for the top prize in a w/e because you winced at the egalitarian rating prizes in the same tourney
3 You declared that you will not be going to Mt bloody (sic) Buller. So that puts your consideration of the GURUs offer into perspective.
4 You knew Denis' handle.
5 You sling off at the MCC w/e.
6 An interest in the venues for the VIC Championships. (By now you must be a member of an affiliated Club).
7 An interest in the Geelong w/e.
8 Previous form re Chris Wallis. Gave me some idea.


Gee...it's a tough one
Excuse me I have to sign off.
Taxi!


starter

ps It would really help if DCC had the previous VIC OPEN w/e on a web-site. Are you sure you did not play in 2003?

Well, all the facts listed here are more or less correct.

Yet, something causes me to think that you are on the wrong track once again. Fascinating, isn't it?

And yes, I am quite certain that I was not present at the VicOpen2003.

ursogr8
20-11-2004, 04:39 PM
Well, all the facts listed here are more or less correct.

Yet, something causes me to think that you are on the wrong track once again. Fascinating, isn't it?

And yes, I am quite certain that I was not present at the VicOpen2003.

B.ugger again. :doh:

But I have added to my collection.
> Not playing in the BHCC X-rated SWISS by the look of your posting time.


Circling.

starter

Bill Gletsos
20-11-2004, 04:50 PM
ps It would really help if DCC had the previous VIC OPEN w/e on a web-site. Are you sure you did not play in 2003?
According to Dorophil over in the Vic Open 2004 thread he last played in the Vic Open 2 or 3 years ago at Dandenong. He also mentioned that the then entry fee was $45. This would seem to indicate the 2001 Vic Open however the 2002 Vic Open was also held at Dandenong except the entry fee was $50.
Anyway for your information here are the entrants rated over 1900 in the 2001 and 2002 Vic Opens.

2001 Vic Open:

1. Computer, Shredder VIC
2. Chapman, Mark SA 2326
3. Baron, Michael VIC 2304
4. West, Guy VIC 2273
5. Booth, Stewart VIC 2202
6. Pecori, Ascaro VIC 2086
7. Lojanica, Milenko VIC 2003
8. Chow, Sam VIC 1973
9. Guy, Wayne NSW 1963
10. Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija VIC 1921
11. Partsi, Dimitry VIC 1918


2002 Vic Open:

1. Solomon, Stephen QLD 2403
2. Sandler, Leonid VIC 2357
3. Jordan, Bill VIC 2293
4. Wastney, Scott OS 2248
5. Hamilton, Doug VIC 2158
6. Partsi, Dimitry VIC 2002
7. Dozsa, Paul ACT 1991
8. Flitney, Adrian SA 1959
9. Lojanica, Milenko VIC 1946
10. Cooper, Ray VIC 1944
11. Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija VIC 1927
12. Pecori, Ascaro VIC 1926
13. Nemeth, Janos VIC 1918

DoroPhil
20-11-2004, 06:51 PM
Anyway for your information here are the entrants rated over 1900 in the 2001 and 2002 Vic Opens.



And I was rated over 1900 back then because ... ?

Trent Parker
20-11-2004, 07:15 PM
this reminds me of something a couple of months ago........:hmm: who was chesslover?

Bill Gletsos
20-11-2004, 08:50 PM
And I was rated over 1900 back then because ... ?
Because I couldnt be bothered posting all the players.

I'll post them all if starter asks me to.

ursogr8
20-11-2004, 09:15 PM
Because I couldnt be bothered posting all the players.

I'll post them all if starter asks me to.

Thanks Bill.

It put another part candidate on the table.
Your 1900 criteria looks like a good choice, but the reaction from Phil looks mishandled.
Now, why would he post that eh?
*Proud of recent improvement to get over 1900? Hmmm; but then he did see himself above DJ in 10 years time.
**Nervous that you narrowed the search effectively?
*** Just argumentative in a Boole sense?

I don't think we should part from your list.

starter

Alan Shore
20-11-2004, 11:47 PM
2001 Vic Open:
1. Computer, Shredder VIC

How cool is that! It's the first time I've seen a computer entrant in Australia.. how did that go and has there been any more instances of it being used?

Garvinator
20-11-2004, 11:50 PM
How cool is that! It's the first time I've seen a computer entrant in Australia.. how did that go and has there been any more instances of it being used?
as a declared entrant or in another instances ;)

Bill Gletsos
20-11-2004, 11:55 PM
How cool is that! It's the first time I've seen a computer entrant in Australia.. how did that go and has there been any more instances of it being used?
In that particular event it came equal second.
There have been previous events where computers have participated.

Alan Shore
20-11-2004, 11:57 PM
as a declared entrant or in another instances ;)

....... Declared entrant.... honestly!


In that particular event it came equal second.
There have been previous events where computers have participated.

Interesting.. I suspect with the advancement of computer technology a strong computer would perform at a much stronger level than it had previously. Can you name any of these other comp. participation events? Also, are there any plans to include them in future comps?

