| |
Main
Date: 17 Nov 2005 20:27:40
From: C.C.LONGTHORP
Subject: Strongest program
|
Which is the strongest engine for tactics ??
C.C.L.
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2005 11:21:25
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Ruud wrote:
> xxx
Can you explain further?
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2005 22:12:42
From: Andreas P. Hofmann
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
C.C.LONGTHORP <chris@longthorpcc.karoo.co.uk > wrote:
> Which is the strongest engine for tactics ??
Tactical on ICC?!
Just the record of this prog looks awesome.
--
regards
Andreas
Eppur Si Muove!
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 09:19:17
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Liam Too wrote:
>
> What about the Swedish Chess Computer Association, have they rated
> Rybka, Fruit, or Zappa yet?
Those programs have not been rated yet. However, the SSDF is currently
running matches with Fruit, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it on the
next rating list.
I don't know if Zappa 2.0 (the one that was in the world championships,
not the currently available, and weaker, free version) will be tested.
Right now, it's privateware, and I think the SSDF only tests publically
available programs. Zappa's author was planning to partner up with the
author of Diep and release his software commercially, but plans fell
through. And Rybka will probably be tested once it goes commercial;
it's just too new to show up on the not very frequently updated SSDF
list.
Tony
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 14:57:13
From: Nicky
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
I believe it must be aprox 2800.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 12:39:00
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Aaron wrote:
> "Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com> wrote in news:1133982590.149941.215900
> @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Yes it seem so!
> >
> > Do you ahppen to know whats Rybka's official elo?
>
> Offical? You mean like FIDE?
>
> There are people who run games and calculate ratings, but those aren't
> official.
What about the Swedish Chess Computer Association, have they rated
Rybka, Fruit, or Zappa yet?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 05:23:40
From: Peter Pein
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Liam Too schrieb:
> Aaron wrote:
>
>>"Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com> wrote in news:1133982590.149941.215900
>>@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>Yes it seem so!
>>>
>>>Do you ahppen to know whats Rybka's official elo?
>>
>>Offical? You mean like FIDE?
>>
>>There are people who run games and calculate ratings, but those aren't
>>official.
>
>
> What about the Swedish Chess Computer Association, have they rated
> Rybka, Fruit, or Zappa yet?
>
Well the swedish list is somewhat "official", but I'm sure, Rybka has
not had the possibility to play enough games under controled conditions
to get an reliable rating. I remeber sth like 2800 or 2900 +-140(!) (in
each direction (!!)). (seen Tuesday)
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 12:24:55
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:23:40 +0100, Peter Pein <petsie@dordos.net > using
recycled electrons muttered something about:
>
>>>>Do you ahppen to know whats Rybka's official elo?
>>>
>>>Offical? You mean like FIDE?
>>>
>>>There are people who run games and calculate ratings, but those aren't
>>>official.
>>
>>
>> What about the Swedish Chess Computer Association, have they rated
>> Rybka, Fruit, or Zappa yet?
>>
>
>Well the swedish list is somewhat "official", but I'm sure, Rybka has
>not had the possibility to play enough games under controled conditions
>to get an reliable rating. I remeber sth like 2800 or 2900 +-140(!) (in
>each direction (!!)). (seen Tuesday)
One rating list (CEGT IIRC, not SSDF which has not rated Rybka yet) has Rybka
_very unofficially_ rated at 2900 due to the low number of games.
A point to remember: there are _no_ computer chess rating lists that can be
related to human rating lists. The similarity is only superficial. The SSDF list
is one of 2 or 3 lists that may be considered accurate, but this is only in
relation to other chess engines _on their computers_ . For instance, my list is
quite a bit different as far as numerical values are concerned, but one can see
that there is a similarity in where the engines stand relative to each other.
No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 11:09:50
From: Nicky
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Yes it seem so!
Do you ahppen to know whats Rybka's official elo?
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 21:31:42
From: Aaron
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
"Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com > wrote in news:1133982590.149941.215900
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Yes it seem so!
>
> Do you ahppen to know whats Rybka's official elo?
Offical? You mean like FIDE?
There are people who run games and calculate ratings, but those aren't
official.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 03:49:07
From: Nicky
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
not not all of them i hust searched for Rybka and i read from there and
on.....
I know a cluster is a lot of computers linked together and acting as 1
big one so they can have big resources. i maybe wrong though
ok so the pc bersion its fake Hydra.
But ok my question still stands.
I mean if Rybka had a better search and eval from Hydra(ehatver hydra
is or runnign on)then would Rybka in my opinion would definately beat
Hydra no matter if Hydra.
