lichess.org
Donate

Vs Sunsetter lvl 8

I played a few games against the crazyhouse computer. My impression is that while tactically it is very strong it plays weird moves and has bad impressions about material. I played both games with white, because my repertoire against 1.e4 and pretty bad and I wanted to see how the computer would fare in non-tactical crazyhouse positions. (If such thing exists, lol)

en.lichess.org/lLIZVFPB/white#1

In the first game I was clearly winning after move 16, but the computer thinks that 4 minor pieces vs queen is around equal. In addition, blacks king is weak, white is safe and sound pawn structure, and black has trouble getting out his queenside.

Around move 20 engine thought it was winning, which is of course absurd. I think the engine should reduce the value of queens and increase development/king safety in evaluations.

Then on move 25 I played Nxf2. Whoops! This is the kind of machine trickery that they are good at. Instead Rg3 is winning. I had a variation in analysis and it seems that the eval is okay for a while and then shows completely lost for black. Well, what do you know.

After that it seems okay for white but the engine unleashed a flurry of tactics to crush me.

Second game: en.lichess.org/C3dlL4c3/white#0

I played a solid line, and at move 14 the engine suggested @Bc8! which didn't occur to me. What an idea!

Anyway after @Bh6 I felt the position was quite alright. The engine played some nonsensical bishop moves, ensnaring my king. Though I should be winning, I had to be careful for some knight checkmates (e.g. @Nf3, Bxf3, @Ng2#). At the end computer had no clue about what to do after sacrificing his own knight for nothing.

In conclusion, the engine is very strong in open positions (as shown in game #1) and comes up with resources even when lost (@e2!...@f2!) however in closed positions it seems quite weak. I think 2500 crazyhouse is reasonable is short time controls but in longer time controls it is more or less easy to beat.
Game 1, position after white's 16th move
r1bqk2r/ppp2p1p/2n1pp2/8/2BPN3/2P1PP2/PP3P1P/R3K2R/NNBBpq b KQkq - 0 16

Here are some analysis from engines.
Positive score is better for black, negative score is better for white.

Sunsetter 7i
dep score time
13 -0.01 1:52.19 Q@g2 N@g3 g2h1 g3h1 R@g1 B@f1 P@d5 Q@d1 d5e4 ..
12 -0.14 0:21.09 Q@g2 N@g3 g2h1 g3h1 R@g1 B@f1 P@d5
11 -0.09 0:06.18 Q@g2 N@g3 g2h1 g3h1 R@g1 B@f1 g1h1 Q@g7
10 -0.28 0:01.06 Q@g2 N@g3 h8g8 B@g4 P@d5
9 -0.02 0:00.16 Q@g2 N@g3 P@d5 N@g7 e8f8


NebiyuAlien 1.45
dep score time
18 +3.74 1:30.60 q@g2 e1e2 p@g4 N@h4 g4f3 h4f3 EBF=2.60
17 +3.74 1:05.34 q@g2 e1e2 p@g4 N@h4 g4f3 h4f3 EBF=2.71
16 +3.06 0:38.73 q@g2 e1e2 p@g4 N@h4 g4f3 h4f3 EBF=2.81
15 +3.82 0:33.75 q@g2 e1e2 p@g4 N@h4 g4f3 h4f3 g2g6 EBF=2.99
15 +3.44 0:29.56 p@g7 N@h5 q@h6 h5g3 a7a6 N@h5 h8g8 B@e2 EBF=2.97
14 +3.50 0:21.37 p@g7 N@h5 q@g2 N@g3 h8g8 B@b5 a7a6 b5c6 EBF=3.14
13 +3.38 0:05.20 p@g7 N@h5 h8g8 h1g1 q@h8 B@a3 a7a6 EBF=3.08
13 +2.26 0:03.15 p@d5 N@g7 e8f8 g7h5 d5e4 B@g7 f8e8 EBF=2.91


Imortal v2.0
dep score time
10 -0.26 1:55.55 P@g7 h1g1 f6f5 B@g5 f5e4 g5d8 N@c2 e1d2 c2a1 g1a1 (2.0)
9 -0.01 0:57.01 P@g7 e1c1 e8g8 d1g1 g8h8 c1b1 c6a5 B@b3 d8e7 (3.8)
9 +0.01 0:55.93 P@g7 (3.7)
8 +1.00 0:03.31 P@g2 (1.2)
8 +0.31 0:15.02 Q@h3 h1g1 P@g6 c4e2 h3h2 e1c1 P@g2 B@c5 (5.5)


