Home
Information
Login
Register
Waiting lists
Membership
Hall of fame
Tournaments
Best game
Wikichess
Rating list
Problems
Forum
Links
Help
About
| Install FICGS apps | |
| play chess online |  |
|
Game result (chess) S. Ligon, 2321 M. LaDuke, 2326 1/2-1/2 See game 152178 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Back to forum
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-02 18:01:18)
Rybka vs. Chessbase engines
Are there correspondence chess players who use Rybka here ? .. is it a better analysis tool than his well-known rivals (Deep Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs...) ?
A thread about chess engines could be interesting : How to use chess engines in correspondence chess, which ones (when & why), their weaknesses.....
For sure many players don't want to tell their opponents their way of 'think' :) .. but it could be interesting to make this kind of comparison...
James Stripes (2006-10-03 16:13:13)
curious
I have approximately 64 chess engines, including the beta version of Rybka 1 (the free version). In engine tournaments on my box, it has prevailed against my strongest commercial engines. However, the centaur play that is the norm here presents Rybka with an entirely different sort of playing environment than those in which it has demonstrated its superiority. As I am new to this type of play, I don't yet know how Rybka measures up to the likes of Junior, Shredder, and Hiarcs.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-12 15:00:01)
Chess problem
Interesting chess problem...
The first move seems quite easy to find, knowing only one move wins & considering bishop and knight, but proving it is not obvious... maybe I'm wrong (my first idea was h5)... Anyway, chess engines are lost here, it seems Hiarcs is the only one finding h5.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-01 11:19:43)
Deep Fritz, Rybka & future
The Chess Challenge 2006 in Bonn between classical world champion Vladimir Kramnik and chess engine Deep Fritz 10 confirms (who ignored ?) the best chess programs can rivalize with the world champion in a match, but it first shows us these calculating monsters still have weaknesses.
Question is : What are the real improvements in Fritz 10 compared to Fritz 9 (engine speaking only) ?
Here is what I think about chess engines nowadays (Fritz 10, Shredder, 10, Junior 10, Hiarcs 10 and particularly Rybka 2.2) :
The way of think to play correspondence chess is (or should be) mostly human one combined with a chess engine algorithm. We follow the tree of moves like a program with our selective algorithm (much better than chess engines), applying our judgement of the position when necessary only. The point is we evaluate moves and we almost never evaluate a position twice.
Chess engines are very good analysis tools but are surprisingly not designed to be very good chess players. I think a major improvement in chess engines should be recognition of 'sufficient moves' : ie. it is no worth to always find the best move at a particular point of the tree, this reflection time could be used later... It depends on the evaluation of the position, on the clocks... Iterative model is quite basic (in a game at least !).
Another point is recognition of traps. This is the start of psychology in chess engines, and basics of the art of war. It first depends on who your opponent is, and on the clocks too. Finally, at the end of the tree, chess engines evaluate positions, but how many evaluate moves ? .. Speculative moves were a step, but it first shew chess engines were not able yet to see what move is worth to be analysed really deeper, consequently creating a 'human' weakness, particularly against some other chess engines.
I don't know how Rybka works, but as far as I read about this one that calculates much less positions (about 10 times) than Fritz, I wouldn't be surprised that Vasik Rajlich had implemented a better approach of human way of think, which is undoubtly the future of chess engines.
A good 'centaur' in ie. Playchess rapid tournaments is first a good choice between Chessbase engines according to the position and clocks. Fritz qualities probably apply best in standard games, where clocks are really designed for him. Among Chessbase engines, Hiarcs is probably the best Blitz player and could be the best correspondence chess player (even if it isn't the best CC tool for humans). Rybka is probably a kind of centaur itself (sorry, herself ;)), knowing when to use (in the tree !) brute force and more selective approachs - not to be compared to Hydra or Deep Blue which, on contrary, use most brute force.
My conclusion is chess engines have much to learn from humans yet, we'll see a Rybka 5 and Fritz 13, with much better results against other chess engines, but their results shouldn't increase a lot against the best humans in future. Finally, it will never be a good correspondence chess player :)
My two cents.
If I find time, I'll continue to implement my own chess engine..... but it's a lot of work :/
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-09 21:24:05)
scrabble+
Your idea for scrabble is interesting but the luck seems still there (not that luck is a problem per se IMO): even if the letters are shown, their very order is luck dependend ; and the only thing that really changes is that you can forsee the letters of your opponent and play accordingly... and so the game is actually more simple (!) IMO, more calculating prone and less strategic because you remove some possibilities, all as likely, in your move tree.
To be more concrete, suppose you can play a scrabble for, say, 75 points, and open the grid for the opponent, or play a nice glue-word for, say 40 points, but let the grid closed enough. In your proposed game, I just have to look at my opponent possibilities, as I know his letters... I calculate one, two or more moves ahead and say, ok, I can open the grid and still win by 10 points. In the normal game, I have to estimate, if the openess of the grid is worth the 35 points difference and that means calculating the rough propabilities to score points on the letters I open, considering what my opponent already played, if he seems waiting for some specific letters, or maybe he is bluffing, but then by experience I know that the double 'e' I let is not very valuable, considering that only four expensive letters remain...and so on: the game seems much more strategic and interesting for me.
Of course, I can loose because my letters are really bad... but that is quite uncommon on a whole game for good players, and almost meaningless on a match with, say, five set or more. (remember that the goal is not to make words, but to score points, or to prevent your opponent doing so on the grid, something a good player can almost always do whatever his letters).
For the chess engine, I did try some, and frankly my level in blitz play is so terrible that gnuchess is enough for me for a quick match:-). Now I tried Fruit and Hiarcs on some of my correspondence games and even on my modest scale, I was not very happy with the result: they did suggest others moves than mine, but that were moves I would never have played (maybe (surely?) I am wrong, but I am not sure)... so what would be the point to waste computer time? Even if they may suggest a good move I missed, I would still feel uneasy to play something 'outside' my own mind... old fashion maybe, but that is how I have fun in chess :-) I still like the waiting of the reply, while wondering if I made an oversight! (that being said, I used and will still use the tablebases reading engine when needed: very useful at some points :-)
But then maybe my biais against engines made me use them badly :-) Never mind, I am not going to apologize for that to a silicon piece of junk :-) And if the beast feels somehow insulted and asks for a real time match, let's just play Go!
Wayne Lowrance (2006-12-13 17:13:33)
Rubka clearly the best !