Do you agrre on that one?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 08:02:50
From: HD
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Nicky wrote:
> not not all of them i hust searched for Rybka and i read from there and
> on.....
>
> I know a cluster is a lot of computers linked together and acting as 1
> big one so they can have big resources. i maybe wrong though
>
> ok so the pc bersion its fake Hydra.
>
> But ok my question still stands.
>
> I mean if Rybka had a better search and eval from Hydra(ehatver hydra
> is or runnign on)then would Rybka in my opinion would definately beat
> Hydra no matter if Hydra.
>
> Do you agrre on that one?
>
I think Rybka is a very strong program, and it would have fair chance
against Hydra on even a desent dual/quad.
When the mating bugs etc. is fixed, and TB-access is implemented, well,
even better.
Only in a few cases would changing evaluation/seach improve it's
strenghts, but sure they are there :)
HD
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 13:35:27
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
On 7 Dec 2005 03:49:07 -0800, "Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com > using recycled
electrons muttered something about:
>ok so the pc bersion its fake Hydra.
>
>But ok my question still stands.
>
>I mean if Rybka had a better search and eval from Hydra(ehatver hydra
>is or runnign on)then would Rybka in my opinion would definately beat
>Hydra no matter if Hydra.
There is simply not enough information yet concerning Rybka.
The fake (clone or simply renamed version of Fruit on Playchess.com) Hydra has
been around for some time now; Rybka is a new engine. What has been released is
a beta version and apparently has some bugs that still need to be worked out. It
was available publicly only for a very short time, until midnight on 12/5 I
believe.
Rybka is very, very strong despite the bugs, and there are very strong
indications that it is the strongest engine extant, continuously beating the
best engines including Fruit 2.2.1, Fritz 9, Shredder, Toga II v.1.1, etc.
despite the bugs.
Rybka is intended to go commercial in the near future as soon as some of the
bugs have been worked out, _probably_ within a month or so.
>
>Do you agrre on that one?
No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 08:11:30
From: HD
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Chaos@chaos.org wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2005 03:49:07 -0800, "Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com> using recycled
> electrons muttered something about:
>
>
>>ok so the pc bersion its fake Hydra.
>>
>>But ok my question still stands.
>>
>>I mean if Rybka had a better search and eval from Hydra(ehatver hydra
>>is or runnign on)then would Rybka in my opinion would definately beat
>>Hydra no matter if Hydra.
>
>
> There is simply not enough information yet concerning Rybka.
>
> The fake (clone or simply renamed version of Fruit on Playchess.com) Hydra has
> been around for some time now; Rybka is a new engine. What has been released is
> a beta version and apparently has some bugs that still need to be worked out. It
> was available publicly only for a very short time, until midnight on 12/5 I
> believe.
> Rybka is very, very strong despite the bugs, and there are very strong
> indications that it is the strongest engine extant, continuously beating the
> best engines including Fruit 2.2.1, Fritz 9, Shredder, Toga II v.1.1, etc.
> despite the bugs.
> Rybka is intended to go commercial in the near future as soon as some of the
> bugs have been worked out, _probably_ within a month or so.
>
>
I'm afraid that Vasik hasn't planned to eliminate many bugs in the first
commercial release :(
The release-menu includes mpv, TB's a such good stuff - _and_ a some
bugfixes. Most fixes, though, is planned for v.2.
...unless of course he has changed his mind.
HD
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 12:16:03
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:11:30 +0100, HD <hdchess@gmail.com > using recycled
electrons muttered something about:
>
>I'm afraid that Vasik hasn't planned to eliminate many bugs in the first
>commercial release :(
>The release-menu includes mpv, TB's a such good stuff - _and_ a some
>bugfixes. Most fixes, though, is planned for v.2.
>
>...unless of course he has changed his mind.
>
>HD
Vasik posted:
"1) Mating problems - essentially fixed (in full release). Rybka still won't
always play the very fastest mate but will be _much_ more efficient. A really
full solution requires even hash table changes and will be available as a patch
to the first release.
2) Displaying mate lengths - will be available as a patch to the first release.
3) Displaying mate variations in analysis mode - fixed.
4) Displaying multiple variations in analysis mode - fixed.
5) 50 move repetition problems - fixed.
6) Support for full UCI protocol - fixed.
7) Underpromotions - will be fixed as a post-release patch.
8) Crashing & hanging problems - some fixed, some being fixed. Obviously the
highest priority at this point.
9) EGTB support - added.
10) Endgame knowledge - this is for Rybka 2.0. It should not be hard in
principle, in fact I expect it to be easier than middlegame knowledge. There
just wasn't time. I do apologize to the endgame lovers out there :)
11) NPS - please don't worry about this number. Rybka uses the same CPU cycles
as everyone else. Search is a very weird and complicated thing, every engine is
searching 99.9% nonsense anyway."
