Category Archives: Chess Engines

Russia has defeated India 2.5-1.5 and 3-1 to confidently triumph in both rounds of the finals of the World Women's Team Championship that concluded in Sitges, Spain. If the semi-rapid event can be considered for historical continuity, this victory is the second for Russia in the championship after its earlier win in 2017.

For the first time in the event, India wins a medal, a silvera creditable reward for the team's fine run in the tournament until the finals. India had lost just one match in the entire tournament until the finals, again to Russia in their Pool A encounter in the fourth round of the league stage.

Early difficulties on boards with the black pieces cost India dearly in both rounds, as they burdened players on other boards with pressure to score, and the team could not recover. GM Kateryna Lagno came up with a stellar performance for Russia winning her games in both rounds, exhibiting reliability much needed in a team event. GM Dronavalli Harika with the black pieces defeated GM Aleksandra Goryachkina on the top board in the first round, which was the only bright spot for India in the finals.

Live coverage of round one. Watch all of the live coverage at youtube.com/chess.

Russia started the finals as the favorite, with three grandmasters among its ranks and superior Elo rankings on all the boards. However, as in most sports, the sum of individual strengths of a team's players doesn't always equal its total, and India could be optimistic because its players had shown fighting spirit and resourcefulness until reaching the finals.

Just as the games moved into the early middlegame, the first round of the finals started looking evenly poised for both teams. Russia had an advantage on the third board through Lagno who seemed to have developed a good initiative right out of the opening against IM Bhakti Kulkarni, from a fashionable variation of the Caro Kann Defense. On the fourth board, WGM Mary Ann Gomes seemed to have developed a good positional edge against IM Alina Kashlinskaya from a slow Reti Opening.

The other two games looked evenly poised. On the top board, Goryachkina was surprised with a pawn sacrifice variation by GM Dronavalli Harika. WGM Vaishali vs. GM Alexandra Kosteniuk seemed to be on a level footing. So, there were boards to be both happy as well as worrisome for both the teams!

When there were no computers to teach chess opening theory, some openings had been branded as "unsound" by chess experts, mainly due to the pawn structures arising out of early middlegames. The variation of the Caro-Kann Defense employed by Kulkarni against Lagno4...Nf6 5.Nxf6 exf6had been condemned as "bad" even as late as the 1980s. But the variation has been spruced up and presented as playable in the past few years, thanks in no small measure to deep preparation with chess engines, though still looked at with a tinge of skepticism. But it wasn't a real surprise that Kulkarni adopted it for this game, as many top Indian players have employed it.

Also, in team championships, when stronger teams (in terms of Elo or otherwise) wish to outwit the opposition without taking much risk, the tendency is to "keep control" and keep it simple: play solid, sound openings with both colors and adhere to the principle, "Win with white pieces and draw with black pieces." Working the logic from the reverse, lower-rated opponents tend to play sharper openingseven if they aren't entirely soundto provoke "stronger" players into playing more tactical and sharper to create chances.

Kulkarni tried to play actively with black pieces, but her opening play backfired fast. As the game progressed, it was obvious that Lagno had developed a serious advantage: Black's pawn advances on the kingside looked premature:

This game quickly unraveling to be difficult for India, Gomes seemed the best bet for an equalizing win, to build up her early middlegame advantage, and to push for a victory against Kashlinskaya:

By this time, Vaishali's game looked to be inching towards a draw, as the ending didn't seem to possess any particular danger for White. But she blundered with a tactical oversight:

Curiously, in the league stage, Vaishali had also blundered in an ending with rooks and a minor piece and lost to Kosteniuk.

With Kosteniuk's game being the first to finish, Russia's victory seemed inevitable, as Lagno held a huge advantage against Kulkarni. But Harika's fighting spirit brought a creditable victory over Goryachkina.

Harika is the mainstay of this Indian women's team, being the only grandmaster and Elo topper. Fresh from her excellent showing in the Online Olympiad just a couple of weeks ago, she has been the main anchor of the Indian team in the absence of GM Koneru Humpy. Her game against Goryachkina seemed to be an even contest, as Harika employed a sharp opening variation:

One can only speculate that fatigue was the reason for Goryachkina's collapse in the game with the format forcing the players to play more than a dozen games in just six days.

With India desperately needing to win the second round to force a tiebreak, things didn't start well for them. Opening choices with black pieces seemed to be a recurring issue for the team, as IM Polina Shuvalova on the fourth board quickly exposed difficulties in Gomes' Kan variation of the Sicilian Defense. Once again, just as with Kulkarni in the first round, the difficult position that Gomes faced early in the round resulted in pressure on her other teammates:

Even before Shuvalova's win was achieved, Kosteniuk-Vaishali had ended in a relatively quick draw. On the top board, in a reversal of fortunes, Harika survived anxious moments throughout the game:

With the gold medal for the team almost in sight, Lagno played steadily in the long and final game of the event and even punished IM Tania Sachdev for pushing too hard in a quest to win for the sake of the team:

All games - Finals

The 2021 FIDE World Women's Team Championship was a 12-team event featuring teams representing chess nations around the world. The event ran from September 27 to October 2 and was broadcast on Chess.com.

Related:

Read more:

FIDE World Women's Team Championship Final: Russia Wins Gold In Victory Over India - Chess.com

A special set of editorials published in todays issue of the journal Science argue that social media in its current form may well be fundamentally broken for the purposes of presenting and disseminating facts and reason. The algorithms are running the show now, they argue, and the systems priorities are unfortunately backwards.

In an incisive (and free to read) opinion piece by Dominique Brossard and Dietram Scheufele of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the basic disconnect with what scientists need and what social media platforms provide is convincingly laid out.

Rules of scientific discourse and the systematic, objective, and transparent evaluation of evidence are fundamentally at odds with the realities of debates in most online spaces, they write. It is debatable whether social media platforms that are designed to monetize outrage and disagreement among users are the most productive channel for convincing skeptical publics that settled science about climate change or vaccines is not up for debate.

The most elementary feature of social media that reduces the effect of communication by scientists is pervasive sorting and recommendation engines. This produces what Brossard and Scheufele call homophilic self-sorting the ones who are shown this content are the ones who are already familiar with it. In other words, theyre preaching to the choir.

The same profit-driven algorithmic tools that bring science-friendly and curious followers to scientists Twitter feeds and YouTube channels will increasingly disconnect scientists from the audiences that they need to connect with most urgently, they write. And theres no obvious solution: The cause is a tectonic shift in the balance of power in science information ecologies. Social media platforms and their underlying algorithms are designed to outperform the ability of science audiences to sift through rapidly growing information streams and to capitalize on their emotional and cognitive weaknesses in doing so. No one should be surprised when this happens.

But its a good way for Facebook to make money, said H. Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of the Science family of journals.

Thorp, who also wrote an editorial on the topic, told me that there are at least two distinct problems with the way scientists and social media interact these days.

One is that, especially with Twitter, scientists like to use it to bat things around and openly air ideas, support them or shoot them down the things they used to do standing around a blackboard, or at a conference, he said. It was going on before the pandemic, but now its become a major way that kind of interchange happens. The problem with that, of course, is that there is now an enduring permanent record of it. And some of the hypotheses that get made and turn out to be wrong, overturned in the ordinary course of science, get cherry picked by people who are trying to undermine what were doing.

The second is naivete about the algorithms, especially Facebooks, which put a very high premium on disagreement and informal posts that spread disagreement. You know, my uncle wore a mask to church and got COVID anyway thats going to beat out authoritative info every time, he continued.

As Brossard and Scheufele point out, the combination of these things puts scientists at a distinct disadvantageas some of the very few participants in public debates whose professional norms and ethics dictate that they prioritize reliable, cumulative evidence over persuasive power.

