Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:23:07 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. This is something that I do not understand. It is easy to prevent coming with -2.xx out of book by having a small book that every move in the book was analyzed manually and playing for quiet lines. Sos played for a tactical line with mate attack out of book. If you add the fact that Sos is weak in tactics and could not see a simple mate you can understand the fact that nimzo had evaluation of mate out of book. Shredder blundered against nimzo with Qxb2. I believe that Shredder could avoid this mistake by using better strategy when database say 100% and only one move for the opponent. It was easy to guess without book when you use a big database that the move of nimzo is going to be Bxb4(100% score and the only move out of book) so shredder could instead of playing Qxb2 to wait and calculate the position after Qxb2 Bxb4 and after seeing the drop in the evaluation to go back and find a better move(Rxe1+ instead of Qxb2). If there is not a drop in the evaluation it can save time by playing the next move in 0 seconds and the only cases that this strategy cause loss of time in the clock are cases when the mistake was a previous move or cases when the opponent does not play the known move that gave 100% result from human-human games. Uri
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.