Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:27:16 12/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2002 at 19:59:28, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On December 29, 2002 at 19:30:00, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 29, 2002 at 19:04:47, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>On December 29, 2002 at 17:51:06, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On December 29, 2002 at 17:48:59, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 29, 2002 at 17:13:19, Joshua Haglund wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 29, 2002 at 14:07:14, Lieven Clarisse wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I disagree, testing without an opening book is a good test for chess engines! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>lieven. >>>>>> >>>>>>Disagree... >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe there should be a rating list for all the programs without a book; 100 >>>>>>rounds bullet, blitz, and standard time controls. >>>>>> >>>>>>Then we'll find the best engine I believe. If it can find the best move in an >>>>>>unorthadox opening A00, B00, C00, D00 E00... it should find the best moves for a >>>>>>program with a book. I think chess tiger 15 is the new king of the mountain. >>>>>> >>>>>>For now... ;) >>>>>> >>>>>>Joshua >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I Believe that the SSDF should be testing programs by using the first 20 games >>>>>without a book and the remaining 20 with their own book, this will give us an >>>>>idea of how good some programs really are. >>>>> >>>>>Pichard >>> >>>I totally disagree. >>>look at the games which Cristophe Drieu posted. if you would play completly >>>without any book the engines would play always the same (bad) variations. >>>no A00,B00,C00,D00,E00 just B00 or B01. >>>it would be interesting what the programers Cristophe or Stefan have to say >>>about all this. if they say I havent done anything to improve the play of my >>>engine within the first 10 moves for many years now (which is what I guess), >>>then it is meaningless to let them play without opening books. >>> >>>a good idea would obviously be: >>>to create an opening book which has a wide range of variations from A00-E99 in >>>it. no variations should last longer then till move 9 or 10 and should not lead >>>to great disadvantages for both sides. no dubious gambit variations for example. >>> >>>the SSDF should use such a book for all engines. >>>this will never happen of course. >>> >>>Michael >> >>I do not think that the ssdf should do it. >> >>If the target is to find the strength of the engines without books then it is >>possible to start from opening like 1.a3 a6 or 1.a4 a5 and to continue in that >>way > >It makes not much sense to play 1.a3 a6 first. there would be not much >difference I guess. if SSDF would play without opening book (or with 1.a3 a6 >opening book)then programers would probably start to implement opening books in >the engines (if that is allowed). >the point is: if SSDF would decide not to allow the use of opening books any >more, then they have to give programers time to improve play during >first stage of a game. > > > >but it is not the job of the ssdf but of the people who are interested in it. >> >>I also think that the games that were played were not 120/40 and I expect the >>engines to play better in serious games even without book. >> >>I doubt if tiger15 may play 1.e4 d5 2.ex5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qe6+ in 120/40 >> >why not. Look at this: > >Analysis by Shredder 7: > >1. ² (0.69): 3...De6+ 4.Le2 Dg6 5.Sf3 Dxg2 6.Tg1 Dh3 7.Tg3 Dd7 8.Se5 Dd4 9.Sb5 >Db6 >2. ± (0.74): 3...Dd8 4.Sf3 Sf6 5.Lc4 e6 6.0-0 Ld6 7.d3 0-0 8.Lg5 >3. ± (0.76): 3...Da5 4.Sf3 Sf6 5.Lc4 e6 6.0-0 Ld6 7.Sb5 0-0 8.Sxd6 cxd6 9.d3 Sc6 >10.Le3 >4. ± (0.79): 3...Dd6 4.Lc4 Sc6 5.d3 Sf6 6.Sge2 Lg4 7.0-0 e6 8.Sb5 Dd8 9.Lf4 >5. ± (0.87): 3...Df5 4.Sf3 Sc6 5.Ld3 De6+ 6.Le2 Sf6 7.0-0 Dd6 8.d3 a6 9.Le3 Lf5 >10.Sh4 Ld7 >6. ± (1.00): 3...De5+ 4.Le2 Sf6 5.Sf3 Dd6 6.0-0 a6 7.d3 Sc6 8.Le3 Lf5 9.Sh4 Ld7 >10.Te1 >7. ± (1.08): 3...Dd7 4.Lc4 Sc6 5.Sf3 Sf6 6.d4 e6 7.Sb5 >8. ± (1.17): 3...Dc5 4.d4 Db4 5.Sf3 Sf6 6.a3 Dd6 7.Lc4 Le6 8.Sb5 Dd7 9.Lxe6 >Dxe6+ 10.Se5 >9. ± (1.17): 3...Dd4 4.Sf3 Db4 5.d4 Sf6 6.a3 Dd6 7.Lc4 Le6 8.Sb5 Dd7 9.Lxe6 >10. ± (1.21): 3...Dg5 4.Sf3 Dh5 5.d4 Lg4 6.Le2 Sc6 7.h3 0-0-0 8.0-0 >11. +- (6.45): 3...Lg4 4.Sxd5 Lxd1 5.Sxc7+ Kd8 6.Sxa8 Lxc2 7.Lc4 e6 8.d3 Sc6 >9.Lf4 Sb4 10.Tc1 Sxd3+ 11.Lxd3 > >depth 12/30 0:02:00 You give it a lot of options so it becomes slower because it is hard to calculate exact score for a lot of moves. You should give it only one option Here is old shreeder's analysis on p850 It changes it's mind from Qe6+ to Qd6 at depth 13. I guess that the same may be for other programs if you only give them time. New game - Yace 0.99.56 rnb1kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3q4/8/2N5/PPPP1PPP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1 Analysis by Shredder 5.32: 3...Nf6 4.Nxd5 Nxd5 +- (5.66) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00 3...Nf6 4.Nxd5 Nxd5 +- (6.38) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00 3...Nf6 4.Nxd5 Nxd5 +- (7.31) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00 3...Bg4 4.Nxd5 Bxd1 5.Nxc7+ Kd8 6.Nxa8 +- (6.88) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00 3...Bg4 4.Nxd5 Bxd1 5.Nxc7+ Kd8 6.Nxa8 Bxc2 +- (6.44) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00 3...Bg4 4.Nxd5 Bxd1 5.Nxc7+ Kd8 6.Nxa8 Bxc2 +- (5.57) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 +- (2.88) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00 3...Qe5+ 4.Nce2 +- (2.52) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 ² (0.48) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00 3...Qd4 ² (0.29) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00 3...Qd4 ² (0.29) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00 3...Qd4 4.Nf3 ± (0.91) Depth: 2/4 00:00:00 3...Qd4 4.Nf3 ± (0.91) Depth: 2/4 00:00:00 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Nd7 ± (0.82) Depth: 2/4 00:00:00 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Nd7 = (0.23) Depth: 2/4 00:00:00 3...Qe5+ 4.Qe2 Nd7 5.Qxe5 Nxe5 = (0.18) Depth: 2/4 00:00:00 3...Qe5+ 4.Qe2 Qxe2+ 5.Ngxe2 Nc6 6.Rg1 ² (0.43) Depth: 3/6 00:00:00 3...Qe5+ 4.Qe2 Nc6 5.Nf3 ² (0.43) Depth: 3/6 00:00:00 3...Qe5+ 4.Qe2 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qxe2+ 6.Bxe2 Nf6 ² (0.43) Depth: 4/8 00:00:00 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Qf5 5.Nh3 ² (0.68) Depth: 5/10 00:00:00 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Bg4 5.d4 Qe6 6.Bf4 ± (0.71) Depth: 5/10 00:00:00 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nc6 ² (0.70) Depth: 5/10 00:00:00 3...Qd6 4.Bb5+ Nc6 5.Nf3 Bf5 ² (0.35) Depth: 5/10 00:00:00 3...Qd6 4.Bb5+ Nd7 5.Qe2 ² (0.35) Depth: 5/10 00:00:00 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nd7 5.Bc4 ² (0.60) Depth: 6/12 00:00:00 28kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 Nc6 6.0-0 ± (0.71) Depth: 6/12 00:00:00 31kN 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Bg4 5.h3 Bxe2 6.Ngxe2 ² (0.70) Depth: 6/12 00:00:00 33kN 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Qg5 5.g3 Nf6 6.Nf3 Qc5 ² (0.48) Depth: 6/12 00:00:00 49kN 3...Qe6+ 4.Be2 Qg6 5.Nd5 Na6 6.Ne3 c6 ² (0.47) Depth: 6/12 00:00:00 57kN 3...Qe6+ 4.Be2 