Sadly, there isnt much anyone can do on the science side. Arguably the more they participate in the system, the more they reinforce the silos around themselves. No one is arguing that we should just give up but we really need to acknowledge that the problem isnt just a matter of the science community being less effective communicators on social media than peddlers of disinformation.

Thorp also acknowledged that this is only the latest phase of growing anti-factual tendencies and politicization that goes back decades.

I think people tend to get a little more emotional about this without recognizing its a very simple thing: The political parties arent going to take the same position and when one of those positions is scientifically rigorous, the other is going to be against science, he explained. That the Democratic party is more often on the side of science is true enough, but it has also been on the other side with GMOs and nuclear power, he pointed out. The important thing is not who is for what, but that the two parties define themselves by opposition.

Thats a political party coming to the realization that it was more politically useful to be against science than to be for it, he said. So thats another thing scientists are naive about, saying were not getting our message across! But youre up against this political machine that now has the power of Facebook behind it.

Brossard and Scheufele make a final parallel in the defeat of Garry Kasparov by Deep Blue afterwards, no one called for special training to outplay supercomputers, and no one blamed Kasparov for not playing well enough. After the shock wore off, it was clear to everyone that wed turned a corner not just in chess but in the possibilities of computing and algorithms. (Kasparovs own views have evolved as well, as he told me a while back.)

The same understanding is now here for scientists, they write. Its a new age for informing public debates with facts and evidence, and some realities have changed for good.

Read more:

Researchers warn that social media may be fundamentally at odds with science - TechCrunch

The best individual score of 7/10 was achieved by Balazs Csonka (Hungary) and Bilel Bellahcene (Algeria). One member of the womens team, Mariya Muzychuk (Ukraine) scored 6/10, as did two members of the mens team, captain Sabino Brunello (Italy) and Ravi Haria (England).

With a deficit of three points and only the black pieces to play with, it was always going to be a tough ask for Team Pia to turn the match round on the final day. Inevitably there were some quick draws as womens team players found themselves being shut out from the start as experienced mens team players knew how to steer games towards the draw. The first such game to finish was Joe Gallagher versus Antoaneta Stefanova in which the Anglo-Swiss player opened with an Italian Game, or Giuoco Pianissimo as it was once known. The former womens world champion explained in an interview how she tried to imbalance the position but concluded that maybe 1...e5 in answer to 1 e4 was a mistake. The game was drawn in 19 moves. The video is also worth watching for a senior moment on my part, suggesting a rook move for Antoaneta that would have left it en prise to a bishop, leading to my receiving a gentle rebuke from Antoaneta.

The game between Eric Rosen and Irene Sukandar featured a similarly cautious opening with the popular US streamer opting for a line of the Four Knights Defence which is ultra-solid and which makes it hard for Black to entertain any winning chances. It lasted a little longer but ended in a draw after 29 moves.

Team captain Sabino Brunello also went in for a rock-solid formation, this time with 1 d4. The Torre Attack is a dependable line for a player with the white pieces and the game didnt stray far from a +0.00 assessment on analysis engines. It came down to a level minor piece endgame and on move 37 Black offered a draw which was accepted.

Pia Cramling answered Husain Azizs 1 e4 with 1...c5 and a Nimzowitsch-Rossolimo Attack ensued. White gained a big centre and might have pushed on to increase his edge on the kingside, but opted for a decidedly more dubious plan of creating a passed d-pawn which was soon lost. Black missed a clever idea on move 28 which might have won (28...Qd4!) but instead allowed a perpetual check.

Balazs Csonka versus Marsel Efroimski seemed to proceed much faster than other games. It started as a Tarrasch variation of the Queens Gambit Declined. Probably the best way to gain an idea of it would be to watch Balazs Csonka equally rapid annotation of it in the post-game video after I had told him we were trying to confine the post-game chat to about five minutes. Balazs is a determined young man and Id hazard a guess that never has so much verbal analysis been packed into such a short period of time.

Bobby Cheng all but sealed the destination of the 75,000 first prize by defeating Jovi Houska

With five draws already being agreed, the womens team target of 6 points was already a fading hope when Bobby Cheng obtained the first decisive result of the round against Jovi Houska. The opening, a Catalan, was slightly unusual, but not entirely unprecedented, in that White, surprised by his opponents 5...Bd6, expended three moves on locating his dark-squared bishops, while Black used two in posting hers. The slight loss of tempo by White didnt make much difference, however, as the position was closed. I just played something harmless, just to get a game and it was completely equal for a long time. But she got low on time and started making mistakes. Black looked absolutely fine until 27...b5 which was a serious positional blunder allowing White to play 28 c5 and create a passed pawn which was capable of being advanced rapidly with support from rooks and bishops. With only eight minutes and increments remaining for 13 moves that was effectively curtains for Black, and a desperate attempt to muddy the waters with 29...e5 was refuted. This result left Team Pia with the next to impossible task of winning all four remaining games to tie the match.

Leandro Krysa versus Mariya Muzychuk was a sternly contested game in a trendy line of the Semi-Slav, though different from the one the Argentinian GM had followed in his game from round eight against Antoaneta Stefanova. 16...Qa5+ is the usual continuation but Black opted for something only seen before in a correspondence game. Once again White had opted to surrender a pawn for play and, though he didnt get the winning chances he had against the other ex-womens world champion in the field, he regained his pawn for a safe position. Black played on to move 44 but there was never really much chance of either player achieving a decisive result. The result meant that the mens team could relax in the knowledge that the first prize was theirs to share.

Ravi Haria out-prepared and outplayed Olga Girya

Ravi Haria completed a strong finish to the tournament with a win against Olga Girya. The opening, a Ruy Lopez, featured a line which had debuted at an earlier Gibraltar tournament when Emil Sutovsky had introduced 11 Qe1 against Daniele Vocaturo in 2018. The game appears three times on the database but until Olga Girya played it nobody had as yet tried 11...Bxf3 to double Whites pawn in front of the white king, preferring 11...Nc5, which is the move Stockfish 14 prefers when given a long time to calculate it. When interviewing Ravi after the game, he also thought capturing on f3 made Blacks game more difficult and he intended to meet 11...Nc5 with 12 Nd4 Nxd4 13 cxd4 Ne6 14 Qd2, which is what Sutovsky and later MVL played here. Incidentally, during the interview I recall peering at the board wondering why Black couldnt play 12...Ng5 after 12 gxf3 but didnt ask the question. It seems that 13 Qe2 is the answer with engines giving White a considerable plus after that, probably because the knight soon gets chased away by the f-pawn and ...Nh3+ will soon lose valuable tempi at the least. Ravi thought the game proceeded smoothly in his favour; Stockfish had one quibble with this, advocating 21...Bh6 22 Qg4 0-0 as a means of reaching a playable position and apparently unconcerned by 23 Qxh5 giving Black doubled h-pawns. As played, White established a firm positional grip which Black never looked like escaping. Once White had invaded with his rooks, it was plain sailing.

Marie Sebag fought valiantly for a full point, but Bilel Bellahcene came through to win

By this stage of the event, it suddenly seemed a very long time ago that Bilel Bellahcene had lost his first two games in the dramatically successful start for Team Pia. Since then, he had gone from strength to strength and, by defeating Marie Sebag, finished by scoring a remarkable 7 points from eight games and thus shared the best score in the match with his team-mate Balazs Csonka. In this final round game White adopted the Byrne Attack versus Blacks choice of the Najdorf Sicilian, making it the third time the Algerian player had unleashed an early g4 against an opponent in his five white games. In the early middlegame White established a knight on c6. Black decided to counter this with a queen exchange, but it worked out slightly worse for Black and left her with little chance of a decisive result though she pressed valiantly. Instead, engines suggest playing 17...0-0, giving up the d-pawn for some sharp counterplay against the white king which might have offered more realistic winning chances. Black was a little short of time and spoilt her position on move 34 when 34...Nd7 might have saved the game though it would not have affected the match result. This ended Marie Sebags unbeaten run and left Mariya Muzychuk as the only undefeated player on Team Pia (if we discount Antoaneta Stefanova who only played four games).

