Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:29:32 12/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2002 at 20:44:39, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On December 29, 2002 at 20:27:16, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > >my shredder will do the same, but look at the scores. they are almost equal. >he has used 500Mhz PIII so 120/40 is maybe possible. >I have no chesstiger program but i think it is included in ChessAssistant 7. >so maybe i will have one soon. I have not shredder7 but I gave shredder5.32 to analyze during the night. I post the rest of the analysis(depth 14 and bigger) in the end of this post Shredder5.32 changed it's mind to Qe6+ again but later changed it's mind to Qd6. The program that played Qe6 is Tiger15 and I do not know how it behaves. I suspect that no top program is going to play Qe6+ after long analysis and the only question is how much time does it need to avoid it. My point was that it is not clear if the programs are going to do the same opening mistakes at 120/40. [D]rnb1kbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3q4/8/2N5/PPPP1PPP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 1 Analysis by Shredder 5.32: 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 Bf5 6.Nb5 Qb6 7.Nbd4 Bd7 ² (0.61) Depth: 14/28 00:08:27 87226kN 3...Qe6+ 4.Be2 Qg6 5.Bf3 Nc6 6.Nge2 Bg4 7.Nf4 Bxf3 8.Nxg6 Bxd1 9.Nd5 ² (0.60) Depth: 14/28 00:10:00 102131kN 3...Qe6+ 4.Be2 Qg6 5.Bf3 Nc6 6.Nge2 Bg4 7.Nf4 Bxf3 8.Nxg6 Bxd1 9.Nxh8 Bxc2 ² (0.56) Depth: 14/28 00:11:01 109986kN 3...Qe6+ 4.Be2 Qg6 5.Bf3 Nf6 6.Nge2 e6 7.0-0 Be7 8.d3 0-0 9.Bf4 Na6 10.Re1 ² (0.57) Depth: 15/30 00:18:30 172227kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 Bf5 6.Nb5 Qb6 7.Nbd4 Bg6 8.Bc4 Nc6 ² (0.56) Depth: 15/30 00:24:53 227969kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Be6 6.Qe2 Bxc4 7.Qxc4 Nc6 8.0-0 Qb4 9.Qd3 ² (0.56) Depth: 15/30 00:26:34 241740kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 e6 6.Bc4 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Nb5 Qb6 9.Bf4 ² (0.52) Depth: 16/32 01:02:01 543045kN 3...Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 Nc6 6.Bc4 Qb4 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.0-0 0-0-0 9.d5 ² (0.54) Depth: 17/34 02:37:57 1408597kN (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.