Yes, iv'e seen similiar postings with similiar results. I am wondering if programs like DF10 are better in coorespondence chess such as in the centaur mode. I have also read that DF10 is probobly better against a human. Ie recent match. And their is the latest Hiarcs etc...very interesting to me.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-10 20:11:09)
Fritz 10, Hiarcs 11 UCI
Did someone try Hiarcs 11 UCI already ? What do you think about this new engine ??
http://www.hiarcs.com
By the way, comments about Fritz 10, Junior 10, Shredder 10 are welcome, are they really better than previous versions ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-17 23:59:52)
Chess engines ratings
Some useful links about ratings and statistics for all well known chess engines : Rybka (2.2, 2.1 ..), Deep Fritz 10, Deep Shredder 10, Deep Junior 10, Hiarcs 11, Zap!Chess paderborn, Loop 10.32, Toga II, Fruit 2.2, Glaurung 1.2, Spike 1.2, Smarthink, Naum 2.0, Ktulu 8.0, CM9000, CM10th, Fritz 9, Chess Tiger 15, Chess Tiger 2007, Ruffian 2.1, List 11 and many others...
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_120_ratinglist/ratinglist/rangliste.html
http://web.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/list.htm
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-10 03:08:52)
Rybka, Fritz and future...
Computerchess is definitely an exciting challenge... The community is fast-growing, new versions of chess engines appear every day, many dream to be the next Vasik Rajlich and to produce an engine that would beat the well-known Chessbase engines and the famous Rybka.
These days, I had a look at Fruit 2.1, TogaII and Crafty source code that are available to download, and started to implement new search & evaluation functions. It's quite easy to understand why chess programming is so addictive, so much done and so much to do... finally I did not enter this mad race without an ending, probably for the same reasons Anthony Cozzie (the author of Zap! Chess Zanzibar) and many others retired.
However here are my feelings about future of chess engines, and the fight that just started between most probably Chessbase engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior and Hiarcs) and a new era of chess engines that started with Rybka...
First, it's quite obvious to me that Rybka (now Rybka 2.3) is only another one of a long series of chess engines always stronger than each others ! .. I expect the next ones to reach 50, 100 then 200 points more (and maybe more) on the next chess engines elo rating lists, a scale that definitely can't be compared to human elo rating list ! .. Several reasons to this : (1) Chess engines are human killers at standard time controls, but chess engines are far to play perfect chess yet. (2) The way ratings are calculated.
Rybka taught us several things IMO :
- Algorithms and evaluation functions are no more enough. Now chess engines have to play chess, not only search a tree of chess positions... That's probably what Rybka brought to computerchess. Since Fruit 2.1 & Toga II source code is available, and computerchess community is constantly discussing improvements in algorithms, evaluations of positions and new ideas, to implement a chess engine becomes easier so I have no doubt that new very strong chess engines like Rybka will come.
- To become famous, a chess engine must 'also' beat his rivals. I first thought that Rybka was designed to be an engines killer only (at least before to be an analysis tool) with some tricks exploiting most engines weaknesses. No, Rybka is also a great UCI engine, simply stronger and with many options & features. Like Vasik Rajlich, who is engineer and international chess master, you'll have not only to think like an engineer to create such an engine. However I still don't think it is the best analysis tool for correspondence chess, it doesn't play really better chess and in all cases it is not enough. More, Rybka 3, 4, 5 shouldn't influence correspondence chess (maybe even human vs. machine) much... Computerchess influences computerchess first.
It's written sometimes that the strongest chess engines could reach a IM, even GM level at correspondence chess. I definitely disagree with that, at least for the moment (it will take a long time yet), but as chess engines results tend to approach correspondence chess ones (means more and more draws), I do think chess engines have much to learn from correspondence chess players way of thinking, meaning : A more psychological approach, bonus for traps detection. Evaluate moves, not only positions. A more complex search, not 'only' iterative (brute force is definitely useless). No more anti-human style, speculative moves (=weakness, ie. Deep Junior) for speculative results against strongest chess engines, draws are prefered. To avoid positions not understood by the engine. Longer games, closed games (if supported)... Opening books should look like correspondence chess GMs ones (of course according to the engine's style of play) and no more been made of FIDE GM games. A better time management... Future of computerGo may teach to computerchess about some evaluations.
A chess engine must play good moves AND try to win (which is not always the same). It seems Fruit & Rybka play solid and are waiting to exploit their opponent's weaknesses thanks to a better "chess" algorithm/knowledge. As far as I have seen, Shredder & Fritz still have the best 'eye', they see far but fuzzy. Quite the same about Fruit & Toga developped by a great engineer, Fabien Letouzey : Less chess knowledge but an improved algorithm. As for Rybka, a great chess knowledge and probably a smarter algorithm (not better, smarter !) were probably enough already. The future best chess engines will be made by good chess players...
An interesting point is it could be not so easy, maybe even nonsense, to create the best analysis tool that would also obtain the best results against other chess engines. My first prediction is Rybka won't be the top rated chess engine ever, hundreds of new ideas will appear in all parts of chess programming, slowly breaking Rybka secrets, then speed will be a factor again. Deep Fritz, Junior, Fruit or Hydra are most probably the core of the next generations of chess engines... but there's a lot of work yet :)
My two cents.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-20 17:44:50)
Rybka 2.2 stronger than Rybka 2.3
Rybka 2.3 weaker than Rybka 2.2 ??
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=340#fp
CEGT computer chess rating lists :
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_4_Ratinglist/40_4_AllVersion/rangliste.html
Waiting for HIARCS 12 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-03 17:12:57)
Rybka 2.3.1
Rybka 2.3.1 beta is available, Rybka 2.3.2 is announced, quite hard to follow Vasik Rajlich's work day after day :) .. Rybka forum is very active and it seems Rybka 2.3.1 is the strongest Rybka and the strongest chess engine today !
I hope Fritz, Junior, Shredder and Hiarcs authors are working hard...
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=472#fp
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-23 22:31:50)
Rybka tops SSDF rating list
2007 april 21 - New SSDF computer chess rating list is out !
http://web.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/list.htm
Rybka 2.3.1 tops the list with 2962 elo, followed by a surprising Hiarcs 11.1 with 2871 elo. Then, Junior 10.1 and Fruit 2.2.1 followed by Shredder 10. That's a pity Fritz 10 and probably Zap! chess Zanzibar are not rated yet.
The king Rybka will probably have serious opponents soon...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-22 22:55:46)
Opponents for Rybka
Really ?! .. Which ones are you thinking about ? Maybe Hiarcs..