The last game to finish was that between Gillian Bwalya and Gunay Mammadzada. The Zambian IM opted for the so-called Spielmann variation against the Nimzo-Indian, distinguished by the move 4 Qb3. The early middlegame looked very promising for White but he spoilt his position with some exchanges and soon found himself on the defensive. A long and tricky rear-guard action commenced, with White losing a pawn to a tactic just before the time control and thereafter concentrating on blockading Blacks passed d-pawn. Black came close to winning but after the premature advance 73...d3+ it never looked possible. The game ended in a draw and the 2022 #GibChess Battle of the Sexes was finally over.

Later the same evening the players, officials, sponsors and guests adjourned to the Mayors Parlour at the City Hall in John Mackintosh Square which is some 300 metres north of the Garrison Library where the chess was played. There we were treated to a splendid feast, with the guests of honour the Hon. Sir Joe Bossano MP, Minister for Economic Development, Enterprise, Telecommunications & the Gibraltar Savings Bank, the Hon. Steven Linares MP, Minister for Housing, Employment, Youth and Sport, and Dr Jennifer Ballantine, director of the Garrison Library which had so kindly hosted the event.

The Hon. Steven Linares addresses the guests at the prizegiving dinner

Minister Linares, a long-time friend to the Gibraltar Chess Festival, presented the team captains with their cheques and made a typically witty speech. A warm vote of thanks was made to the festivals generous sponsors who made the event possible. Suffice to say that a convivial time was had by all, which can be seen from a perusal of the photos (see the link below).

Jovi Houska and Olga Girya still have plenty to smile about after a hugely enjoyable event

Im not empowered to make any official announcements, but I think its fair to say that there is a very reasonable chance of seeing a similar event taking place in the not too distant future. In Gibraltar. Where else? Watch this space.

The rest is here:

Battle of the Sexes: Men triumph! - Chessbase News

The ray of hope for the womens team was a change of momentum during the round as what seemed likely to be a heavy defeat was kept within bounds via some remarkable saves and turnarounds towards the end of the round. They now need to repeat their big wins in rounds one and two victories if they are to snatch victory at the death.

5 out of 8 is now the leading individual score on either team, achieved by Mariya Muzychuk on Team Pia and by no fewer than four members of Team Sabino, comprising the captain himself, Balazs Csonka, Bilel Bellahcene and Ravi Haria, the latter two with streaks of three wins in a row.

Hungarian IM Balazs Csonka has been the star performer for the mens team so far and might have reached 6/8 but for missing a simple finish after a dazzling series of moves to reach a won position against Zhansaya Abdumalik, who now has 4/8. The game began with a Symmetrical English opening and the fireworks started with a thematic Sicilian sacrifice of a knight on d5 to open a path to the black king. The follow-up was far from routine, however, with a remarkable sequence of b6-b7 and Rd1xd6 which had the feel of a boxers combination punch. Black had to surrender her queen for rook and minor piece, but the attack continued. Then, just as most of the hard work seemed to have been done. White missed the simple 36 Bc8, picking off another important central pawn, and instead allowed Black a chance to consolidate.

Mariya Muzychuk overcame Husain Aziz in a rook and pawn ending

Mariya Muzychuk now has a point more than her teammates with 5/8, scoring a confident and smooth victory over Husain Aziz who now has 3 from 8. The game started with a Caro-Kann, Exchange variation, with Black boldly advancing the g-pawn in front of her castled king. The first move which looked fishy was perhaps 19 b3 and before long some pieces were exchanged and a weak c-pawn had been lost. However, when it came down to a rook and pawns ending, it began to look distinctly drawn. But White played inaccurately after the time control and his errors were expertly punished by Black.

His Worship the Mayor of Gibraltar Christian Santos made the first move for Sabino Brunello against rival team captain Pia Cramling

The two team captains faced off in this round. Sabino Brunello moved to 5/8 by inflicting a third successive defeat on Pia Cramling who is on 3/8. The game came down to a tricky minor piece endgame where White started with only a slight edge but it gradually became harder to defend. The decisive moment was when Black opted for 54...g6 where 54...g5 gave good holding chances.

Bilel Bellahcene played another G for Gibraltar early g4 attack against Olga Girya - and it worked brilliantly

Readers may remember Bilel Bellahcenes cheeky but successful g4 move in round four against Irene Sukandars Nimzo-Indian, mirroring something Shakhriyar Mamedyarov did at the Tata Steel tournament, and the talented Algerian player tried g4 again in a Queens Gambit Declined opening against Olga Girya. This was not an innovation as the move has been tried here a few times before. Bilel went on to win an important game for his side, moving to 5/8 and reducing Olga Girya to 4/8. Im wondering if we can start talking about an early g4 as the G for Gibraltar move as its high time that Gibraltar featured in the rich tapestry of chess opening names. If readers have better suggestions, please suggest them on Twitter using our standard #GibChess hashtag so we can find them. Back to the game and Bilel was of the opinion that Olga should have played either h6 or Bxc5 on move 6 as he felt White was better after castling. As played, the queens came off early and Black was soon subjected to a strong positional bind which she was unable to shake off.

Ravi Haria scored his third successive win, defeating fellow English player Jovi Houska

Ravi Haria started the event slowly with five straight draws and had been regretting a number of missed chances, but he now has his scoring boots on and completed a hattrick of wins by defeating Jovi Houska to move to 5/8, leaving his opponent on 2/8. In a sideline of the Advance Caro-Kann, White didnt get anything special from the opening or early middlegame. 26...g6 looks like a positional concession but Black still held firm until some time after the time control when Black suffered a hallucination and blundered with 49...c4+ thinking that she would have the move 51...Rb3 a few moves later when in fact the defence is simply refuted with 52 Rxb3 cxb3 53 Kd3 and White stops Blacks passed pawn. Instead, engines give the position as equal though in real life it might still have been hard to mount a defence in the long term with not much time on the clock.

Marie Sebag now has 4/8 after a solid draw with Zambian IM Gillian Bwalya who is now on 1/8. Gillian has had a very tough time in the event so far, but he did the sensible thing of playing ultra-cautious chess to stop the rot. Hence an Exchange Slav, which is very hard to break down for a player of the black pieces who wants to try and win. This was not an exciting game, but I recommend readers to watch Gillians logical explanation of how he set about digging in and securing a draw against a grandmaster in the post-game interview.

Bobby Cheng advanced to 4/8 after drawing with Irene Sukandar, who is now on 4/8. The opening was a Catalan with Black opting for a sideline where the queen goes to a6. White gave up a pawn to gain space and cramp the black position. Soon White gave up a second pawn and play became a little wild as the black queen sought a safe haven. Engines favoured Black during this sequence but it was too complicated to expect a human to find the most precise moves. Eventually Black was forced to give up her queen but at the very reasonable price of rook, bishop and three pawns. After a draw was agreed the players were eager to consult an engine to see what the verdict was. Stockfish flagged it as about +1.00 in favour of Black but in reality it wasnt obvious how either side would go about trying to win.

Joe Gallagher and Marsel Efroimski both have 4/8 after drawing their eighth-round game. The opening was a Bb5 Sicilian, more precisely the Canal-Sokolsky Attack in which White develops the dark-squared bishop on b2. Black departed from known opening territory with 11...Qa5. White opted to exchange in the centre with 17 fxe5 where 17 f5 looked more aggressive, fixing the d6-pawn weakness. As played, with much material exchanged, Blacks pawns seemed slightly more vulnerable than Whites, but Black played very accurately to steer her way to a draw.

