Author: Albert Silver
Date: 20:42:50 08/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
>Hi Albert.
>
>Thank you for your inspirations in your style.
>I think i can even increase it.
:-) Actually, I'm not saying these are the best possible, just that they've
yielded good results so far, and more importantly: good positions.
One of the things I was unhappy with when watching Pro Deo play Junior 8 was
that even when it won, it seemed a bit lucky at times. Of course, it had its
solid wins, but many, no, most of the time Junior 8 had the initiative and not
merely an illusory one. I'll run a new battery of tests again tonight. No doubt
time and tweaking will improve on the settings even more.
>Some switches in your style are IMO good, others not so good.
>especially the positional stuff could IMO be enhanced.
Maybe. I got this from the Rebel 10.5 page. It illustrated a couple of positions
where knowledge helped it spot a key move 2 plies earlier when set to 200 as
opposed to the default 100. But as he explains in the part on the lazy eval,
many times the extra knowledge is unnecessary, hence the whole concept of the
lazy eval. Plus it slows the search down, so the tricky part (especially having
no idea what the program knows or doesn't) is in finding a balance where the
slowdown is worth it. I'll continue testing with it as is, and see what it
yields. I use the Nunn sets because I can also see exactly where and how it is
changing its behavior and how it is developing the position. It goes without
saying I'm not tweaking it for a specific move or moves.
>i stole some stuff from your setting and have put it in mine.
Borrow away! You're not stealing. I just want to see it play its best game,
which I'm not convinced it is yet (with all due respect to Ed).
>[King Safety = 160] *
>[King_Safety = 180] * King Safety new style (!)
>[Traditional Isolated Pawns = 115] * weight isolated pawns
>[Progressive Isolated Pawns = 110] * weight isolated pawns (new style)
Isn't the new style supposed to replace the older one? If so, then shouldn't one
simply remove the older reference? That's the way I understood it, which is why
you'll only see one reference in mine BTW.
>[Own Queen = 1.00] * Don't exchange queens when down (!)
>[Pruning = MISC_13] * Bishop Pair (extra bonus) (!)
I didn't add these on purpose since I want to see enough cases where they seem
necessary. Well, at least one clear one. Also, I'm a bit afraid of sprucing up
the bishop pair advantage too much, simply because it may decide to hold on to
that bishop pair incorrectly. Apart form the classic space and pressure the pair
provides, one of the most importan things to realize about them is when to trade
one to yield a different type of advantage. Presumably one that is easier to
exploit or convert.
>[Pawn Pressure midg = 150] * weight pawn pressure middlegame
>[Pawn Pressure end0 = 200] * weight pawn pressure early endgame
>[Pawn Pressure end1 = 200] * weight pawn pressure endgame
>[Pawn Pressure end2 = 100] * weight pawn pressure simple endgame
I only put the first two above, since I'm not sure what is meant by the pressure
in the endgame.
>[Pawn Formation = 105] * 100
>[Weak Pawns = 110] * 100
>[Passed Pawn King Tropism = 105] * king tropism to own passed pawns
I may add these. As I said, it's early for me to start changing. This is only my
3rd personality to be honest.
>[Chess Knowledge = 235] *
As discussed above.
>[Attractiveness = 110] *
>[Attacking = 110] *
>[Strength of Play = 100] *
>[Draw Contempt Factor = 0.00] *
>[Selective Search = 115] *
This one I asked Ed about but got no answer yet. The added value to the
selective Search is not clear to me. At first I was inclined to think it was
like the King or Hiarcs, but after reading his description in the parameters, I
see it as cutting out or increasing the use of Null-move compared to using it
together with his new idea. Note that he says that reducing it to zero
(Selective Search = 0) would make it a full null-move program.
>[Pruning ? NONE] *
>[Search Technique = NULLMOVE] *
>[Engine Learner = off] * off|on
>[Book Learner = aggressive] * off|passive|moderate|strong|aggressive
>[Position Learner = on] * off|on
>[Extended Book Learner = read&write]* off|read|write|read&write
>[Keep Main Line ? 10] * minimum margin new mainline (?)
>[Pruning ? MISC_50] * Limit Reductions table driven (=)
>[Checks Depth ? 1] * limit QS checks to 1 ply (+9%) (!)
Althoug I believe this works, I'd like to hear an explanation on it. Just
curious.
>[Clear Hash Table = Always] * Always|Never|PB only
>[Recaptures = 2.00] * 1.50|2.00|2.80|3.00
I'm not going to touch this as I have no idea what it does.
>Here the impressive game, please take special attention to the score of
>Shredder and the score of Pro Deo (on my computer it is called Liseth).