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-14 18:14:03)
Rybka 2.3.2
Just after President's cup "Ultimate computer challenge" finished, Vasik Rajlich threw a new Rybka 2.3.2 in the chess engines arena... (partly explains the $100,000 challenge to Ilyumzhinov a few weeks ago)
Once more, Rybka 2.3.2 seems stronger than her predecessors with indcredible results (blitz time control) against Hiarcs 11.1, Zap chess Zanzibar, Shredder and so on... Maybe +35 elo points compared to Rybka 2.3.1 !
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=1264#fp
http://www.rybkachess.com
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 02:05:59)
World Computer Chess Championship (WCCC)
Is this World Computer Chess Championship still worth something without programs such as Hiarcs, Junior & Fritz ?
This way, only 3 or 4 games are decisive and undoubtly - or I should say randomly - Rybka will win ahead of Zappa and Shredder. At least Rybka will obtain the "last major" title to pretend to be the very best chess engine.
WCCC 2007 - http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/news.php
Wayne Lowrance (2007-06-18 03:53:01)
World Computer Chess Championship (wccc)
Thibault, I dont care for your notion here. It is WCCC and should not be downgraded because ChessBase and program authors of Hiarcs, junior & fritz did not enter. Those programs have the big rep';s, but in actuality you should check out all of the rating sites. Zappa ranks Higher that those three programs for example. There is a thing called GridChess, which is very strong, beat shreddar. Oh I dunno, I could go on. Mostly I object to chesbase direct or indirect control of the chess engine tournaments. And to make things worse you and others posts nonsense as this. My two cents my friend. Wayne
Dirk Ghysens (2007-06-18 06:11:14)
Top programs
According to the CCRL rating list, the top programs today are: 1 Rybka 2 Zap!Chess 3 Hiarcs 4 Naum 5 Loop 6 Deep Shredder Fritz (7th) and Junior (8th) are so weak, that they cannot play a significant role in a world championship. The latest version of Rybka (2.3.2) can be estimated at more than 200 Elo points above Deep Fritz and Deep Junior. The SSDF rating list is unreliable IMO, as they are using antiquated hardware, and several of the best programs are missing.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-14 01:39:07)
SSDF changed its url
You can now find the top chess programs SSDF rating list here :
http://ssdf.bosjo.net
April 2007 :
1 Rybka 2.3.1 Arena 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2962
2 Rybka 1.2 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2909
3 Hiarcs 11.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2871
4 Junior 10.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2867
5 Junior 10 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2851
6 Hiarcs 10 HypMod 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2845
7 Fruit 2.2.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2837
8 Shredder 10 UCI 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2830
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-10 21:29:49)
Hiarcs forum
After the successful Rybka forum - http://rybkaforum.net (about 20,000 posts in a few months), I just discovered the HIARCS forum... Let's hope that Hiarcs chess engine will improve the same way thanks to these new forums - http://www.hiarcs.net/forums
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 22:42:32)
chess engines
First of all, every chess engines is a choice, ie. about selectivity, and has consequences & weaknesses in particular positions. Fruit/Toga algorithm is really good but it has probably still much less chess knowledge than Rybka. I think Rybka's algorithm is really better also, Vasik Rajlich added some "human features" while other programs still think about chess like mathematics.
Rybka changed correspondence chess because Fritz or Junior (very strong chess machines) added to a good chess player makes a good centaur while Rybka is "almost" a centaur itself... Consequently a weak chess player can reach quite easily a 2100/2200 rating. That's the main reason...
Of course Rybka will always make some bad moves, but it/she builds an advantage move after move against other engines in most cases in 'calm' positions. HIARCS, that was told during a long time to think most like a human, was not a strong 'chess machine'. I don't know much about Hiarcs 11/12, but Rybka is a major improvement in this way IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-11 00:03:00)
CEGT Best Versions 40/20 (AMD 4200+)
1. Rybka 2.3.2a (2975) , 2. Hiarcs 11.1 (2831) , 3. Toga II 1.3.4 (2829) , ... 6. Fritz 10 (2826)
This gap (144 points) is really extraordinay...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-28 03:43:36)
Zappa wins the match
Finally Zappa beats Rybka 5,5-4,5, which is quite an enormous surprise !
Many interesting discussions followed in forums about chess engines programming, Zappa & Rybka strengths and weaknesses, how search & evaluation functions influence each other... and luck :
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=147594&t=16732
http://www.hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=254&start=105
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-11 12:43:33)
pinot noir, knowledge & 9x9
I agree with that :)
Don, I mean 9x9 should be compared to checkers, it is "chess" at a size where brute force is enough, so a 'particular case' only. But just like Rybka/Hiarcs playing at master level even thinking a few seconds per move by imitating (knowledge + algorithm) an international master's way of thinking more than calculating trillions of positions, why not a Go engine built the same way, much more complex though. Actually Go engines do not calculate much, they try to 'see' already but sure these programs will be improved significantly soon and it could play about the same level (without joseki databases) on different goban sizes. I feel a Go engine could reach a 1 dan / 2 dan level on our small computers, whatever the size of the goban... But it should be incredibly harder to beat stronger players, which is great for Go :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-20 05:17:30)
Rybka 3, Fritz 11, Shredder 11...
Rybka 3, Fritz 11, Shredder 11, also Chessmaster 11... new versions of many engines are announced or coming (Fritz 11 - end of november).
It is said in computer chess forums that one secret of Rybka may be "table of exchanges", in other words knowledge, added to a 'simple' & very fast engine typically like Fruit. Many now think that other engines may catch Rybka in a while, but we might have to wait for the thirteen series at least IMO :)
Anyway, the battle continues... Also waiting for Hiarcs 12 !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-19 02:50:40)
Fritz 11
Fritz 11 is now available... I just noticed that it already has a 2914 rating (single processor) at CEGT 4/40 (2 GHz), better than Shredder 11 and Hiarcs 11.1, but not better than Rybka 1.01, to be continued as this time control is usually not the best one for Fritz.
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_4_Ratinglist/40_4_AllVersion/rangliste.html
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-04 19:33:56)
CCT 10
Rybka and Naum win the CCT10, Rybka finished 2nd in the IPCCC 2007, scoring 5.5/7, behind of Hiarcs. Rybka won another match against GM Joel Benjamin... and Rybka 3.0 should be available soon.