Eric Rosen and Gunay Mammadzada had a game which swung back and forth a number of times before ending in a draw. White opted for the solid London System, much favoured by beginners and sometimes cruelly dubbed old mens chess in UK chess circles, but it can be a potent weapon against the unwary. In the game White allowed Black an exchange on e5 and followed up with an incursion on the light squares which seemed to favour her quite considerably. Black might have taken a pawn on f2 but she hesitated and later blundered with 35...Rf5 which soon cost her a pawn. White steered the game into a standard two passed pawns versus one passed pawn scenario which is usually a win but, on the very edge of converting, played a careless move allowing the passed pawns to be separated and one of them lost. Eric Rosen is now 3/8 while Gunay Mammadzada has at least broken a streak of three defeats to move to 2/8.

Leandro Krysa launched a ferocious attack against Antoaneta Stefanova, but the ex-world champion stayed cool and won

Finally we come to one of the most remarkable games of the day with the return of ex-world champion Antoaneta Stefanova to the fray after six days confined to her hotel room having tested positive for Covid. She has since tested negative twice and is thus allowed out of self-isolation. In the post-game interview she explained that she filled her time profitably, carrying on with her Masters degree studies and following the match online. In round eight she faced the unbeaten Argentinian GM Leandro Krysa with Black. Perhaps hoping to exploit his opponents rustiness, White launched a fierce attack in a Semi-Slav opening, sacrificing two pawns for a big lead in development. Analysis engines found a crushing idea for White (16 Qd2 Qb6 17 Na4!! bxa4 18 Rb1 Qa7 19 Bc7 winning, or if 16...Qe7 17 Qe3!, etc) but these were beyond the scope of a human brain. Even so, White found an imaginative attacking idea involving a knight sacrifice on b5 followed with a rook sacrifice, which might have frightened the life out of most players, but Black countered with the ultra-cool refutation 20...Be7! after which Whites attack had run its course. A few moves later, two pieces down, White found himself beating his head against a brick wall and had to resign. Leandro Krysa now has 4/8 while Antoaneta Stefanova has 1/2. Today Im nominating this and Mariya Muzychuks win as shared games of the day. Both of them managed to keep a cool head in a crisis, befitting their status as womens world champions and keeping Tia Pia in with a chance of winning the match.

Round nine is on Wednesday 2 February at 15.00 CET. The tenth and last round is on Thursday 3 February starting at the earlier time of 11.00 CET with possible tie-breaks to follow.

Games of round eight

Originally posted here:

Battle of the Sexes: Men increase lead - Chessbase News

This article is taken from the February 2022 issue of The Critic. To get the full magazine why not subscribe? Right now were offering five issue for just 10.

Is chess a sport? If the recent world championship between Magnus Carlsen and Ian Nepomniachtchi is anything to go by, most definitely. It had drama, skill, endurance, determination and disintegration. It even borrowed from footballs oldest clich, the game of two halves. The first five games ended in draws, with neither player able to secure more than a fleeting advantage on the board.

Game six changed everything. It was the longest game in world championship history: 136 moves lasting 7 hours 47 minutes. Spending that long at peak concentration tests body and mind like little else, and Carlsen does it better than any player ever. He establishes a microscopic edge and works away at it, slowly ratcheting up the pressure, widening the fissure.

British grandmaster Nigel Short once described sitting across the board from Garry Kasparov and feeling battered by the waves of aggression pulsing from deep within the nuclear reactor of Kasparovs life force. Carlsen doesnt have that presence, but he does have the obduracy of a granite cliff and an almost frightening need to win. Hes the Terminator; he cant be reasoned with, he doesnt feel pity or remorse or fear, and he absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Deep into the game, the computer engines were still calling it a draw. But engines dont get tired, dont get flustered, dont make mistakes. Humans do. Wherever Nepomniachtchi turned, Carlsen was there first. With the time controls now in increments, Carlsen varied the tempo, almost running down the clock on some moves and then making several at lightning speed. Chess is a dance, and its always better to lead.

Finally, past midnight in Dubai, they were down to their last pieces: a rook, a knight and two pawns for Carlsen, and a queen for Nepomniachtchi. Carlsens pieces suddenly seemed to coalesce into an ouroboros, each defending another in a perfect circle of impregnability. Up the board they marched.

There are no such things as unforced errors when youre playing a multiple world champion

Nepomniachtchis queen, so mobile and rangy earlier, now appeared frantic and skittish. Nepomniachtchi stared, grimaced, stared again. Carlsens face was impassive, but his eyes betrayed his exhaustion and what hed had to give to get to this place. Nepomniachtchi reached out a hand, and it was done. First blood to Carlsen.

Games like these take a toll deep in players souls. Ideally, of course, [Nepomniachtchi] would like to strike back immediately, tweeted Short, but perhaps a bigger challenge will be not to break. Dams can collapse very abruptly. Rarely can a tweet have been more prescient.

Nepomniachtchi lost three of the next five games, all with pawn blunders which would have shamed a decent club player, and the match was over. Some commentators called these blunders unforced errors but of course there are no such things, not when youre playing a multiple world champion for the greatest prize in your sport and certainly not when youve thrown the kitchen sink at him to no avail.

Great champions of yore such as Bobby Fischer and Paul Morphy went mad with the strain of the game. George Orwell described sport as war minus the shooting, and chess fulfils this in spades, not just because the pieces and pawns are ostensibly militaristic but because as Fischer said, I savour the moment when I break a man.

Nepomniachtchi was certainly broken, but he won many friends with his grace in defeat and his patience with some frankly insulting questions in the post-match press conferences. Besides, it was no disgrace to lose to the man many rank as the greatest ever and few would place outside the top three.

The match also did wonders for the image of classical chess. Cricket fans will see clear parallels with the tripartite division of the sport: for Test, one-day and T20, read classical (generous time controls), rapid (15 minutes plus 10 seconds per move) and blitz (five minutes) respectively.

In the game of kings, Carlsen is emperor supreme

In our age of gnat-like attention spans the faster formats are beloved of marketeers and broadcasters (and Carlsen has, uniquely, held all three titles simultaneously), but for the purists the long form is king, with all its undercurrents, its striving for tiny advantages, its play and counterplay.

Carlsens two previous world championship matches (he has now won five in all) had been decided on rapid tie-breaks after all the classical games had been drawn. Rapid games are exciting, but their drama can too often be the rather ersatz one of a penalty shoot-out. Far more satisfying to win and lose within the bounds of the usual format.

Where Carlsen goes from here is anybodys guess. He spoke frankly after the championship about his waning motivation to keep defending a title he has held since 2013.

He has indicated that he may not even do so two years hence unless the 18-year-old prodigy Alireza Firouzja wins through to challenge him. That would be a match for the ages, giving Carlsen the chance either to put the French-Iranian whippersnapper in his place or, in defeat, to pass on the torch to the next generation. Whatever he chooses, he has already done so much for the sport. In the game of kings, he is emperor supreme.

Link:

Chairman of the board | Boris Starling - The Critic

Is it not a curious amusement to catch a vintage illustration or film depicting the future? Portraying how the technology of the day would evolve to serve the same social customs and contemporary jobs contrasts glaringly with what has become reality.

Illustration by Jean-Marc Ct sourced from commons.wikimedia.org

While quaint and sweet, the one element predicted that does stand the test of time is that mankind will find ways to improve productivity. The seeds of new perspectives, techniques, technology, and approaches might arrive to great fanfare, but more often evolution is gradual. Sometimes we need to consciously recall the way a process was done a decade earlier to realize a change has transpired.