>
>[Event "pd mach63 - s8 , Blitz:25'+4""]
>[Site "ORION8"]
>[Date "2004.08.19"]
>[Round "1"]
>[White "Liseth 1.0"]
>[Black "Shredder 8"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "E42"]
>[Annotator "0.49;0.07"]
>[PlyCount "103"]
>[TimeControl "1500+4"]
>
>{W=13.2 ply; 779kN/s B=16.2 ply; 373kN/s; 221 TBAs} 1. d4 {
>Weis letzter Buchzug 0.01/1 1} Nf6 {0} 2. c4 {0.01/1 0} e6 {0} 3. Nc3 {0.01/1 0
>} Bb4 {0} 4. e3 {0.01/1 0} c5 {0} 5. Nge2 {0.01/1 0} b6 {0} 6. a3 {0.01/1 0}
>Ba5 {0} 7. Qa4 {0.01/1 0} Na6 {0} 8. Bd2 {0.01/1 0} O-O {
>Schwarz letzter Buchzug 0} 9. Ng3 {0.01/1 0} Bb7 {0.07/15 77} 10. f3 {
>(b4) 0.01/1 0} d5 {-0.05/14 85} 11. cxd5 {0.49/12 57} cxd4 {0.12/14 49} 12.
>Qxd4 {0.33/13 112} Bxc3 {0.38/15 59} 13. Bxc3 {0.48/12 13} Qxd5 {0.67/16 68}
>14. Qh4 {(Df4) 0.38/12 54} Qc5 {0.72/14 46} 15. Bd4 {(Le2) 0.73/13 60} Qa5+ {
>1.16/14 74} 16. Kf2 {0.82/11 57} e5 {(Tfc8) 1.02/14 96} 17. Bc3 {1.39/13 50}
>Qc5 {1.91/15 63} 18. Rc1 {(Sf5) 1.51/12 60} Kh8 {(Tfe8) 2.10/13 138} 19. Nf5 {
>1.93/12 55} Rg8 {2.66/14 99} 20. Be2 {2.26/11 51} Qc7 {2.91/14 76} 21. Rhd1 {
>(Lxa6) 2.36/12 49} Nc5 {2.84/14 51} 22. Nd6 {2.45/12 48} Qe7 {(Sd5) 2.92/14 43}
>23. Bxe5 {2.69/11 33} Rad8 {3.26/13 40} 24. Rc4 {(Df4) 2.87/11 73} Rd7 {
>3.51/13 75} 25. Bxf6 {2.74/12 42} Qxf6 {(gxf6) 3.61/16 26} 26. Qxf6 {2.55/12 32
>} gxf6 {3.81/16 13} 27. Rf4 {(Tcc1) 2.47/12 40} Bc6 {(Tg6) 3.38/15 25} 28. Bc4
>{(Txf6) 2.38/12 37} Ba4 {(Kg7) 3.28/14 25} 29. Rdd4 {(Td5) 2.43/12 34} Bb3 {
>(Kg7) 3.29/15 17} 30. Nxf7+ {(Lb5) 2.87/14 28} Rxf7 {2.93/17 5} 31. Bxf7 {
>2.63/12 3} Bxf7 {2.85/17 18} 32. Rxf6 {3.03/13 50} Bb3 {2.94/16 20} 33. e4 {
>(Tc6) 3.12/12 31} Rg6 {3.04/15 24} 34. Rfd6 {(Tf8+) 3.18/13 28} Kg7 {2.90/15 22
>} 35. g3 {3.33/13 40} Kf7 {2.93/14 14} 36. Ke3 {3.42/12 26} Ke7 {2.97/15 14}
>37. e5 {(Td8) 3.51/13 20} Rxd6 {3.22/15 17} 38. Rxd6 {3.45/12 7} Be6 {
>3.29/17 13} 39. b4 {3.62/14 25} Na6 {(Sb7) 3.14/18 15} 40. Ke4 {
>(Td1) 3.61/14 23} Nc7 {3.24/18 12} 41. f4 {(Td1) 3.64/14 23} Nb5 {
>(Se8) 3.26/19 19} 42. Rd3 {(Tc6) 3.53/14 23} Bc4 {(La2) 3.65/18 18} 43. Re3 {
>4.22/14 22} Bf1 {(Sc7) 3.87/17 18} 44. f5 {4.39/14 28} Bg2+ {(Sc7) 4.38/17 39}
>45. Kf4 {4.70/12 18} Nc7 {(Ld5) 4.48/16 16} 46. Kg5 {4.75/13 16} Nd5 {
>4.89/16 17} 47. Re2 {(f6+) 4.90/13 22} Bf3 {(Lh3) 4.89/15 16} 48. f6+ {
>(Tf2) 5.12/13 17} Kf8 {6.34/17 16} 49. Rd2 {(Tc2) 5.15/13 21} Be4 {
>(Ke8) 7.73/17 35} 50. Rd4 {5.70/14 16} h6+ {(Lf3) 8.84/17 29} 51. Kxh6 {
>8.21/13 14} Bf3 {10.21/19 19} 52. g4 {(Kg6) 8.63/13 16} 1-0
Interesting game, but I'll be honest I thought it a bit chaotic. A nice win for
sure, but I am interested in seeing how it handles slightly more normal
positions and how it develops them. Still, do share the neat attacks or
combinations. :-)
Albert
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.