Some interesting threads in Rybka forum (Anthony Cozzie about Zappa, Strelka, Rybka 3)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=3172
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=3119
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-19 21:54:37)
Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Junior 12
While Rybka 2.3.2a w32 1CPU/mp still leads CEGT rating lists, Fritz 11 is now only about 50 elo points behind...
CEGT 40/20 (AMD 4200+)
Rybka 2.3.2a w32 1CPU - 2966
Fritz 11 - 2913
Naum 3.1 w32 1CPU - 2890
Deep Shredder 11 w32 1CPU - 2890
Hiarcs 12 SP 1CPU - 2869
Toga II 1.4.2JD 1CPU - 2864
Fruit 2.4 Beta A w32 1CPU - 2864
Zappa Mexico II w32 1CPU - 2844
Any predictions on the future ratings of Rybka 3 & Chessbase engines : Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Junior 12, Hiarcs 13, Zappa or other free engines ?
I can't find a rating for Junior 11 in CEGT rating lists, does anyone know it ?
Michael Aigner (2008-05-27 18:35:33)
Sorry but white is going to win
I think black has a maximum 10 % drawing chances in this position. e.g. [Event "Blitz:120'"] [Site "PC"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "New game"] [Black "Naum 3.1"] [Result "*"] [PlyCount "65"] [TimeControl "7200"] {256MB, Hiarcs10.ctg, HOME-PC} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5 8. Bg3 b5 9. Be2 Bb7 10. O-O Nbd7 11. Ne5 Bg7 12. Nxd7 Nxd7 13. Bd6 a6 14. a4 e5 15. Bg4 exd4 16. e5 c5 17. Re1 Nxe5 18. Bxe5 O-O 19. Bxg7 Kxg7 20. Ne2 f5 21. Bh5 f4 22. b4 cxb3 23. Qxb3 Qd5 24. Qh3 Bc8 25. Nc3 dxc3 26. Qxc3+ Qd4 27. Qf3 Ra7 28. axb5 Rf6 29. h3 Qd6 (29... Re6 30. Qa3 Rxe1+ (30... Qd6 31. Rxe6 Bxe6 32. Rd1 Qe5 33. b6 Re7 34. Rc1 g4 35. hxg4 Rd7 36. Qa5 Qd6 37. Qxa6 and White wins) 31. Rxe1 Bf5 32. b6 and White wins) 30. Re8 Be6 31. h4 g4 32. Bxg4 Bf7 33. Rc8 and White is clearly better Regards Michael
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-18 14:24:09)
Chessbase Deep Rybka 3
Chessbase, who distributes the best chess engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Zappa...) now also distributes the little fish : Rybka 3 and Deep Rybka 3 are available.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4772
Rybka 3 (by Vasik Rajlich) is the reigning computer world champion and should be at least 80 points stronger than the previous version Rybka 2.3.2
Did anyone test it already ? What about the improvements (particularly Monte Carlo Analysis in endgames) ?
Rybka 3 book with 3,387,966 positions (260 MB) is also available.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-16 12:29:32)
Questions to Xavier Pichelin
Xavier Pichelin is 1st FICGS chess champion after beating IM Gino Figlio in the first candidates final, he accepted to talk about his match, the tournament, his views around correspondence chess, chess engines and so on... The most important part may be he'll defend his title against the winner of the 2nd candidates final :)
Unfortunately, the complete interview is in french only as he doesn't speak english, but if someone finds a good translator (if possible better than Babelfish), he may post it in this thread. Thanks !
- Bonjour Xavier et tout d'abord félicitations pour ta victoire dans le match qui t'opposait au MI (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Pérou] dans la finale des candidats. Tu devais éviter à tout prix la nulle dans toutes les parties, finalement les noirs t'ont porté chance, comment expliques-tu ce résultat ?
Xavier : Bonjour, merci pour les félicitations. C'est vrai qu'en cas de nulles pour toutes les parties, le règlement indique Figlio Vainqueur en cas d'égalité avec victoire(s) et défaite(s) je remporte le match. Donc il fallait que je prenne des risques en attaquant et c'est avec les noirs que je l'ai fait car je pensais que Gino, dans ces parties, attendrait sans prendre de risques pour assurer les nulles.
- Peux-tu nous décrire la manière dont tu as abordé ce match contre Gino et son déroulement au fur et à mesure des différentes phases du jeu ?
X : C'est assez simple, dans ce match je n'étais pas du tout favori car avec plus de 200 points ELO FICGS en ma défaveur, et Gino titré Maître International avec plus de 2480 point ELO ICCF, je pensais que je n'allais pas résister sur 8 parties simultanées car sur une partie tout est possible mais sur 8 parties... c'était pour moi un grand défi ! Pour le déroulement du jeu j'ai joué la diversité sur mes débuts avec les blancs 4 parties 4 coups différents : 1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 1.Cf3. Gino a fait de même : 1.e4 1.d4 1.Cf3 1.Cc3. Ce qui m'a fait douter aussi car 1.Cc3 m'a surpris, je pensais qu'il avait prévu un début tonitruand et c'est là que je me suis dit qu'il fallait que je prenne des risques avec les noirs. Au fur et à mesure des différentes phases du jeu j'ai assuré les nulles des positions équilibrées pour me concacrer a deux parties avantageuses dont une avec les blancs et une avec les noirs pour au moins faire la différence dans une partie pour assurer la victoire. Et en fin de compte c'est 3 victoires qui me reviennent, ce qui me paraissait impossible étant donnée la qualité du jeu de Gino joué sur ce site pour arriver à la finale des candidats du championnat.
- Tu as réalisé pendant le championnat un parcours sans faute, aucune défaite à signaler, tu affiches également des statistiques stratosphériques à 78% contre une moyenne elo à près de 2200, quel est ton secret ?
X : Mon secret? Je n'ai pas de secret. Si j'avais un secret je ne le dévoilerais pas sinon je ne gagnerais plus ! Je pense que j'ai eu un petit peu de chance car il s'en est fallu de peu que je ne sois pas qualifié au stage 3 (robin-round final) car il y avait 3 joueurs à égalité et j'ai eu l'avantage du classement du départ de ce tournoi comme l'indique le règlement. Quant à mes statistiques, c'est aussi grâce aux erreurs de mes adversaires qui m'ont permis de gagner des parties équilibrées.
- Que penses-tu du système mi-ko, mi-toutes-rondes du championnat FICGS et de ses départages inédits lors des matchs en 8 parties ? Quelles modifications y apporterais-tu ?