IT has been delivering productivity gains for generations. Applied like its physical counterparts such as hoes, hammers, or tractors, IT has helped by processing mountains of data quickly. For all sorts of tasks, end-users have been using tools to sort, filter out, find items, and the like in mountains of data.

Society has evolved to interact with the tools mankind develops blacksmiths into car mechanics, book-keepers into data entry operators. The relationship between all of this technological advancement has been that the end-user in this relationship has been taking the information and deciding what to do with it.

But, an ages-old fantasy of mankind has been to go further: to develop technologies that can produce and then analyze those results. This might have been a machine to play chess (von Kempelen, who supposedly actually relied on a hidden midget), or Arthur C. Clarke who proposed the computer HAL that, given conflicting orders, could suffer from a psychotic breakdown.

Illustration by Johann Wolfgang von Kempelen sourced from commons.wikimedia.org

While chess playing is now a reality and does not require a hidden operator, AI is emerging in other areas: handling menial tasks, allowing us to bypass keying in our questions to search engines, catching fraud, predicting behavior, and so much more. It offers a means to teach a system through examples of acceptable and unacceptable outcomes, feed it stimuli from a variety of sensors, and recommend a course of action. Using an AI is proving adept at dealing with data coming from a complex systems landscape.

The influx of AI is pervading most industries. And just as AI can process thousands of elements to navigate piloting a car on a road, it can also be used to steer companies when selecting candidates. And AI is becoming common place as consumers turn to Siri, Alexa, and other programs to offset tasks, plan days, recommend movies, or suggest the shortest route from A to B.

This trend has led to a shortage of software developers in the short term, as jobs of the future will require AI software engineers. And this trend has only accelerated because of Covid and the complexion of how we work has been transformed to being more digital.

This is not just happening in highly technical departments and businesses. No, AI is affecting HR as well. LinkedIn has begun to use AI to recommend positions and candidates based upon the data it holds and the jobs being posted. It is not simply filtering keywords, but looking to match similar registrants with roles that have been filled.

SelectSoftwareReview.com posted over a dozen different AI products that can help recruiters. Some of the systems can trawl through resums, looking for keywords, experience, and so forth. These can quickly scan millions of profiles and feed a pipeline with qualified candidates. Some tools that can optimize for which terms one searches, and look at the context in which those terms are used to better screen the candidates selected. Such can be useful when trying to estimate whether a candidate might fit the culture of a company.

While not yet able to automate the process of interviewing, there are AI tools now that assist with the recording and analysis of interviews thereafter. Focusing on the menial, repetitive elements of this aspect of recruiting saves time. And it allows professionals to focus on the more involved, human-centric work necessary to measure up potential candidates.

AI though can also help interpret the way candidates might react. A machine can more easily pose scenarios, mimic outcomes, and then review the participants responses. As opposed to doing such hypothetically in an interview, an AI routine can add many more details to the simulation, and by simulating the outcome, see how the candidates follow up.

These can be run offline in the sense that they do not require staff to administer such. And, as more people, in general, have some experience with gaming, are more easily delivered to participants as opposed to sitting a Myers-Briggs evaluation.

Atop the processing speed and volume that an AI can handle, theres something another promise we might hope to find in AI: the absence of bias. Ingrained in all of us is some form of modeling and prejudice. Theoretically, knowing the training of an AI system should counter such. As AI systems are not designed to survive, theoretically, they are not secretly thinking, how can the AI take advantage of the situation thereby clouding its judgment.

Image attributed to Tom Cowap sourced from commons.wikimedia.org

While the fear of AI running amok is ever among us, the doomsday scenario is unlikely anything we can imagine. More likely, AI is making our entire world more complex. And without embracing the technology, we will find ourselves unable to compete with those who are not intimidated. Being only human, we are limited on how much we can process. As AI gains ground there will be more calls on us to teach AI which outcomes are desired and leverage the value AI brings to the party.

See the original post:

Using AI in Recruiting - Onrec

Offers assistance in analyzing a chess game, the way the chess pawns have been moved, the tactics and also you can play a game of chess. Besides it also provides testing solutions for chess engines. It is compatible with Winboard protocol I, II and UCI protocol I, II.

Arena is a complete GUI for chess engines. The program already comes with an engine that enables you to play against the computer, but it also supports almost all popular engines. The program is vastly customizable and easy to use, so you create exactly the kind of game you want. Thanks to the adjustable strength, you can select the difficulty level and increase it as you get more acquainted with game and more skillful.

What is great is that the program provides detailed information about moves and thinking process of the computer. This can help you learn from the engine to defeat your enemies faster. You can even play online with other people or create tournaments between two engines to learn from them too. Other useful features of the program include printing capabilities, support of the DGT Chessboard, EPD and PGN support, user interface available in multiple languages, to name but a few. In short, Arena is a wonderful program that includes everything chess players need to become professional players.

See the original post here:

Arena Download - Complete GUI for chess engines that will ...

In the summer of 1922, a century ago, London played host to a galaxy of international chess stars, including Alexander Alekhine , Akiba Rubinstein and Efim Bogoljubov. But the most incandescent amongst this stellar congregation was the Cuban genius, Jos Ral Capablanca. The previous year Capa, as he was widely known, had crushed the incumbent world champion, Emanuel Lasker, by the score of four wins to zero, with ten draws. This was one of the very few world title clashes in which the winner lost no games at all. Indeed, Capa established a reputation for invincibility and accuracy which remains undiminished to this day.

Full cross table of London 1922

Jos Ral Capablanca y Graupera (1888-1942) was world chess champion from 1921-1927. Apart from accuracy and invincibility, Capa was widely renowned for his exceptional strategic vision, endgame skill and speed of play.

Capablanca s victory over the dominant American champion, Frank Marshall in a 1909 match earned him an invitation to the 1911 San Sebastian tournament, which, against all initial odds, he won ahead of players such as Akiba Rubinstein, Aron Nimzowitsch and Siegbert Tarrasch. Capa only received his invitation at Marshalls generous insistence and over the objections of established Grandmasters, Aron Nimzowitsch and OssipBernstein. This grandmasterly duo complained about the inclusion of a relative neophyte, but in an almost inevitable stroke of poetic justice, Capa trounced both of them in their individual encounters.

Capablanca finally won the world chess championship title from Emanuel Lasker in 1921 , thus contributing to an extraordinary record in that Capa was undefeated from 10 February 1916 until 21 March 1924, a period that included the world championship match against Lasker. To go for eight years without loss, including several international standard tournaments, a world championship match and the cosmic gathering in London a century ago, is a record which is likely to stand until chess as we know it is no longer played.

Capablanca lost the title in 1927 to Alexander Alekhine, who, astonishingly, had never beaten Capablanca before this match. Following unsuccessful attempts to arrange a rematch over subsequent years, relations between the two colossi became embittered. Capablanca continued his excellent tournament results, including first prizes in Moscow and Nottingham, but he also suffered from symptoms of high blood pressure. He died in 1942 of a brain haemorrhage.

Capablanca excelled in simplified positions and endgames; Bobby Fischer, employing his easy going transatlantic vernacular, described him as possessing a real light touch. He could play tactical chess when necessary, although he rarely invited complications, and possessed iron defensive technique. He wrote several chess books, of which Chess Fundamentals was regarded somewhat controversially, I might add by Mikhail Botvinnik as the best chess book ever written.

Despite his books, Capablanca preferred not to engage in detailed analysis but focused on critical moments in a game. His style of chess influenced the play of future world champions such as Vassily Smyslov, Tigran Petrosian, Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov. A major difference, though, was Capa s reluctance to research and innovate in the openings and his reliance on his own instinct, talent and genius to support him in any situation or predicament.

