Author: Dennis A. Bourgerie
Date: 00:06:50 09/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2000 at 21:33:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 25, 2000 at 09:22:30, pavel wrote: > >>On September 25, 2000 at 08:53:37, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On September 24, 2000 at 22:56:34, Mike S. wrote: >>> >>>>On September 24, 2000 at 22:34:50, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>Of course that my second choice would have to be the King an experimental >>>>>version of the future CM8000. >>>>> >>>>>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thstorm/partic00.htm >>>> >>>>I wonder why Quest (=Fritz) should run on a dual Celeron 433 only? >>> >>>He used dual 433 previous year. >>> >>>>Btw., Nimzo was my favourite for the London WCh. I predicted the outcome (but >>>>the participants didn't stick to my prediction): >>> >>>>http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/515.htm >>>> >>>>For the Dutch Open, I think that - in addition to the 4 professionals - Diep >>>>(dual PIII/800), furthermore a new version of Kallisto II, and probably Patzer, >>>>are the dark horses which deserve attention. >>> >>>There are 2 programs dual at dutch open: Diep and Quest. >>> >>>However let's face it that there are 3 programs out there with a real >>>good and especially well tested book: Nimzo and Quest and Tiger. >>>From those only a single program is dual. Nimzo heavily relies upon >>>outsearching its opponents after having an openingsposition that's better >>>for it. >>> >>>The King has a book which is not that bad, but definitely not anymore >>>a 'todays' book. Further The King is an engine which plays very interesting >>>chess at slow hardware. Just sacrafice a pawn and play a cool game. At >>>nowadays programs searching 11 ply or more with very aggressive tunings, >>>that simply is getting a more hard way to play chess, as nowadays they don't >>>only swallow the pawn, but also win the game. >>> >>>apart from that, i doubt whether The King will *ever* win from DIEP, >>>as from testgames it appears that DIEP is the worst opponent for The King, >>>as DIEP is not only outsearching The King positionally (not tactical), >>>but also having more knowledge, so the only advantage the king has against >>>DIEP is better tactics, which nowadays hardly works. This where nimzo's >>>cool tactics work usually excellent as it's backupped by a superb book. >> >>you kidding me !! >> >>can you paste some of the sample games? > >Yeah plenty, just go to a chessserver and look to cm7000/6000 and others >playing diep. Note past years at dutch open The King didn't manage to win, >all games for the same reason. > >>*ever* win is (more than) a bit harsh IMO, you can come to such conclusion >>because DIEP is not as much commercially available as the king (CM) engine is. >>So only you and few others get the privilege of testing DIEP with CM. > >This is not true. I don't test a single game against CM by hand against diep, >i only see games as played on the internet and at dutch open. > >CM doesn't allow to play unattended somehow as far as i know. > >>by the way I think DIEP has played more tournaments than any other chess program > >this is not exactly true. perhaps i play the tournaments you take a look at! > >i join basically world champs, dutch champ and german champ. Other tournaments >i usually depend upon whether people want to operate it, though if spain >champ would get organized at a better date i would go there too. > >Of course it's true that i join even if it's sure that i have just introduced >a big number of bugs in the program, like for wmccc. Also it would be result >wise perhaps not so smart to join dutch open. despite that i fixed many >of the bugs as introduced before wmccc, i'm just not ready for dutch open >to face the Kure and Noomen books. > >>I know of......so how many did it win? (not that it is of any importance) > >I won paderborn nearly 2 years ago, after diep fought back from all lost >positions. Like against shredder it was a pawn down, but got to a won >endgame, but then blundered the endgame. It was not so well out of book >against nimzo, but got also a won far endgame, but blew it to a draw too, >despite the loss also in endgame against P.Conners, it also could have >gotten a draw there with a better endgame. > >It has a better endgame now and still improving, but in the meantime the >commercial books have gotten really better. Shredder is already having >problems keeping up with the new books, but with superb endgame play it >still manages to keep draws in lost positions resulting in a worldtitle. > >Note that diep lost end of 99 also the spain champ title by losing to >tiger in the one last round. It appeared that this was also a lost bookline. > >I was using some rather old openingsbooks (from 20 years ago) and some >lines are completely refuted. I