X : Très bonne question ! Le système mi-ko pour moi est un peu trop rapide car un coup par jour c'est des heures d'analyses pour exploiter une position compliquée, ce qui est difficile quand on à plusieurs parties en cours. Surtout quand on travaille. C'est peut-être aussi grâce à cette cadence que mes adversaires, faute de temps, ont fait des imprécisions sur certaines postions ou exploité mes erreurs. Mais cette cadence a un avantage par rapport aux cadences ICCF qui est de 5 jours par coup, c'est que les parties durent 5 fois moins longtemps ! Le départage inédit des matchs en 8 parties est excellent, obliger le favori à assurer tous les matchs nulles pour gagner ce duel et sinon d'obtenir une victoire supplémentaire contre le challenger est un mode très bien pensé. La modification que je pourrais y apporter est peut-être la gestion du temps qui est rapide pour un système de jeu par serveur. Peut-être augmenter l'horloge de départ de 15 jours, soit de commencer avec 45 jours contre 30 en ce moment. Et aussi la possibilité des prendre des vacances uniquement sur le tournoi en cours afin de gérer les autres parties du site. Par exemple prendre 7 jours de vacances sur un tournoi d'échecs du championnat et pouvoir jouer un tournoi de Big Chess, de Go ou un autre tournoi d'échecs pendant ces vacances. Pouvoir choisir une date de début de vacances à l'avance serait également appréciable.
- Pourquoi t'être investi dans les échecs par correspondance ? T'apportent-ils d'autres satisfactions par rapport aux échecs classiques et au blitz ?
X : Je préfère les échecs par correspondance par rapport au temps. Car les échecs classiques se jouent souvent le week-end, à une heure précise et souvent en déplacement pour effectuer un tournoi. L'avantage, pour moi, des échecs par correspondance est que je puisse me connecter à n'importe quelle heure pour jouer mes coups, ce qui me permet, par exemple, de faire des repas de famille le week-end et le soir tard de jouer un coup, ce qui n'est pas possible aux échecs classiques.
- Tu as su ne pas céder à la tentation et te limiter à jouer un nombre très raisonnable de parties sur le site tout le long du championnat, penses-tu néanmoins que les échecs par correspondance soient addictifs et à quel point ? Ont-ils des répercussions sur ta vie de tous les jours ?
X : Oui ! Limiter mon nombre de parties en cours est pour moi essentiel pour essayer d'avoir des parties de qualité plutôt que de quantité. Avoir beaucoup de parties en simultanée est quand même une chose très difficile à gérer ! C'est peut-être la clé de ma victoire contre Figlio, j'ai regardé ses parties en cours, il en avait pas loin de 90 sur le site de l'ICCF, cela a pu se ressentir sur son temps d'analyse consacré à nos 8 parties sur FICGS. Sur la vie de tous les jours les répercussions sont familiales car il est vrai que je passe plus de temps à analyser les parties et moins temps avec ma famille, ce qui est assez difficile pour moi. Mais quand les résultats sont là je ne regrette pas !
- Que penses-tu de la place actuelle des moteurs d'analyse (Rybka, Shredder, Fritz et autres) dans les échecs par correspondance ? Quelles sont pour toi les qualités complémentaires essentielles du joueur par correspondance, devenu centaure avec la machine pour jambes ?
X : Les moteurs d'analyses dans les échecs par correspondances sont utilisés par 95% des joueurs... Maintenant il faut s'adapter et savoir utiliser ces machines à calculer. Car jouer simplement le meilleur coup de Rybka 3, de Fritz 12 ou Hiarcs 12 sans réfléchir mentalement mène à la nulle si l'adversaire fait de même ou possiblement à perdre si l'adversaire se donne la peine de réfléchir en les utilisant également. En sachant que lorsqu'on est dans le milieu de partie ces logiciels vous donnent souvent 4 à 5 coups evalués de manière semblable, et c'est là qu'il faut choisir le bon coup alors que celui-ci n'est même pas forcément cité par le moteur d'analyse...
- Tu joues désormais au Big Chess sur le site, curiosité ou intérêt ? Que penses-tu de cette version étrange des échecs ?
X : Par curiosité et par amusement et je pense que Rybka 3 ne joue pas encore au Big Chess ! Cette version est quasiment inédite je ne connaissais pas cette forme de jeu d'échecs auparavant donc celui qui a inventé ce jeu a très bien fait ! A propos c'est moi qui vous pose une question sur le Big chess... Y a t-il possiblité de roquer avec ce jeu si oui comment? (NDLR : Non, il est impossible de roquer au Big Chess)
- Et enfin la question que tout le monde se pose, particulièrement François et Wolfgang qui disputent la deuxième finale des candidats, penses-tu pouvoir défendre ton titre l'an prochain ? :)
X : Bien sûr ! Je défendrai le titre ! J'aimerais si possible savoir la date et la cadence du match. Et je souhaite à François et Wolfgang une belle finale ! Je dois faire honneur à cette compétition qui est bien organisée !
- Le match devrait pouvoir débuter durant la première semaine de janvier 2009, la cadence sera à nouveau de 30 jours et 1 jour supplémentaire par coup. Merci pour tes réponses, et encore bravo pour cette belle performance !
X : Merci ! Et à bientôt ! Bonne continuation à tous et bonnes parties !
Benjamin Block (2008-08-18 08:52:18)
Try to translate!
I think it is something like that?
Hello Xavier and first congratulations on your victory in the match which t'opposait the MI (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru] in the final candidates. You should avoid at all costs void in all parties, finally brought blacks t'ont chance, how do you explain this result? X
avier: Hello, thank you for the congratulations. It is true that in case of zero for all parties, the regulation states Figlio winner in the event of a tie with victory (s) and defeat (s) I won the match. So I had to take risks in attacking and it is with blacks that I did it because I thought Gino, in these parts, expected without taking risks to ensure the void.
-- Can you tell us about how you approached this match against Gino and his conduct as different phases of the game?
X: It's pretty simple, in this match I was not at all favorite because with more than 200 ELO points FICGS to my disadvantage, and Gino titled Master International, with more than 2480 ELO ICCF point, I thought I n ' not resist going on 8 simultaneous games as a part everything is possible but on 8 parts ... it was for me a great challenge! In the course of the game I played diversity in my beginnings with white 4 parts 4 different strokes: 1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 1.Cf3. Gino did the same: 1.e4 1.d4 1.Cf3 1.Cc3. What made me doubt also because 1.Cc3 surprised me, I thought he had planned an early tonitruand and this is where I said that I should take risks with blacks. As the different phases of the game I assured the zero positions balanced for me concacrer deal has two parts, one with blanks and one with the black for at least make a difference in part to ensure victory. And ultimately it 3 victories me back, which seemed impossible given the quality of the game Gino played on this site to reach the final of the championship candidates.