Qg6 5.Bf3 Nf6 6.Nge2 Nc6 ² (0.40) Depth: 6/12 00:00:00 61kN 3...Qe6+ 4.Be2 Qg6 5.Bf3 c6 ² (0.65) Depth: 7/14 00:00:00 80kN 3...Qe6+ 4.Be2 Qg6 5.Bf3 c6 6.Nge2 Bg4 7.Nf4 ± (0.76) Depth: 7/14 00:00:00 92kN 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Bg4 5.h3 Bxe2 6.Nf3 Bxd1+ 7.Ne2 Bxe2 ± (0.75) Depth: 7/14 00:00:00 100kN 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Bg4 5.d4 Qe6 6.Bf4 c6 7.Nf3 Bxf3 8.gxf3 ² (0.69) Depth: 7/14 00:00:00 111kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Be6 6.Nb5 Qc6 ² (0.68) Depth: 7/14 00:00:00 121kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Be6 6.Nb5 Qb6 ² (0.55) Depth: 7/14 00:00:00 134kN 3...Qc5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Nb5 Nd8 ² (0.54) Depth: 7/14 00:00:00 149kN 3...Qc5 4.Bb5+ Bd7 5.d4 Qf5 6.Bd3 Qe6+ 7.Nge2 Nf6 ² (0.46) Depth: 7/14 00:00:01 178kN 3...Qc5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Be2 e6 6.0-0 Bd7 7.d4 Qxd4 ± (0.71) Depth: 8/16 00:00:01 241kN 3...Qc5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Be2 Nf6 6.0-0 Bf5 7.d4 ± (0.84) Depth: 8/16 00:00:01 267kN 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Qg5 5.g3 Nf6 6.d3 Qg6 ± (0.83) Depth: 8/16 00:00:02 328kN 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Qg5 5.g3 Qc5 6.Nf3 Bh3 7.d4 Qf5 ± (0.72) Depth: 8/16 00:00:02 376kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Be6 6.d4 c6 7.Bxe6 Qxe6+ 8.Be3 ± (0.71) Depth: 8/16 00:00:02 409kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 Nc6 6.0-0 Bf5 7.d3 ² (0.64) Depth: 8/16 00:00:02 444kN 3...Qd6 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.Nge2 Ne5 6.d3 Nxc4 7.dxc4 ² (0.54) Depth: 9/18 00:00:04 814kN 3...Qd6 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Nge2 Nc6 6.0-0 Na5 7.Bb5+ c6 8.Bd3 Ng4 ² (0.62) Depth: 10/20 00:00:08 1566kN 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Qg5 5.g3 Qa5 6.h3 Nf6 7.Bh5 Nxh5 ² (0.61) Depth: 10/20 00:00:10 1883kN 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Qg5 5.g3 Qa5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Bb5 Bh3 8.Ne5 ² (0.57) Depth: 10/20 00:00:12 2258kN 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Qg5 5.Bf3 Nd7 6.d4 Ngf6 7.Bxb7 Qf5 8.Bxa8 Qxf2+ ± (0.82) Depth: 11/22 00:00:21 3822kN 3...Qe5+ 4.Be2 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qd6 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d4 a6 8.Be3 Bf5 9.Bc4 ± (1.02) Depth: 11/22 00:00:28 5250kN 3...Qd6 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Nge2 Nc6 6.d3 ± (1.01) Depth: 11/22 00:00:29 5433kN 3...Qd6 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.Nb5 Qd7 6.Nf3 a6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Ng5+ Ke8 9.Nxc7+ ² (0.66) Depth: 11/22 00:00:35 6478kN 3...Qd6 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.Nge2 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.Bd3 Qf4 8.Nxf4 ² (0.66) Depth: 11/22 00:00:38 6992kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Be6 6.Qe2 Bxc4 7.Qxc4 Qc6 8.Qd4 Qe6+ 9.Qe3 ² (0.68) Depth: 12/24 00:01:26 15406kN 3...Qe6+ 4.Be2 Qg6 5.Nd5 Qd6 6.Ne3 Nf6 7.d4 ² (0.67) Depth: 12/24 00:01:38 17511kN 3...Qe6+ 4.Be2 Qg6 5.Bf3 Nc6 6.Nb5 Nb4 7.Nxc7+ Kd8 8.Nxa8 Qxc2 ² (0.67) Depth: 12/24 00:01:48 19222kN 3...Qe6+ 4.Be2 Qg6 5.Bf3 Nc6 6.Nge2 Bf5 7.Nf4 Qf6 8.d3 Qe5+ 9.Be3 e6 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 ± (0.75) Depth: 13/26 00:02:35 27332kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 e6 6.0-0 Be7 7.Nd5 exd5 8.d3 ± (0.74) Depth: 13/26 00:02:54 30515kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 e6 6.0-0 Be7 7.d3 0-0 8.Nb5 Qd8 9.Bf4 ² (0.69) Depth: 13/26 00:03:32 36959kN (blass, tel-aviv 30.12.2002) 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.