Only real question I have at this time is...how much will Rybka cost? That has
not yet been mentioned, but I would expect around $35.00 - $50.00 U.S.
Does anyone besides me remember how much Fritz 4.01 cost new?
No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 18:07:13
From: HD
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Chaos@chaos.org wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:11:30 +0100, HD <hdchess@gmail.com> using recycled
> electrons muttered something about:
>
>>I'm afraid that Vasik hasn't planned to eliminate many bugs in the first
>>commercial release :(
>>The release-menu includes mpv, TB's a such good stuff - _and_ a some
>>bugfixes. Most fixes, though, is planned for v.2.
>>
>>...unless of course he has changed his mind.
>>
>>HD
>
>
> Vasik posted:
>
> "1) Mating problems - essentially fixed (in full release). Rybka still won't
> always play the very fastest mate but will be _much_ more efficient. A really
> full solution requires even hash table changes and will be available as a patch
> to the first release.
>
> 2) Displaying mate lengths - will be available as a patch to the first release.
>
> 3) Displaying mate variations in analysis mode - fixed.
>
> 4) Displaying multiple variations in analysis mode - fixed.
>
> 5) 50 move repetition problems - fixed.
>
> 6) Support for full UCI protocol - fixed.
>
> 7) Underpromotions - will be fixed as a post-release patch.
>
> 8) Crashing & hanging problems - some fixed, some being fixed. Obviously the
> highest priority at this point.
>
> 9) EGTB support - added.
>
> 10) Endgame knowledge - this is for Rybka 2.0. It should not be hard in
> principle, in fact I expect it to be easier than middlegame knowledge. There
> just wasn't time. I do apologize to the endgame lovers out there :)
>
> 11) NPS - please don't worry about this number. Rybka uses the same CPU cycles
> as everyone else. Search is a very weird and complicated thing, every engine is
> searching 99.9% nonsense anyway."
>
> Only real question I have at this time is...how much will Rybka cost? That has
> not yet been mentioned, but I would expect around $35.00 - $50.00 U.S.
>
> Does anyone besides me remember how much Fritz 4.01 cost new?
>
>
> No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
Yes, so he stated - today, right?
34 Euro, the current corversion is up to you.
Apparantly things are moving fast, and the release date is aimed before
the 16.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 17:53:00
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:07:13 +0100, HD <hdchess@gmail.com > using recycled
electrons muttered something about:
>> Only real question I have at this time is...how much will Rybka cost? That has
>> not yet been mentioned, but I would expect around $35.00 - $50.00 U.S.
>>
>> Does anyone besides me remember how much Fritz 4.01 cost new?
>Yes, so he stated - today, right?
>
>34 Euro, the current corversion is up to you.
I don't know (34 Euro) - you are saying that is projected cost for Rybka, I
assume. That number does seem to familiar, though.
When Fritz 4.01 was first released, it around $150.00 U.S.. Nowadays...these
engines are quite cheap compared, and immensely stronger.
>
>Apparantly things are moving fast, and the release date is aimed before
>the 16.
I thought it would be closer to the end of the month. Regardless, it appears
that it will be a popular engine. :)
No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 01:09:42
From: Nicky
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Well guys i dont know if there is a Real one but a pc version of Hydra
v.8 is out!
Its almost good as fruit but fruit is alittle better and of course
Rybka is better than boith i mde them compete :)
Alos i would like to mention that no matter on how good hardware a
chess engine is runnignone all the really matters is the search and
eval function are they not?
I mean if Rybka had a better search and eval from Hydra then would
definately beat Hydra nmo matter if Hydra run on 64 cpu clustered pc.
Do you agree?
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 11:17:22
From: HD
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Nicky wrote:
> Well guys i dont know if there is a Real one but a pc version of Hydra
> v.8 is out!
>
> Its almost good as fruit but fruit is alittle better and of course
> Rybka is better than boith i mde them compete :)
>
> Alos i would like to mention that no matter on how good hardware a
> chess engine is runnignone all the really matters is the search and
> eval function are they not?
>
> I mean if Rybka had a better search and eval from Hydra then would
> definately beat Hydra nmo matter if Hydra run on 64 cpu clustered pc.
>
> Do you agree?
>
Amusing!
Hydra more or less _is_ the cluster (and the Unix cluster isn't a
"clustered PC.")
It (Hydra) is, and has never been an engine.
What you have is a fake, a Fruit clone of a kind.
Haven't you read any previuos postings here?
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 16:39:53
From: Peter Pein
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
HD schrieb:
> It (Hydra) is, and has never been an engine.