-- You have made during a championship course without fault, no losses to report, you also posters statistics stratospheric to 78% against an average elo to about 2200, what's your secret?
X: My secret? I have no secret. If I had a secret I do not dévoilerais if I do win more! I think I got a little lucky because he is required by little I am not qualified to stage 3 (round-robin final) because there were 3 players equally and I had l 'advantage classifying the departure of this tournament as indicated by the regulation. As for my statistics, it is also thanks to the errors of my opponents who allowed me to win parts in balance.
-- What do you think the system mid-ko, semi-all-round championship FICGS and its new départages in matches in 8 parties? What changes would it be?
X: Very good question! The system mid-ko for me is a little too fast since a coup by day is overtime analyses to operate a complicated position, which is difficult when several parties in progress. Especially when you work. It is perhaps also through this pace that my opponents lack of time, made some uncertainty regarding postions or exploited my mistakes. But the pace has an advantage over the cadences ICCF which is 5 days a coup is that the parties had to 5 times less time! The départage new games to 8 parts is excellent, forcing the favorite to ensure all matches to nil win this duel and otherwise obtain an additional victory against the challenger is a very well thought out. The amendment that I could make is perhaps time management which is fast for a game system per server. Perhaps increase the clock starting 15 days, starting with 45 against 30 days at this time. And also the possibility of taking a vacation only on the tournament underway to manage other parts of the site. For example, take 7 days vacation on a chess tournament championship and be able to play a tournament Big Chess, Go or another chess tournament during the holidays. Being able to choose a start date of holidays in advance would also be appreciated.
-- Why t'être invested in correspondence chess? T'apportent there are other rewards compared to traditional chess and blitz?
X: I prefer chess match over time. For the classical chess is often play the weekend at a specific time and often on the move to make a tournament. The advantage for me, correspondence chess is that I can connect at any time to play my shots, which allows me, for example, making family meals on weekends and late at night to play a coup, which is not possible chess classics.
-- You knew not to succumb to the temptation and you only play a very reasonable number of parties on the site throughout the championship, do you think nevertheless that the correspondence chess are addictive and at what point? Did they affect your everyday life?
X: Yes! Limiting my number of games in progress is essential for me to try to have parts of quality rather than quantity. Have a lot of parts simultaneously is still something very difficult to manage! This is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio, I watched its games in progress, it had nearly 90 on the site of the ICCF, it has been felt on his time devoted to analysis our parties on FICGS 8. On the everyday life impacts are family because it is true that I spend more time to analyze the parts and less time with my family, which is quite difficult for me. But when the results are there I do not regret!
-- What do you think about the current position of engines for analysis (Rybka, Shredder, Fritz and others) in correspondence chess? What are the qualities you complementary core player by correspondence, now centaur with the machine for legs?
X: The engines of analyses in chess matches are used by 95% of players ... Now we must adapt and learn to use these machines to calculate. Car simply play the best shot of Rybka 3, Fritz 12 or Hiarcs 12 mentally without thinking leads to zero if the opponent does the same or possibly lose if the opponent gives himself the trouble to consider using them as well. Knowing that when you're in the middle part of these programs give you often 4 to 5 strokes assessed similarly, and that is that we must choose the right time when it is not even necessarily cited by the analysis engine ...
-- You get the Big Chess now on the site, curiosity or interest? What do you think of this strange version of chess?
X: For curiosity and fun and I think Rybka 3 is not yet the Big Chess! This version is almost unprecedented I did not know this form of chess before therefore the one who invented this game was very well done! About I'm the one who asks you a question on the Big chess ... Is there possibility of castle with this game if so, how? (Editor's note: No, it is impossible to castle the Big Chess)
-- And finally the question that everyone arises, especially Francis and Wolfgang disputing that the second final candidates, think you can defend your title next year? :)
X: of course! I will defend the title! I would like if possible to know the timing and pace of the match. And I wish Francis and Wolfgang a beautiful final! I must honor in this competition which is well organized!
-- The match should be able to start during the first week of January 2009, the pace will again 30 days and 1 additional day by coup. Thank you for your answers, and even congratulations for this excellent performance!
X: Thank you! And see you! Bonne continuation to all and good parties!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-06 18:03:43)
Rybka is World Computer Chess Champion
No surprise, Rybka wins the 16th World Computer Chess Championship (2008)... Strangely, Rybka was running on the most powerful hardware, a 40-core system, in comparison Mobile Chess was running on a Nokia cell phone, so results are to be compared. Anyway, good result for Hiarcs, and a (very) bad tournament for Shredder.
The tournament results :
Rybka 8.0 / 9
Hiarcs 7.0 / 9
Junior 6.0 / 9
ClusterToga 5.5 / 9
Shredder 4.5 / 9
Falcon 4.0 / 9
Jonny Beijing 4.0 / 9
Deep Sjeng 3.5 / 9
The Baron 2.5 / 9
Mobile Chess 0.0 / 9
Sebastian Boehme (2008-10-06 19:39:00)
Sort of a hierarchy here
Well it is quite simple, the best engine on best hardware. Anyway good that at least Junior and Cluster Toga managed to get a draw from Rybka. Too bad Hiarcs played such a bad opening, or there had also been a chance for maybe a draw. Anyway congrats again to Rybka team for this win!
Harvey Williamson (2008-10-24 10:17:11)
The Games and Photos
Can be found here http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1677 Hardware was indeed an issue ranging from Rybka on 40 cores, Hiarcs on 8 and the Mobile phone!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-06 15:21:14)
Rybka 4, Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13 & future...
What about a small point on chess engines ?
A few months ago, it was quite predictable to me that Chessbase engines (well, Rybka 3 actually also is a Chessbase engine now) like Fritz, Shredder & Hiarcs were dedicated to catch Rybka in the computer chess rating lists.
The current CEGT 40/20 (AMD 4200+) rating list shows :
Rybka 3 x64 4CPU 3202
Rybka 2.3.2a x64 4CPU 3079
Deep Fritz 11 4CPU 3031
Zappa Mexico II x64 4CPU 3022
Shredder WM Edition Bonn 4CPU 3011
Naum 3.1 x64 4CPU 3011
Hiarcs 12 MP 4CPU 2968
In other words, Rybka 3 always has a quite large advance, but all other ones filled the major part of the gap with Rybka 2.3.2, including free chess engines. What future for chess engines now ? What kind of improvement can we expect from Rybka 4, Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Hiarcs 13 and co. ?