Recherché
21-11-2004, 10:40 AM
In that particular event it came equal second.

It must have been playing with a pretty terrible opening book to do that badly.

Garvinator
21-11-2004, 10:53 AM
It must have been playing with a pretty terrible opening book to do that badly.
or it wasnt the full strength version ie the playing strength was reduced to the standard of the high rated players for 'competitiveness'. Either that or the computer it was on was a very small one and so didnt have much processing ability.

DoroPhil
21-11-2004, 01:33 PM
Thanks Bill.

It put another part candidate on the table.
Your 1900 criteria looks like a good choice, but the reaction from Phil looks mishandled.
Now, why would he post that eh?


Logic, as Mr. Gletsos sees it, is quite an amuzing creature. I was mildly curious as to how he came up with the magic number (1900) in this instance. Not saying that I was either under or over 1900 at that time.

ursogr8
21-11-2004, 01:48 PM
Because I couldnt be bothered posting all the players.

I'll post them all if starter asks me to.

Bill
We have changed our mind here. Could you provide the entire fields for these events.
The organiser for 2004 found that CV records are virtually non-existent, and so you have become the dbor.
Could you either PM to me, or my business mail-box.

tks
starter

ps For Phil O'Dor research, 1900 was enough. Even 1917 would have done in part.

pax
22-11-2004, 02:09 PM
Interesting.. I suspect with the advancement of computer technology a strong computer would perform at a much stronger level than it had previously. Can you name any of these other comp. participation events? Also, are there any plans to include them in future comps?

Back in the good old days when "ordinary" good players could beat computers it wasn't uncommon.

In '94 the Novag Diamond computer competed in the Australian Open. It did rather poorly (7/11?) after a loss with black to Cordover (due to a dodgy line in the opening book) was duplicated three rounds later by Sam Low.

[Event "AUS op"]
[Site "Perth"]
[Date "1994.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Cordover,David"]

[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A25"]
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 d6 4.Bg2 Be6 5.d3 Qd7 6.a3 0-0-0 7.b4 Bg4 8.Qa4 Kb8
9.Nb5 a6 10.Nc3 Nd4 11.b5 Ne7 12.Rb1 axb5 13.Nxb5 Ndc6 14.Be3 e4 15.Bxe4 Bf5 16.Ba7+ Kc8
17.Bb6 Qe6 18.Nxc7 Qxe4 19.dxe4 Bxe4 20.Rd1 Bxh1 21.f3 Rd7 22.Nb5 Kb8 23.Rxd6 Rxd6 24.Bc7+ Kc8
25.Qa8+ Kd7 26.Bxd6 Nd8 27.Qb8 Ke8 28.Qc7 Ne6 29.Qxb7 Nd8 30.Qc7 1-0


[Event "AUS op"]
[Site "Perth"]
[Date "1994.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Low,Sam"]
[Black "Comp Novag Diamond"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A25"]
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 d6 4.Bg2 Be6 5.d3 Qd7 6.a3 0-0-0 7.b4 Bg4 8.Qa4 Kb8
9.Nb5 a6 10.Nc3 Nd4 11.b5 Ne7 12.Rb1 axb5 13.Nxb5 Ndc6 14.Be3 e4 15.Bxe4 Re8 16.Ba7+ Kc8
17.Bb6 cxb6 18.Qa8+ Nb8 19.Na7+ Kd8 20.Qxb8+ Nc8 21.Rxb6 d5 22.Bxd5 Bc5 23.Rxb7 Bxa7 24.Rxd7+ Bxd7
25.Qf4 f6 26.Nf3 Rhf8 27.Qd2 g5 28.0-0 g4 29.Nh4 f5 30.Rb1 Re7 31.e3 f4 32.gxf4 Rf6
33.d4 Ra6 34.Qd3 Rf6 35.c5 h6 36.Be4 h5 37.Ng6 Re8 38.Ne5 Re7 39.Nxd7 Rxd7 40.Rb7 Rxb7
41.Bxb7 Ne7 42.Qh7 Rf8 43.Qxh5 Nf5 44.Qxg4 Ne7 45.Kf1 1-0


[b]skip to my lou: Fixed up PGN

pax
22-11-2004, 02:12 PM
These days, of course there is seldom any point entering computers in tourneys, unless the entry is attached to a gigantic sponsorship deal.

Ian Rout
22-11-2004, 02:28 PM
Of course you can't just enter a computer in a tournament, you have to have the approval of the organisers. I think the most famous recent case is the Dutch championship a couple of years ago, which attracted considerable criticism and was not repeated.

Typically the rule in weekenders (though not the Dutch championship) was that players could opt not to be paired against the computer, so long as they specified this at the start of the event. These days everybody would take that option.

Lucena
30-11-2004, 01:31 PM
Back in the good old days when "ordinary" good players could beat computers it wasn't uncommon.

In '94 the Novag Diamond computer competed in the Australian Open. It did rather poorly (7/11?) after a loss with black to Cordover (due to a dodgy line in the opening book) was duplicated three rounds later by Sam Low.

:lol: that's pretty funny