> What you have is a fake, a Fruit clone of a kind.
>
Hmmm, looks like APILchess is really related to the so called "monster":
http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/fachbereich/AG/monien/PERSONAL/FLULO/APIL/APILchess.html
on a single CPU (AMD64@2GHz), this program is weak
(5 min/game + 10 sec/move):
[Event "Apil (Hydra 1.04)"]
[Date "2005.12.06"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Apilchess"]
[Black "Rybka v1.0 Beta.w32"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A00"]
[PlyCount "50"]
1. a3 Nf6 2. f3 e5 3. d3 d5 4. a4 Nc6 5. b3 d4 6. h3 Nh5 7. c3 Qh4+
8. g3 Nxg3 9. Bg5 Qxg5 10. Rh2 Nf5 11. Rg2 Qh4+ 12. Rf2 Qg3
13. cxd4 Bb4+ 14. Nd2 Ne3 15. Qc1 Qxg1 16. d5 Bxh3 17. Qc4 Bxf1
18. Qxb4 Nc2+ 19. Kd1 Bxe2+ 20. Kxe2 N6d4+ 21. Qxd4 Nxd4+
22. Ke3 Qg3 23. Rff1 Qf4+ 24. Kf2 Qh2+ 25. Ke1 Qe2# 0-1
[Event "Apil (Hydra 1.04)"]
[Date "2005.12.04"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Apilchess"]
[Black "Zappa"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A00"]
[PlyCount "48"]
1. a3 Nf6 2. f3 e5 3. d3 Bc5 4. f4 Ng4 5. Nh3 d6 6. fxe5 dxe5 7. e4 O-O
8. a4 Nc6 9. c3 Be6 10. c4 f5 11. exf5 Bxf5 12. Bg5 Qd4 13. Qd2 h6
14. Bh4 Nb4 15. Na3 Bxd3 16. Be2 Qe4 17. Kd1 Bxe2+ 18. Qxe2 Rad8+
19. Bxd8 Rxd8+ 20. Ke1 Nd3+ 21. Kd2 Bb4+ 22. Kd1 Nf4+ 23. Qd2 Rxd2+
24. Kc1 Ne2# 0-1
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 07:56:02
From: HD
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Peter Pein wrote:
> HD schrieb:
>
>> It (Hydra) is, and has never been an engine.
>> What you have is a fake, a Fruit clone of a kind.
>>
>
> Hmmm, looks like APILchess is really related to the so called "monster":
> http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/fachbereich/AG/monien/PERSONAL/FLULO/APIL/APILchess.html
>
In that respect you can call anything written by the same programmer
related.
Since Donningers best known program was Nimzo, why not say that Hydra is
Nimzo designed to work on ony a cluster like the one in Bahrain?
Anyway, Hydra is hardware programmed, not made like a traditional PC
program/engine. You can't just transfer or re-write it's algorithms.
HD
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 12:40:48
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Aaron wrote:
> "Liam Too" <liamtoo805@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1133895540.564575.185900@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Aaron wrote:
> >> "Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com> wrote in news:1133803654.719166.134730
> >> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > Are you sere Rybka is better than Fruit 2.2.1?
> >>
> >> Well, testers are reporting at least 60% if not more scores against
> >> Fruit 2.2.1 and Fritz 9. But who knows?
> >>
> >> But that's why I said possibly.
> >
> > I know that Zappa already beat Fruit in the latest computer
> > championship. Has Rybka defeated Zappa yet?
>
> Given that the super strong Zappa (not the old one) isn't available, and
> there's no tourney yet in which Rybka 1.0 and Zappa has entered, the answer
> is no.
>
> But if we wanted to discuss strongest program which no-one else can get
> yet, we might as well talk about Hydra too just for fun.
Hydra is a multi-processor (upgraded to 64 now) monster. If one on
one, Zappa will definitely beat it.
|
| |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 10:59:00
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Aaron wrote:
> "Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com> wrote in news:1133803654.719166.134730
> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Are you sere Rybka is better than Fruit 2.2.1?
>
> Well, testers are reporting at least 60% if not more scores against Fruit
> 2.2.1 and Fritz 9. But who knows?
>
> But that's why I said possibly.
I know that Zappa already beat Fruit in the latest computer
championship. Has Rybka defeated Zappa yet?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2005 15:43:22
From: Ruud
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
xxx
"Liam Too" <liamtoo805@yahoo.com > schreef in bericht
news:1133895540.564575.185900@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Aaron wrote:
>> "Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com> wrote in news:1133803654.719166.134730
>> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Are you sere Rybka is better than Fruit 2.2.1?