IMO one future version in theory may reach 3600 or more in such rating lists (which probably doesn't mean anything compared to the human rating list) but the interest of programmers may now decrease in this race where efforts/money can be compared to the grandmasters involvement to enter the elo top 100... What do you think ?
Wayne Lowrance (2009-01-05 18:06:24)
Rybka 4 Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13 & future
It is my thought that Vas is running close to empty on improvements from Rybka 3 to Rybka 4. Rybka 3 was a huge, huge improvment.Other programmers are getting closer, specifically Naum. I sorta think Vas is looking a ways in the future when cluster comps are taking hold. Before Rybka 3 release there was a lot of excitement about Monte Carlo, but Rybka 3 Monte Carlo is not effective overall, It is just a novelity as far as my evaluation is concerned. Maybe too, like cluster MC will have a place. Correspondence chess players sh ould be delighted with Rybka three. A few minor improvements can be made, but wont improve ELO much, such as deep evaluation pv listing. Right no for CC player the current PV thing is crazy. Well nice topic Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-18 18:20:34)
SSDF rating list
Current SSDF ratings for the best chess engines running on 2GB Q6600 2.4 GHz are :
Deep Rybka 3 x64 - 3226
Deep Fritz 11 - 3086
Zappa Mexico II x64 - 3064
Naum 3.1 x64 - 3046
Deep Shredder 11 - 3043
Deep Hiarcs 12 x64 - 3033
Hiarcs 11.2 MP - 3008
Deep Junior 10.1 - 2981
By the way, how long before a new Deep Junior version...
Don Groves (2009-01-26 01:52:41)
Not Fritz...
No, my tests are with Hiarcs.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-26 20:07:55)
Hiarcs vs. Rybka
Yeah, the same... the number of nodes is really low with Hiarcs. Anyway, the engine must be the same one than in the tests (so Fritz 9) to be significant.
Sebastian Boehme (2009-03-20 21:36:13)
Hiarcs forum
Let me suggest you another one besides these:
http://www.hiarcs.net
The forum of the chess engine Hiarcs
Regards, Sebastian
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-18 21:43:40)
Rybka 3 wins the 17th WCCC
Rybka 3 is still the king of computer chess, she just won the 17th WCCC tournament on an Intel Xeon W5580 / 3.2GHz x 8 with 8 points ahead of Junior, Deep Sjeng & Shredder (6.5 points).. Hiarcs finished the tournament with 6 points.
That's a pity, Fritz did not participate, once more.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-20 22:14:38)
Shredder 12 vs. Rybka 3
Shredder 12 (the chess engine more than the interface) looks much more promising than Fritz 12, here are the current CEGT rating lists, Naum 4 and Rybka 3 are not so far !
40 / 40 rating list
1 Rybka 3 x64 1CPU 3105 16 16 1293 71.7% 2944 35.0%
2 Rybka 3 w32 1CPU 3053 16 16 1234 68.3% 2919 38.7%
3 Deep Shredder 12 x64 1CPU 3000 27 27 351 55.1% 2964 45.9%
4 Naum 4 w32 1CPU 2988 17 17 831 58.2% 2930 47.9%
5 Naum 4 x64 1CPU 2982 18 18 728 54.2% 2953 48.8%
6 Deep Fritz 11 1CPU 2936 14 14 1298 53.5% 2911 47.3%
7 Fritz 12 2928 18 18 778 47.3% 2947 46.3%
8 Fritz 11 2916 7 7 6292 54.9% 2882 42.3%
9 Zappa Mexico II x64 1CPU 2915 15 15 1134 54.5% 2883 45.1%
10 Shredder WM Edition Bonn 1CPU 2912 13 13 1580 50.7% 2907 41.7%
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%20Rating%20List/40_40%20SingleVersion/rangliste.html
40 / 4 rating list
1 Rybka 3.0 x64 4CPU 3238 11 11 3400 80.4% 2993 27.7%
2 Naum 4.0 x64 4CPU 3126 11 11 2400 64.9% 3020 41.7%
3 Deep Shredder 12 x64 4CPU 3105 15 15 1300 65.8% 2991 35.9%
4 Deep Fritz 11 4CPU 3066 10 10 2500 58.3% 3008 44.5%
5 Stockfish 1.4 JA x64 4CPU 3032 11 11 2400 53.0% 3011 38.8%
6 Zappa Mexico II x64 4CPU 3026 8 8 4050 49.6% 3029 40.1%
7 Thinker 5.4D x64 4CPU Inert 3012 11 11 2200 50.3% 3010 39.5%
8 Hiarcs 12.1 4CPU 2998 11 11 2400 49.7% 3001 39.2%
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_4_Ratinglist/40_4_BestVersion/rangliste.html
Congrats to the author of Shredder !
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-21 22:52:10)
SSDF rating list (march 2010)
The new SSDF rating list reveals at least one thing : Between an old Athlon 1200 and a modern Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, there is at least a 120 point gap. Unfortunately, Ippolit/Ivanhoe/Igorrit/Firebird are still out of the list.