Five years after his triumph in London, Capa undertook his most strenuous challenge since his struggle with Lasker for the world sceptre. The New York chess tournament, held between 19 February and 23 March 1927, involved six of the worlds strongest masters playing a quadruple round-robin, with the others being Alexander Alekhine, Rudolf Spielmann, Milan Vidmar, Aron Nimzowitsch and Frank Marshall.

Before the tournament, Capablanca wrote that he had more experience but less power than in 1911, that he had peaked around 1919 and that some of his competitors had gained in strength in the intervening years. In spite of such pessimistic forebodings, Capablanca enjoyed overwhelming success, finishing undefeated with 14/20, winning the micro-matches with each of his rivals, 2 points ahead of second-placed Alekhine, and won a special prize for a victory over Spielmann.

Since Capablanca had won the New York 1927 chess tournament overwhelmingly and had never lost a game to Alekhine, most pundits regarded the Cuban as the clear favourite in their World Chess Championship 1927 match. But Alekhine won the match, played from September to November 1927 at Buenos Aires, by 6 wins, 3 losses, and 25 draws the longest World Championship match ever, until the aborted contest in 198485 between Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov.

Alekhines victory surprised almost the entire chess world. After Capablancas passing, Alekhine himself expressed surprise at his own victory, since in 1927 he had not truly believed that he was superior to Capablanca, and he suggested that Capablanca had been overconfident. Capablanca entered the fray with no technical or physical preparation, while Alekhine trained himself into good physical condition and had closely studied Capablancas play, in the course of which thorough investigation he convinced himself that he had found some promising chinks in the champions armour.

In his last major appearance, Capablanca played for Cuba in the 8th Chess Olympiad, held in Buenos Aires in 1939, and won the gold medal for the best performance on the top board. According to the extensive essay on Capa to be found on Wikipedia, for which I am grateful for many of the facts in this column, while Capablanca and Alekhine (France) were both representing their countries in Buenos Aires, Capablanca made a final attempt to arrange a World Championship match. Alekhine declined, saying he was obliged to help defend his adopted homeland, since World War II had just broken out. This was a strange decision, since Alekhine was then in his late forties and an unlikely candidate for strenuous or indeed any military service. As fate would have it, Alekhine would have done better to stay in Buenos Aires and contest a match against Capablanca on the spot.

Alekhine wrote in a 1942 tribute to Capablanca: Capablanca was snatched from the chess world much too soon. With his death, we have lost a very great chess genius whose like we shall never see again. Lasker once said: I have known many chess players, but only one chess genius: Capablanca.

Capa has been an inspiration for chess in Cuba ever since, culminating in the 1966 Havana Olympiad, where I, as a member of the England team, was even invited to dinner with Fidel Castro. An annual Capablanca Memorial tournament has also been held in Cuba, most often in Havana, since 1962. In 1974 I had the honour of being invited and winning the Capablanca Masters.

Astonishingly, Capablanca lost only 34 serious tournament and match games during his adult career. Again, according to Wiki statistics, he was undefeated from 10 February 1916, when he lost to Oscar Chajes in the New York 1916 tournament, to 21 March 1924, when he succumbed to the revolutionary Hypermodern complexities of Richard Rti in the New York International tournament. During this unbeaten streak, which included his 1921 World Championship match against Lasker, Capablanca racked up 63 tournament or match games, winning 40 and drawing 23.

In fact, only Frank Marshall, Emanuel Lasker, Alexander Alekhine and Rudolf Spielmann were able to win two or more formal games from the mature Capablanca, though in most cases their overall lifetime scores were minus (Capablanca beat Marshall +202=28, Lasker +62=16, Alekhine +97=33). Only Spielmann was level (+22=8). Of top players, Paul Keres alone had a narrow plus score against Capa (+10=5). Keress sole win came at the AVRO tournament of 1938 in Holland. This event was staged on the peripatetic principle of holding different rounds each day in separate towns. During this tournament Capablanca turned 50, while Keres was 22. It was overall Capas worst performance and it can certainly be explained, partly by age disparity, poor health and constant travel favouring younger players, but also by Capas infelicitous choice of the French Defence, which did not suit his fluid style.

Statistical ranking systems place Capablanca high among the greatest of all time. Nathan Divinsky and I, in our book Warriors of the Mind (1989) ranked him fifth, behind Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Bobby Fischer and Mikhail Botvinnik but immediately ahead of Emanuel Lasker. In his 1978 book The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present, Arpad Elo allotted retrospective ratings to players based on their performance over the best five-year span of their career. He concluded that Capablanca was the strongest of those surveyed, with Lasker and Botvinnik sharing second place.

Most importantly for my theme, a 2006 engine-based study found that Capablanca was the most accurate of all the World Champions, when compared with computer analysis of World Championship match games. This was confirmed by a 2011 computer analysis from the duo of Bratko and Guido, using the strong engines Rybka 2 and Rybka 3. In other words, Capa had, up to that moment, been the most exact champion of all time, certainly of the champions who trained without computers in the pre-Carlsen era.

Boris Spassky, World Champion from 1969 to 1972, considered Capablanca the best player of all time. As we have seen, Bobby Fischer, who held the title from 1972 to 1975, admired Capablancas light touch and ability to see the right move instantly. Fischer reported that in the 1950s, veteran members of the Manhattan Chess Club recalled Capablancas blitz chess exploits with absolute awe.

Capablanca excelled in simplified positions and endgames, and his strategic judgment was outstanding, to such an extent that attempts to attack him directly almost always foundered on his impervious defence. Nevertheless, Capa could also play stirring tactical chess when necessary most famously in the 1918 Manhattan Chess Club Championship tournament, whenFrank Marshall sprang a deeply analysed prepared variation on him,which he refuted while playing under the constraints of a time limit. He was also capable of aggressive tactical play to exploit a positional advantage, provided he considered it the most secure and efficient way to win for example against Spielmann in the 1927 New York tournament.

In summary, Capa was a phenomenon, a sportsman without nerves, blessed with astoundingly rapid sight of the board and a nearly infallible instinct for the right move in any situation. If, as I believe, mathematics, music and chess in some way manifest the harmony of the universe, then Capablanca represents chess in the way that Pythagoras stands for mathematics and Mozart exemplifies music.

We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.

More here:

A hundred years of exactitude: Jos Ral Capablanca - TheArticle

The $199 Intel Core i5-12400 vs $299 Ryzen 5 5600X contest is a pitched battlethat finds AMD's most popular CPU facing off against an Intel competitor that costs roughly $100 less at retail. That may seem odd, but AMD abandoned the sub-$200 market when it launched itsRyzen 5000processors, leaving its older processors to hold the line as Intel opens a new front in the AMD vs Intel price wars.

Based on pricing alone, the aging Zen 2-powered Ryzen 5 3600X and 3600 will remain the go-to competitors for the 12400 even though they debuted nearly two and a half years ago.As you'll see, those old Zen 2 chips aren't competitive, and AMD's $259 Ryzen 5 5600G APU targets a different market. That means AMD's least expensive Zen 3 model, the Ryzen 5 5600X, is the 12400's only true competitor in our benchmarks.

Intel'sAlder Lakechips are surprisingly powerful, already earning key upsets against higher-priced Ryzen chips on our list of Best CPUs for gamingand CPU Benchmark hierarchy. As seen in our previous faceoffs, Intel's hybrid x86 Alder Lake design, which mixes fast performance cores (P-cores) with small efficiency cores (E-Cores), represents the company's most disruptive architectural shift in a decade. As a result, Intel upsets AMD's highest-end mainstream chips, particularly in price-to-performance metrics.