>>
>> Well, testers are reporting at least 60% if not more scores against Fruit
>> 2.2.1 and Fritz 9. But who knows?
>>
>> But that's why I said possibly.
>
> I know that Zappa already beat Fruit in the latest computer
> championship. Has Rybka defeated Zappa yet?
>
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 20:31:36
From: Aaron
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
"Liam Too" <liamtoo805@yahoo.com > wrote in
news:1133895540.564575.185900@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Aaron wrote:
>> "Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com> wrote in news:1133803654.719166.134730
>> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Are you sere Rybka is better than Fruit 2.2.1?
>>
>> Well, testers are reporting at least 60% if not more scores against
>> Fruit 2.2.1 and Fritz 9. But who knows?
>>
>> But that's why I said possibly.
>
> I know that Zappa already beat Fruit in the latest computer
> championship. Has Rybka defeated Zappa yet?
Given that the super strong Zappa (not the old one) isn't available, and
there's no tourney yet in which Rybka 1.0 and Zappa has entered, the answer
is no.
But if we wanted to discuss strongest program which no-one else can get
yet, we might as well talk about Hydra too just for fun.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 09:27:34
From: Nicky
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Are you sere Rybka is better than Fruit 2.2.1?
|
| | |
Date: 06 Dec 2005 16:52:37
From: Aaron
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
"Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com > wrote in news:1133803654.719166.134730
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Are you sere Rybka is better than Fruit 2.2.1?
Well, testers are reporting at least 60% if not more scores against Fruit
2.2.1 and Fritz 9. But who knows?
But that's why I said possibly.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 09:10:08
From: Nicky
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Can you point me to alink please to downlaod Rybka?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2005 05:49:46
From:
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
HD wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
> > In article <1133964844.502555.309890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Nicky <hackeras@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Rybka v 1.0 Beta Readme
> >>Dec 4, 2005
> >>[...]
> >>For example, the following are the knps rates for the two versions of
> >>the engine on my own test position sample on a 2.4 GHz Amd-64 machine:
> >>
> >>32-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta: 104 knps
> >>64-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta: 166 knps
> >
> >
> > That's very interesting. Those figures are *extremely* low for a modern
> > chess engine, which suggests that the author has taken the approach of
> > having a very complicated evaluation function in order to evaluate the
> > right hundred thousand nodes in a second rather than the wrong million
> > nodes. It's good to see that this approach seems to be paying off.
> >
> >
> > Dave.
> >
> Dave,
>
> The engine is app. 2.5Mb big!
> What do think it contains?
> My guess is... knowledge, like Vasik says. Libraries.
> It uses more power to "look it up" than to calculate in depth.
>
> HD
I used to be a programmer, and I'd say that 2.5 probably contains a lot
of unnecessary junk. There is no advantage to a small program any
more, so a useless 2 M just isn't worth bothering about.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2005 04:11:00
From: Nicky
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Is the 1 Final Release out yet?!
It said it would be 11 december midnight but i dotn see it, did you by
any chance?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 01:52:20
From: Nicky
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Great news! Well we just have to wait until December 16th when thew
first official will comr out.
Peter Pein you said Rybka is about 2800-2900 (+140!)
Sorry i ditn understand that, can you pleae explain?
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Dec 2005 15:36:02
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Manuel_M=F6ller?=
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
"Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1134035540.064439.224530@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Great news! Well we just have to wait until December 16th when thew
> first official will comr out.
>
> Peter Pein you said Rybka is about 2800-2900 (+140!)
>
Rybka 1 beta is very strong in blitz games (4'+2),
+130 Elo more than Shredder 9, for example.
But at tournament time control (40 move in 40 min +)
Rybka is only ("only") 20-40 Elo points stronger than Toga II or Fritz 9.
Let's wait for more slow games and for the final version 1.
MM
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2005 06:14:04
From: Nicky
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Yes Rybka rocks!
It beats every chess engine in existant as i ve test and seen for
myself.
As you said is now in BETA buit in December 16th will go FINAL.
Here is what the designer has to say about Rybka:
Rybka v 1.0 Beta Readme
Dec 4, 2005
Thanks for agreeing to become a beta taster for Rybka 1.0. Rybka is a
standalone UCI chess engine which can be installed and run in any chess
graphical front-end which supports that protocol. If this last sentence
is cryptic to you, it is probably better that you wait until the fully
documented and user-friendly Rybka 1.0 release in the middle of
December 2005.
Brief Engine Specs
History: The Rybka chess engine began as a part-time project in March
2003 and is now being developed full-time.
Aims: Rybka aims to have a fully knowledgeable evaluation function.
This term however has taken some abuse recently, so let me make
something clear: chess knowledge wins chess games. If it doesn't, it
isn't knowledge.