had prepared the line that came on the >board, but it is nowadays seen as won for black. > >So it's obvious what i and MANY others should focus at right now: improve >book. > >Like nimzo in wmccc 2000 came out of book against SOS with +mate_in_12. >12 moves later... > >Zchess came out of book against nimzo with over a pawn down, lost the >pawn and the game real soon. > >Most engines aren't far from the strength from nimzo. > >In fact i don't have much respect for nimzo as an engine. It's just >an aggressive tuned engine which is tactical real strong, good blitz program, >excellent in doing nothing. But compared to most other engines it is >much worse. > >I'm amazed people keep on betting on this engine. > >I find my own program, zchess, SOS, The King, Gandalf and many others >miles better as Nimzo. > >Yet i doubt whether The King's book will ever get to equal standards with >nimzo. > >As long as nimzo can win games with a +mate in 12 score on its screen, >then it can still go for tournament wins. > >Yet even with a piece up out of book against shredder it couldn't win! > >With a pawn up against diep short after book (pawn win was forced by >book) in dutch open 1998 it couldn't win against DIEP. > >I'm amazed people bet on nimzo. It's made to solve testsets and to >finish games from a won position. Obviously with material up after book >you *can* chose for this approach, and i'll never blame Chrilly for that. >he has made something that sells, simple as that! > >In the end most people are not >very in depth studying programs. They just care for the number of points >it scores and whether it solves a few tactical shots in testpositions which >all programmers saw already years before the user saw it. > >If i manage to not only get a better book, but also test in which lines >diep plays well, then i'll bet it will do real well too. Right now i'm >loaded with other work, so i can't do that within 3 weeks time. > >Zchess book will also improve bigtime. I'm sure Insomniac too. > >I think James Robertson also was bigtime dissappointed in WMCCC about how >many games were won just on book. People just don't realize it till they >join themselves in a world champ, or when they analyze games of it. > >I would have had 2 titles at least with a better book with DIEP and with >the current endgame of it. Zchess would have perhaps already had a world title >if jaap v/d herik had done a fair pairing, and nimzo would not >get close to winning any tournament if people would have a better book. > >Obviously it will be only a matter of time before books improve of the >different programs. Mine for sure will. Zchess for sure will. > >The King i doubt. Its book was never real bad, but it's simply not getting >free points like nimzo does. Shredders book is not bad, but definitely >a mile behind Kure/Noomen. > >Most engines will remain losing points because of it, yet a number of them >will improve this. > >Getting out of book with +mate in 12 is just unbelievable. > >Note that Kure book to human standards still sucks. A human is MUCH better >prepared as any todays playing engine is. > >Of course with exception of SSDF testing, as you test against something >from which you know what it is gonna play. I'm relating here to tournaments. > >I'll be really amazed at dutch open if nimzo doesn't get a few games with >over +2.xx out of book. > >In human-human games with players at masterlevel, that *hardly* happens, >and i say this considering that most people already consider engines at >a much higher level as master. At 2600+ level i think only once each so >many years grandmaster make by accident a blunder in the opening. Like >Karpov did some years ago playing Nh6 or so after which Qd2 or something won >a piece directly. So it is not *intentionally* played. Just an error. > >This huge 'weak' chain is something people forget. > >But if you just care for points scored, just sleep on then.... > >>Pavel > >>>I don't see however how nimzo can ever win from Tiger, and nimzo has >>>the disadvantage that it faces dual machines. Nimzo sure will run at >>>a new machine. Jan usually has the latest hardware for it. >>> >>>I don't know whether Frans buys new hardware, nevertheless for Quest >>>it seems it doesn't matter that much anymore as it already gets quite >>>deeply. >>> >>>The only few programs profitting from hardware at dutch open will be DIEP, >>>The King (assuming he changed his pruning a bit) and many programs who are >>>very young and not exactly title favourite like Xinix. >>> >>>I would be amazed if Kallisto shows up. >>> >>>>(This time, I think the winner is at least among those I've mentioned...) >>> >>>>Regards, >>>>M.Scheidl The opening blunder referred to was when Karpov played ...Bd6 and Larry Christenson played Qc2-d1, which forked Karpov's Bishop on d6 and his knight on h5.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.