However, the Core i5-12400 doesn't have a hybrid architecture. Instead, it comes with a more traditional design and only has six P-Cores active, so it doesn't use Gracemont-based cores for background tasks. That means this six-core 12-thread processor doesn't need Intel's new Windows 11-exclusiveThread Directortechnology to place workloads on the correct cores. As a result, unlike Intel's hybrid models, the 12400 is just as potent in Windows 10 as it is in Windows 11.

Below we've put the Core i5-12400 vs Ryzen 5 5600X through a six-round faceoff to see which chip takes the crown in our gaming and application benchmarks, along with other key criteria like power consumption and pricing. We have the final score and summary at the end of the article. Let's start with the tale of the tape.

The Core i5-12400 has six P-cores and 12 threads that operate at a 2.5 GHz base and 4.4 GHz boost clock. The chip comes armed with 18MB of L3 cache and has 65W PBP (base) and 117W MTP (peak) power ratings. The chip also comes with a bundled Laminar RM1 cooler with a semi-transparent plastic shroud and a blue ring lining the fin stack.

The Core i5-12400 is a locked chip, meaning it isn't overclockable. However, Intel supports memory overclocking on Z690, B660, and H670 motherboards (Z690 doesn't make sense for this class of chip, though). As you'll soon see, manipulating the power limits can eke out some additional performance in some types of gaming and threaded work.

The chip has the UHD Graphics 730 engine with 24 EUs running at a 300/1450 MHz base/boost frequency. If you're looking to save some coin, the graphics-less Core i5-12400F comes with a $25 price reduction and has the same specs as the 12400, which is incredibly attractive if you plan on using a discrete graphics card. Notably, you will lose Quick Sync capabilities and the iGPU fallback that you can use for troubleshooting in the event of an issue with a discrete GPU. However, there also isn't an option for graphics on AMD's Ryzen 5 5600X or the Ryzen 5 3600X and 3600, though all three of those competing chips also come with a bundled cooler.

Unlike the standard Ryzen 5000 models, the Ryzen 5 5600G APU does come with integrated graphics. This Cezanne APU pairs six Zen 3 execution cores with the Radeon Vega graphics engine for iGPU-powered gaming rigs. As a result, this APU is the best value on the market if you're looking to game at lower resolutions without a discrete GPU. But aside from gaming on the iGPU, it can't compete with the Core i5-12400 and comes at a higher price point.

The 12400 goes toe-to-toe with the 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 5600X that has long been the favorite for enthusiasts because of its incredible blend of pricing and performance. This chip comes with a 65W TDP rating, 32MB of L3 cache, and has only high-performance cores. It also supports DDR4-3200 memory and the PCIe 4.0 interface.

All Alder Lake chips support DDR4-3200 orup toDDR5-4800 memory (odd DDR5 population rules apply). Unfortunately, these new technologies add cost to the 600-series motherboards that house the chips, and DDR5 memory is largely unavailable. However, plenty of DDR4-powered motherboard options are available, especially with the value-centric B- and H-series chipsets that make the most sense for this class of chips. AMD also has a robust ecosystem of affordable AM4 motherboards on offer.

Winner: Intel

Intel's chip pricing is an advantage, and the 600-series platform also has a clear connectivity advantage: With DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 on the menu, AMD's AM4 platform finds itself looking a bit long in the tooth, but Intel's new features do make for more expensive motherboards. DDR5 pricing is terrible, and we expect that to continue for some time. Fortunately, the 12400 is just as fast with DDR4 in the majority of tasks, and you can pick from plenty of cost-saving DDR4 motherboards.

The Core i5-12400 comes with integrated graphics by default, though you can sacrifice those and save $25 with the Core i5-12400F. Meanwhile, you'll have to look to AMD's Ryzen 5 5600G APU if you want integrated graphics from Team Red in this price range, but that chip isn't really directly comparable to the 12400 in our performance benchmarks.

This article is an overview of our much more in-depth testing in our Intel Core i5-12400 review. We're focusing on our Windows 11 test results in this article, but you should experience similar results in Windows 10. We also include tests with the Core i5-12400 with the power limits lifted and overclocked memory (again, head to the review for details).

Below you can see the geometric mean of our gaming tests with the Core i5-12400 vs the Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 5 5600G at 1080p and 1440p, with each resolution split into its own chart. Notably, these results aren't too important for the 5600G the 5600G is designed to use its integrated graphics, not a discrete GPU, and easily beats the 12400 in every iGPU contest (You can see an example of that here). As per usual, we're testing with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 to reduce GPU-imposed bottlenecks as much as possible, and differences between test subjects will shrink with lesser cards or higher resolutions.

Paired with affordable DDR4 memory at the 1080p resolution, the previous-gen flagship $584 Core i9-11900K is a scant 2.5% faster than the $199 Core i5-12400, but tuning the Core i5's memory to DDR4-3800 gives it a 1.9% lead over the stock 11900K in our cumulative performance measurement.Even though the 11900K would take the lead after overclocking, that's an incredible gen-on-gen improvement in performance.

At 1080p, the Core i5-12400 at stock settings is 1.9% faster than AMD's venerable ~$299 Ryzen 5 5600X. After tuning, the Core i5-12400 ties the overclocked 5600X, an impressive showing for a chip that costs $100 less.

It's a bit unfair to compare the $259 Ryzen 5 5600G to the Core i5-12400; AMD's APU isn't designed as a direct competitor and is more expensive than the 12400. However, aside from the Ryzen 5 3600X and 3600, the $259 5600G is the only AMD processor close to this price class. Regardless, with a discrete GPU, the Core i5-12400 is 16.8% faster than the 5600G and 14% faster after tuning both chips. However, if you're looking for the best performance without a discrete GPU, the Ryzen 5 5600G outclasses the 12400.

The Ryzen 5 3600X and 3600 also feel like odd comparisons to the 12400 both are several years old and have the previous-gen Zen 2 architecture. But, again, these are the only suitable comparables from the AMD camp. The Core i5-12400 is 22.7% and 26% faster than the Ryzen 5 3600X and 3600, respectively. As you can imagine, overclocking the Ryzen chips doesn't do much to close that chasm.

Naturally, moving over to 1440p pushes the bottleneck to the GPU, so the difference between the chips shrinks tremendously. Gamers with lower-resolution panels with high refresh rates will benefit more from Alder Lake's faster frame rates. Flipping through the 99th percentile charts shows larger deltas between the chips, but Windows 11 seems to suffer from more framerate variability than Windows 10.

The AMD vs Intel gaming competition is closer now, with some games favoring one architecture over the other. As such, it's best to make an informed decision based on the types of games that you play frequently. Be sure to check out the individual tests in the above album. It's noteworthy that the synthetic benchmarks (Futuremark suite and chess benchmarks) don't tend to translate well to real-world gaming, but they do show us the raw amount of compute power exposed to game engines.

Winner: Intel

The Core i5-12400 leads convincingly over all of the chips in its price class and also punches up to beat the Ryzen 5 5600X and the 5600G at stock settings. It even stands toe-to-toe with the $100 more expensive 5600X after tuning. The Ryzen 5 3600X and 3600 shouldn't be asked to face the 12400, they aren't in the same performance class, but AMD's decision to abandon the low-end market makes this an unfortunate reality.

Overall it's clear that the Core i5-12400 is now the value gaming champion, offering a superior level of performance at its price point with no clear price/performance competitors.

We can boil down productivity application performance into two broad categories: single- and multi-threaded. The first slide above shows the geometric mean of performance in several of our most important tests in the single-threaded category, but be sure to look at the expanded results below.