Opening book: Not supported. An internal engine opening book
contradicts my sense of the proper separation between the
database-oriented graphical front end and the engine. However, if
enough people scream for this, well .. :)
Winboard support: Ditto - not supported. This protocol contradicts my
notion of what an engine should do. However, if enough people scream
for this ... :)
Endgame tablebase support: In principle, this also slightly contradicts
my notion of what an engine should do. Chess strength comes from themes
and principles, not memorization. However, enough people have screamed
for this and so endgame tablebases will be supported in the full Rybka
1.0 release.
Multi-processor support: Not present in Rybka 1.0, but at the top of
the to-do list for the next release. The emphasis will be on running
smoothly on the affordable multi-core desktop machines which are
revolutionizing the personal computer world.
Beta Distribution
We ask that the beta releases not be circulated except in cases where
special permission was given, as it was for example to all of the
members of the CEGT test team. Those interested in becoming beta
testers are asked to please contact us directly to get a copy.
Release Dates
Dec 2, '05: windows 64-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta
Dec 4, '05: windows 32-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta
Dec 16, '05: Rybka 1.0
64-bit & 32-bit releases
Rybka 1.0 represents the internal chessboard using bitboards - one bit
for each square on the board. Bitboards are nothing new - they date
back to publications from the Soviet Union in the 1970s - and the topic
is a source of endless discussion on the computer chess message boards.
After 30+ years, we still have no idea if bitboards are the most
efficient way to represent chess knowledge.
For the users, there is one serious practical effect: like other
bitboard engines, and unlike non-bitboard engines, Rybka runs
significantly faster on 64-bit systems than on 32-bit systems. For
example, the following are the knps rates for the two versions of the
engine on my own test position sample on a 2.4 GHz Amd-64 machine:
32-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta: 104 knps
64-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta: 166 knps
This difference in speed should result in a difference in strength of
between 25 and 50 rating points. I believe that it should be relatively
bigger at shorter time controls, and relatively bigger in sharper
openings (ie. Sicilians) rather then in more strategic openings (ie.
Nimzowitch, French). The computer chess community does not have very
good data about this topic and I would be very pleased if some testers
investigated it further.
Testers are also of course free to decide for themselves how (if at
all) to distinguish these two different playing strengths.
User Features in Full Release
The Beta releases are missing several features which will be present in
the full release. These features are related to user friendliness and
have no effect on practical playing strength, so it is appropriate for
Rybka 1.0 Beta versions to represent Rybka 1.0 in rating lists. These
features include:
1) Full support of UCI protocol ("go nodes", "go mate", "go
searchmoves", etc)
2) Multi-variation mode
3) Tablebase support (I should say that it is only my personal opinion
that tablebases are not a playing strength feature - others may
disagree)
4) Proper handling and reporting of mates
Beta Testing
In practice, Beta testing usually means Beta using. It certainly has
meant that in my experience as a Beta tester :) Nevertheless, we are
interested in all kinds of feedback. In particular, we are interested
in:
1) Testing under all sorts of different conditions - different
operating systems, different machines, different GUIs, against
different opponents, playing on ICC or playchess, etc.
2) Statistically valid game-playing results, again under all sorts of
different conditions.
3) Comments about playing style or strength or even better, annotated
games, potentially for use on our web site (which is under
construction).
4) Feedback about the "search direction" option, see section below for
more details.
Closer Collaboration?
We are also interested in finding chess and computer chess fans who
would like to participate more closely in our project. There are a
number of possibilities in this direction:
1) Opening book creation.
2) Official operation of Rybka in in-person and online tournaments.
3) More serious and technically open testing of Rybka versions and
changes.
4) Porting of the engine to other platforms.
Please contact us if you are interested in any of the above.
I should also mention one other thing: we are planning to expand the
project to include a GUI which can properly display Rybka's chess
knowledge. This will probably also involve expanding the UCI protocol -
but that's all another topic for another day. In general I prefer to
work with people I have worked with in the past, under deadline
pressure, etc. Nevertheless, if you are a talented software developer
with an interest in computer chess, don't hesitate to get in touch with
me.