TJchess 1.1
dep score time
12 +0.64 2:40.63 Q@g2 e1c1 g2f3 N@g7 e8f8 B@h6 f8g8 g7e6 f7e6 P@f7 g8f7
12 +0.64 1:42.28 Q@g2
11 +0.83 0:41.59 Q@g2 e1c1 g2f3 N@g7 e8f8 B@h6 f8g8 c4d3 P@d5
11 +0.83 0:31.91 Q@g2
10 +0.50 0:10.71 Q@g2 e1c1 g2f3 N@g7 e8f8 B@h6 f8g8 N@d2 f3h3 B@f4
10 +0.50 0:06.75 Q@g2
9 +0.53 0:03.43 Q@g2 e1c1 g2f3 N@g7 e8f8 B@h6 f8g8 N@d2 f3g2
9 +0.53 0:01.74 Q@g2
8 +0.75 0:01.02 Q@g2 e1c1 g2f3 N@g7 e8f8 N@d2 f3h3 B@f1


Sjeng 11.2
dep score time
9 +0.25 2:19.40 Q@g2 O-O-O P@d5 Rdg1
9 +0.25 0:50.99 Q@g2 O-O-O P@d5 Rdg1
9 +0.25 0:50.99 Q@g2 O-O-O P@d5 Rdg1
8 +0.48 0:26.06 Q@g2 N@g3 Qxf3 N@g7+ Kf8 B@h6 P@g2
8 +0.48 0:09.93 Q@g2 N@g3 Qxf3 N@g7+ Kf8 B@h6 P@g2
8 +0.48 0:09.93 Q@g2 N@g3 Qxf3 N@g7+ Kf8 B@h6 P@g2


SYSTACSAC-3
dep score time
10 -1.03 3:20.02 P@g2 h1g1 Q@h1 e1c1 h1h2 B@g7 h2g1 d1g1 P@h2
9 -0.32 0:23.21 Q@g2
9 -0.37 0:33.62 Q@h3 e1c1 h8g8 B@g3 P@g2 g3c7 g2h1r N@d6 e8f8
8 -0.02 0:05.23 P@g2 h1g1 Q@h1 N@g7 e8f8 B@a3 c6e7 e1c1 h1h2


Sjakk II 1.3.0
dep score time
11 +5.51 1:33.31 16. ... Q@g2 17. Ke2 P@g4 18. N@d2 gxf3 19. Nxf3 Qg6
10 +5.76 0:22.68 16. ... Q@g2 17. Ke2 P@g4 18. N@d2 gxf3 19. Nxf3 Qg6
9 +5.67 0:10.62 16. ... Q@g2 17. Ke2 P@g4 18. N@d2 gxf3 19. Nxf3 P@g4
8 +5.87 0:02.65 16. ... Q@g2 17. Ke2 P@g4 18. N@d2 gxf3 19. Nxf3 Rg8


KKFChess v2.6.6
dep score time
9 +2.26 5:46.27 16...Q@g2 17.O-O-O Qxh1 18.N@g7+
9 +2.65 5:32.89 16...Q@g2 [Fail #1: Low <+1.33,+7.65>]
8 +2.98 0:09.81 16...Q@g2 17.N@g3 O-O 18.N@h6+ Kh8
8 +0.16 0:08.76 16...P@g2 17.N@g7+ Kf8 18.Nxe6+ fxe6
8 +2.77 0:07.92 16...Q@g2 17.O-O-O Qxh1 [Fail #1: High <-2.23,+4.09>]
8 +2.77 0:07.92 16...Q@g2 17.O-O-O Qxh1 18.N@g7+
Thanks for your reply!

Interesting that engines do favor black quite a bit. After seeing all the positives for black in engine evaluations, I do wonder if I am a bit biased in my evaluation. I do think that white is for sure clearly better.
SYSTACSAC saw a 1 pawn advantage for white (1.03) after searching to a depth of 10 plies or 5-move look ahead after around 3 minutes of searching.

So SYSTACSAC agrees with your assessment that white is better in this position.
I can't find crazyhouse as a variant anymore in 'play against
the machine'

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.