The Core i5-12400 is 13.5% faster than the Ryzen 5 5600G in single-threaded work (10% faster after tuning the 5600G), and a whopping 24% and 27% faster than the Ryzen 5 3600X and 3600, respectively. You'll have to look to other Alder Lake chips to find faster performance in single-threaded work: As you can see in ourCPU Benchmarkhierarchy, even the beastly$799 Ryzen 9 5950Xcan't match the Core i5-12400 in single-threaded tasks.

As expected, we don't see a significant difference between the 12400's different power/memory settings, which has more impact on threaded work and gaming, but the 12400 doesn't need much help. The chip is 2.3% faster than the Core i9-11900K, 6% faster than the 11700K, and an incredible 15.7% faster than the 11400.

This superior performance in lightly-threaded apps will equate to a snappier, faster experience in all manner of light day-to-day tasks. The 12400's snappy performance will be most noticeable in gaming, web browsers, and application start-up tasks.

The 12400 is incredibly competitive against the Ryzen 5 models in threaded workloads, even beating the potent Ryzen 5 5600X by 2.3% at standard settings and 6.7% after tuning both chips. That's impressive given the 12400's much more forgiving price tag, but as you'll see in the benchmarks above, the Ryzen 5 5600X does carve out wins in more than a few of those applications.

We see larger gains over the Ryzen 5 5600G, 3600X, and 3600, with the stock 12400 taking leads of 15.8%, 22.4%, and 23.6%, respectively. Frankly, AMD really doesn't have any worthy competing chips at this price point for this type of work.

Removing the power restrictions gives the Core i5-12400 a 7% boost in our cumulative measure of threaded performance, allowing it to beat the overclocked Ryzen 5 5600X, not to mention the rest of the competing Ryzen chips.

Winner: Intel

Given its price point, the Core i5-12400 offers an incredible blend of performance in both single- and multi-threaded apps that simply can't be beaten. You'll have to look to Intel's own Alder Lake family for faster single-threaded performance, and the 12400 often beats the price-comparable Ryzen models (and even the $100 more expensive Ryzen 5 5600X) in threaded applications by convincing margins.If you need more threaded horsepower, Intel's Core i5-12600K offers a 21% boost over the 12400 due to its additional E-cores and is officially overclockable, but you'll have to fork out some extra cash for the privilege.

Intel's Core i5-12400 isn't an overclockable part, so you shouldn't be able to manipulate core clocks, though you can remove power limits and overclock the memory. However, enterprising motherboard manufacturers have found a way to sidestep Intel's restrictions and allow BCLK overclocking, which in turn has led to spectacular overclocking results with "locked" processors.

As you would expect, Intel has said this is an unsupported practice. As we've seen in the past with other similar workarounds, we expect that Intel will alter its microcode to prevent such efforts soon by locking out BCLK overclocking. Therefore you won't be able to update your BIOS to newer versions if you want to continue to leverage BCLK overclocking. Additionally, Intel theoretically could push microcode updates via Windows Update, which could provide another avenue to disable BCLK overclocking. Since we expect the feature to be disabled soon, we won't take BCLK overclockability into account for scoring in this round.

Intel has long kept overclocking as a feature of its pricey K-series chips and Z-series motherboards, while AMD freely allows overclocking with all SKUs on almost any platform (except A320). Intel has made strides with its overclocking, though. For example, the Core i5-12400 is a locked chip, but you can overclock the memory on Z-, B- and some H-series motherboards. You can also lift the power limits, which serves as a sort of quasi-overclock (definitely not as effective) that will boost performance in some threaded applications and gaming, all while technically remaining within the definition of stock settings (and thus warrantied).

Memory overclocking allows tuners to extract more performance from the chips, particularly in gaming, via easy-to-use XMP profiles or manual tuning. Naturally, the rules around Intel's Gear 1 and Gear 2 modes apply here, and you'll want to stick with the low-latency Gear 1 for most practical use-cases (especially gaming). For the Core i5-12400, the effective limit of Gear 1 operation is around DDR4-3800. That means you can buy a reasonably-priced XMP-equipped memory kit and reap pretty substantial benefits.

AMD's Ryzen chips are all fully overclockable. However, these chips come with innovative boost technology that largely consumes most of the available frequency headroom, so there is precious little room for bleeding-edge clock rates. In fact, all-core overclocking with AMD's chips is lackluster; you're often better off using its auto-overclocking Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2) feature that boosts multi-threaded performance. AMD also has plenty of Curve Optimization features that leverage undervolting to increase boost activity.

However, it's always important to remember that chip quality can vary for both vendors, so the silicon lottery always comes into play. That will apply to any unsupported BCLK overclocking for the Core i5-12400, along with the standard memory supported memory overclocking capabilities integrated memory controller (IMC) quality has a big impact on how well the Core i5-12400 can support overclocked memory in the Gear 1 configuration.

Winner: AMD

Intel has long locked all overclocking features to K-series chips on Z-series motherboards, but the company has made strides by allowing memory overclocking for non-K processors on almost all chipsets that support Alder Lake (except some H-series boards).

However, this is still a far cry from AMD's practice of allowing full core and memory overclocking with all of its chips and nearly all chipsets (except A320). That gives AMD the win in the overclocking category, but bear in mind that some of the AMD chips in this face-off can't beat the Core i5-12400 in gaming and application benchmarks, even after overclocking.

Go here to read the rest:

Intel Core i5-12400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Face-Off: The Gaming Value Showdown - Tom's Hardware

This is more of a question for Stack Overflow if you ask me... But since I've come here from there and I'm a software engineer and avid chess player, I'll try to explain.

This basically boils down to two factors, history and speed of execution. I'll handle them separately.

History

Javascript (the language Node uses) is a relatively young language. It was developed in 1996. Node, is even younger, being released in 2009. In comparison, C came out in 1972 and C++ in 1985.

The first major breakthrough in chess engines occurred when Deep Blue (written in C++) became the first chess engine to beat a grandmaster in 1997. At that point, it had been in active development for a few years and Javascript (then JScript) was a fledgling language that could do just the most basic web-based things.

As a result of this, it seems like a natural progression that future chess engines would build on the existing work and continue with C based languages. Not to mention the fact that the number of software engineers that could program in C/++ also vastly exceeded the number of JS engineers until well into the new millenium.

Speed

Chess is a hard problem computationally. It has a game-tree complexity score of 123 (exactly what this means is beyond the scope of this answer, but Noughts and Crosses has a score of 5, for comparison). As such, unless you want to be hanging around for a really long time while the computer works out its next move, your engine needs to run fast.

Javascript (and by extension Node) is an interpreted language. That means at runtime, it needs to be parsed and compiled before it can be executed. It also means that there's no opportunity for compile time optimisations to take place.

In direct juxtaposition to this, C based languages are precompiled. This means that they can execute directly at runtime with no intermediary steps and little overhead. There is also a plethora of compile-time optimisations that take place.

The end result of this is that for any given program, C/++ will perform approximately an order of magnitude faster on average. Admittedly, this has improved in the last few years somewhat, but they are still incomparable in terms of raw speed.

It must be noted, however, that speed and efficiency were far more important in previous decades. With today's computing power, even the most inefficient chess engine will run in a reasonable manner (unless it's just a dumb, extensive brute force - that will just never finish). Hence, why there are now Javascript based chess engines.

Conclusion

When you consider the history of the two languages along with the amount of computational power (and therefore the importance of efficiency) required to run a chess engine, it becomes clear why most of them are written in C based languages.

I will also add some personal opinion. C and C++, as strongly typed, procedural languages are simply far more suited to writing code for something like a chess engine. Sure, it can be done in Javascript but that was designed primarily for sending requests to a server and displaying results on a website, it's not designed for complex algorithms and the structures it uses show that.

Read more here:

software - Why dont chess engines use Node.js? - Chess ...