"Search Direction" UCI Option
In general, chess strength is chess strength - each component of an
engine either makes it stronger, or weaker. At this point, it appears
that there is one potential exception to this in the case of Rybka, so
I have decided to make it a user option. The name of the option is
"search direction", and there are four possible settings:
1) Very Positional
2) Slightly Positional
3) Slightly Tactical
4) Very Tactical
The default setting is very positional. This is the version which I
like the best personally, and the setting also makes the most sense to
me intuitively. It vibes with the way I think search should be handled
and where the priorities should be placed. In addition, a 350 game
head-to-head match at 40/10 time control gave the following result:
Rybka 1.0 (Very Positional): 193.5
Rybka 1.0 (Very Tactical): 156.5
However, the very positional version gives slightly inferior results on
tactical testsuites. On a private tactical testsuite which I use, I got
the following result:
Rybka 1.0 (Very Positional) was faster: 11
Same depth: 30
Rybka 1.0 (Very Tactical) was faster: 56
Of course, tactical testsuites are a dicey business, but the above is a
significant result and it also agrees with my intuition regarding what
should happen. (That's why I use the names I use for these versions.)
In addition to these tests, each version also played a 150-game match
against Shredder 9. I'll keep the exact scores secret (that's what
testers are for), but the very tactical version scored 2.5% better than
did the very positional one. This itself is not that impressive for a
150-game match, but given the head-to-head result, it does raise some
questions. The most likely explanation is that more games would flatten
this phenomenon into nothing, but one could also theorize that Rybka is
relatively better positionally than Shredder anyway and any tactical
weakness just opens the door for Shredder's powerful search. If so, it
might further turn out that this phenomenon is limited to games at
relatively short time controls.
If any testers out there are looking for a more interesting project,
getting to the bottom of this would be extremely interesting for me.
One more note here: the intermediate "slightly positional" and
"slightly tactical" settings are almost completely untested by me - no
games were played. They represent two more neutral settings between the
two tested extremes. There are actually two separate quantities being
adjusted internally, so "slightly positional" goes to the tactical
extreme on one and the positional extreme on the other (bigger) one,
and "slightly tactical" is vice-versa. Hence, it might be that one of
these two settings ends up being a sort of magical median - although I
doubt it.
Special Thanks
I hesitate to include this section because I know I'll forget people
who have been helpful in this project, but (with advance apologies to
the omitted) here goes:
Robert Hyatt - For Crafty. There is nothing like an open source program
for passing knowledge to the next generation.
Fabien Letouzey - For Fruit, which shattered a number of computer chess
myths, demonstrated several interesting ideas, and made even the
densest of us aware of fail-low pruning.
Tord Romstad - For making Fabien aware of fail-low pruning :-), and
more seriously for sharing in every way possible his considerable
knowledge.
Eugene Nalimov - For his cryptic but somehow fully functional endgame
tablebase access code.
Uri Blass, Gerd Isenberg, Dieter Burssner, Vincent Diepeveen, Raschid
Chan, Anthony Cozzie, Mridul M* :), Thomas Gaksch, Peter Berger, Sandro
Necchi, Ed Shroeder, Amir Ban, Christophe Theron and every one else,
past and present, on the computer chess club: For sharing their
computer chess knowledge despite the fact that in principle computer
chess is a competitive field.
Heinz van Kempen, Guenther Simon, Olivier Deville, Sergio Martinez,
Claude Dubois: for testing early versions of Rybka despite countless
bugs and annoying problems.
Alex Dumov, Gabriel Luca: for helping a Windows newbie get up to around
half-speed without excessive derision (or at least open derision :))
and Iweta: for being great! :) and a pretty good Rybka tester and web
master to boot
Happy testing, and best chess regards,
Vasik Rajlich
Budapest Hungary
December 4, 2005
--------------
I enjoy ti so much letting Rybka smash ICC enemies in guest unrated
games of course :-)
Cheers!
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 11:19:06
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
In article <1133964844.502555.309890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
Nicky <hackeras@gmail.com > wrote:
> Rybka v 1.0 Beta Readme
> Dec 4, 2005
> [...]
> For example, the following are the knps rates for the two versions of
> the engine on my own test position sample on a 2.4 GHz Amd-64 machine:
>
> 32-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta: 104 knps
> 64-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta: 166 knps
That's very interesting. Those figures are *extremely* low for a modern
chess engine, which suggests that the author has taken the approach of
having a very complicated evaluation function in order to evaluate the
right hundred thousand nodes in a second rather than the wrong million
nodes. It's good to see that this approach seems to be paying off.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Gigantic Nuclear Priest (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man of the cloth that's made
of atoms but it's huge!
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 20:31:45
From: HD
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
David Richerby wrote:
> In article <1133964844.502555.309890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Nicky <hackeras@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Rybka v 1.0 Beta Readme
>>Dec 4, 2005
>>[...]
>>For example, the following are the knps rates for the two versions of
>>the engine on my own test position sample on a 2.4 GHz Amd-64 machine:
>>
>>32-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta: 104 knps
>>64-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta: 166 knps
>
>
> That's very interesting. Those figures are *extremely* low for a modern
> chess engine, which suggests that the author has taken the approach of
> having a very complicated evaluation function in order to evaluate the
> right hundred thousand nodes in a second rather than the wrong million
> nodes. It's good to see that this approach seems to be paying off.
>
>
> Dave.
>
Dave,
The engine is app. 2.5Mb big!
What do think it contains?
My guess is... knowledge, like Vasik says. Libraries.
It uses more power to "look it up" than to calculate in depth.
HD
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2005 12:43:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
HD <hdchess@gmail.com > wrote:
> The engine is app. 2.5Mb big!
> What do think it contains?
Zeroes and ones. About a million of each, I'd say. :-)
> My guess is... knowledge, like Vasik says. Libraries.
You can code an awful lot of knowledge in two and a half megs. I suspect
much of it is just the usual inefficiency of modern code: the critical
path has been optimized and the rest doesn't matter.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Perforated Spoon (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a piece of cutlery but it's full
of holes!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2005 05:51:00
From: Peter Pein
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
David Richerby schrieb:
> HD <hdchess@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The engine is app. 2.5Mb big!
>>What do think it contains?
>
>
> Zeroes and ones. About a million of each, I'd say. :-)
>
...
>
> Dave.
>
and the rest of more than 20 million bits?
only 5834771 ones and 14284781 zeroes ;-)
ICNR, sorry
Peter
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2005 17:50:23
From: Alexander Belov
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
IMHO knps numbers heavily depend on what to include into this number and
what to exclude.
E.g. Crafty and most of other engines calculate nodes that were worked out
somehow. This includes nodes that were solved using hashtables,
three-fold-repetition, etc. The numbers for knps can vary significantly if
we use mentioned above approach or count only evaluated nodes for knps.
"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote in message
news:c4A*kOL5q@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <1133964844.502555.309890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Nicky <hackeras@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Rybka v 1.0 Beta Readme
> > Dec 4, 2005
> > [...]
> > For example, the following are the knps rates for the two versions of
> > the engine on my own test position sample on a 2.4 GHz Amd-64 machine:
> >
> > 32-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta: 104 knps
> > 64-bit Rybka 1.0 Beta: 166 knps
>
> That's very interesting. Those figures are *extremely* low for a modern
> chess engine, which suggests that the author has taken the approach of
> having a very complicated evaluation function in order to evaluate the
> right hundred thousand nodes in a second rather than the wrong million
> nodes. It's good to see that this approach seems to be paying off.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Gigantic Nuclear Priest (TM):
it's
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man of the cloth that's
made
> of atoms but it's huge!
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 18:34:44
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Manuel_M=F6ller?=
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
"Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1133802608.436348.71200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Can you point me to alink please to downlaod Rybka?
>
http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/newspage.htm
MM
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 18:37:53
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Manuel_M=F6ller?=
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
"Manuel Möller" <manuel.moeller@lycos.de > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:43947a36$0$27886$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net...
>
> "Nicky" <hackeras@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:1133802608.436348.71200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Can you point me to alink please to downlaod Rybka?
>>
>
>
http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/newspage.htm
Only today (Dec 5th) !!
MM
|
| |
Date: 18 Nov 2005 23:08:52
From: MorphyFischer
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
Fruit, Zappa, and Shredder are all very strong in tactics. Unless you
are a 2700+ player yourself, you have to "take the word" of the
computer self-play engine results, which currently points to Fruit.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2005 13:23:57
From: Aaron
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
"MorphyFischer" <OmosLastTribe@aol.com > wrote in
news:1132384132.938880.315370@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Fruit, Zappa, and Shredder are all very strong in tactics. Unless you
> are a 2700+ player yourself, you have to "take the word" of the
> computer self-play engine results, which currently points to Fruit.
>
Or possibly Rybka. :)
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2005 10:37:02
From: Ruud
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
"Aaron" <chessnntps.20.greentack@spamgourmet.com > schreef in bericht
news:Xns9723CF6796683unknown23@81.174.12.30...
> "MorphyFischer" <OmosLastTribe@aol.com> wrote in
> news:1132384132.938880.315370@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Fruit, Zappa, and Shredder are all very strong in tactics. Unless you
>> are a 2700+ player yourself, you have to "take the word" of the
>> computer self-play engine results, which currently points to Fruit.
>>
> Or possibly Rybka. :)
>
>
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2005 00:33:57
From: muppet0830
Subject: Re: Strongest program
|
"C.C.LONGTHORP" <chris@longthorpcc.karoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:9w-dnYvOTaMheuHeSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
> Which is the strongest engine for tactics ??
>
> C.C.L.
Fruit 2.2.1
:)
|
|