SSDF RATING LIST 2010-03-21 %120316 games played by 311 computers
Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 Deep Rybka 3 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3227 27 -25 1005 83% 2962
2 Naum 4 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3149 25 -23 986 74% 2963
3 Deep Shredder 12 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3124 26 -24 863 70% 2972
4 Deep Fritz 12 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3117 37 -36 373 60% 3043
5 Deep Rybka 3 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 3090 39 -38 332 58% 3033
6 Deep Fritz 11 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3081 22 -21 1142 68% 2946
7 Zappa Mexico II x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3068 27 -26 696 59% 3002
8 Naum 3.1 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3052 30 -29 572 59% 2990
9 Deep Hiarcs 12 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3039 22 -21 1087 61% 2958
10 Deep Shredder 11 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3038 26 -26 726 58% 2981
11 Hiarcs 11.2 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3010 25 -25 761 54% 2984
12 Glaurung 2.2 x64 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3007 22 -22 1001 60% 2933
13 Shredder 12 256MB A1200 MHz 3006 39 -39 320 45% 3040
14 Naum 4 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2998 29 -29 574 50% 2996
15 Deep Junior 10.1 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2975 25 -25 766 48% 2992
16 Rybka 2.3.1 Arena 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2926 22 -22 964 52% 2912
17 Fritz 11 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2915 27 -27 669 47% 2935
18 Deep Fritz 8 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2912 25 -26 753 39% 2991
19 Shredder 8 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2908 28 -29 603 39% 2984
20 Deep Shredder 11 256MB Athlon 1200 2907 30 -30 534 45% 2941
21 Hiarcs 11.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2879 23 -23 941 49% 2882
22 CM King 3.5 x64 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2866 31 -32 530 33% 2990
23 Junior 10.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2864 19 -20 1271 47% 2882
24 Deep Junior 8 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2859 29 -30 589 36% 2961
25 Fritz 10 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2851 34 -33 458 64% 2749
26 Zap!Chess Z. 256MB Athlon 1200 MH 2842 21 -21 1060 50% 2840
27 Fruit 2.2.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2833 19 -19 1385 62% 2750
28 Spike 1.2 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2817 26 -26 714 57% 2766
29 Chess Tiger 2007 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2775 25 -26 748 46% 2805
29 Rybka 1.0 beta 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2775 64 -69 115 38% 2860
31 Zap!Chess 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2737 30 -29 562 53% 2713
32 Gandalf 6.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2735 24 -24 855 56% 2693
33 Pocket Fritz 3 Hiarcs Ipaq 214 624 MHz 2733 64 -58 142 66% 2617
34 Chessmaster 9000 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2720 36 -35 385 56% 2680
35 Pro Deo 1.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2714 24 -23 876 57% 2660
36 Pocket Shredder Ipaq 114 624 MHz 2698 83 -70 100 74% 2520
37 Deep Sjeng 1.5a 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2675 31 -31 493 52% 2663
38 CEBoard Fruit 2.3.1 XScale 400 400 MHz 2647 65 -61 129 62% 2564
39 Revelation Rybka 2.2 XScale 500 MHz 2632 47 -45 240 62% 2549
39 Ruffian 2.0.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2632 49 -49 205 46% 2661
41 Pocket Fritz 3 Glaurung 2.1 Ipaq 614C 2528 69 -74 100 40% 2604
42 Pocket Fritz 2 XScale 400 MHz 2508 48 -46 225 57% 2459
43 Resurrection Rybka 2.2 StrongARM 203 MH 2484 43 -43 260 51% 2477
44 Resurrection Fruit '05 StrongARM 203 MH 2395 67 -63 120 60% 2320
45 Hiarcs 9.5a/9.6 Palm TungstenE OMAP 126 2392 35 -35 400 45% 2426
46 CEBoard Crafty 2004 HP RX4240 400 MHz 2375 52 -54 180 41% 2443
47 R30 v. 2.5 2274 41 -38 343 69% 2136
48 Palm Tiger 2009 Tung C 400 MHz 2229 66 -71 110 38% 2317
49 Chess Genius 1.4 SX1 OMAP 310 120 MHz 2151 50 -48 210 60% 2081
50 Chess Tiger 14.9 Palm m515 16MB 42MHz 2103 69 -74 100 39% 2182
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-12 21:08:23)
NEW # 1
New number 1 or not, the gap decreases... All this was predictable (and it was predicted) even if Rybka was untouchable for the most when the gap was over 100 elo points... but after that Chessbase intelligently scheduled the improvements of Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs & finally Rybka, came Naum, Stockfish, Ippolit & its clones RobboLito, Ivanhoe & Firebird.
Clones or not clones, anyway now it seems obvious for everyone that it will be harder and harder to make money with chess engines, just like with everything else on the internet... The beginning of the decadence (according to its meaning) ?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-14 16:22:00)
Firebird, Ivanhoe vs. Rybka
There are several articles that are worth to read on Firebird & the other chess engines from the Ippolit series, also on the history of chess engines from Fritz, Shredder, Hiarcs & Junior to Stockfish and programmers/clones issues, particularly at Chessvibes & ChessNinja :
Chess engine controversy
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/chess-engine-controversy/
New fish in town
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2010/04/new-fish-in-town.htm
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-09 23:02:05)
Rybka 4, news, tests & results
It looks like Rybka 4 is to be released, this discussion could gather the news, tests & results in matches of this new version against Rybka 3 and other engines (thinking about Stockfish 1.7.1, Naum 4.2, Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Hiarcs & engines that are "possible" clones of Rybka: Firebird 1.2, Ivanhoe, RobboLito, Ippolit & so on)...
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-05-13 03:25:06)
Rybka 4, news, tests & results
This was posted in the Hiarcs forum by Harvey Williamson:" Now it is all over it is time to share a little secret. The day before the World Championship final in Sofia started I had a conversation with Vishy's team. For the duration of the match they have had access to my fast 8/16 core machine as well as all my databases and Hiarcs opening books. Also, of course, all the engines on my machine. I Hope this managed to negate slightly the fact that Topalov had access to the latest Rybka on its Cluster for a few months leading up leading up to the final."
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-02 16:43:27)
Rybka 4 wins ICT10
Rybka 4 just won the latest edition of the International Computer Chess Tournament (ICT10, 10th edition) ahead of Deep Sjeng (surprise!?) and far from the other Chessbase engines: Hiarcs, Deep Shredder and Deep Junior...
Interesting to see that Rybka (by Vasik Rajlich) only lost to Deep Sjeng (by Gian-Carlo Pascutto) and won all the other games, including against the well known Hiarcs (by Mark Uniacke) and Shredder (by Stefan Meyer-Kahlen).
Rybka 8/9
Deep Sjeng 7/9
Hiarcs 6/9
Deep Shredder 6/9
Deep Junior 5.5/9
Komodo 5/9
The other participants were Pandix, The Baron, Spark, The King, Kallisto, Almond, RedQueen and Joker.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6381
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-06-02 20:44:57)
Rybka 4 wins ICT10
It was not Rybka 4, it was Rybka 4b3 cluster and is really different from Rybka 4.
From the chessbase note:“Note that both Rybka and Sjeng played on 128 core clusters; Junior and Hiarcs each had 12 cores, Shredder had eight.”
Scott Nichols (2010-08-09 21:12:59)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Just a note to say how this new rule is affecting at least one player here (me), :) I "earned" entry to a higher class tournament by winning the class just below. I paid my ten E-points and received entry into the next higher class. We have been playing for a while and I am holding my own ok. I have met new players and am overjoyed at the chance to play them. They are all friendly and welcoming. Life couldn't be better, ......but....... Maybe it's just me, but I feel at this point that I never REALLY earned my way into this realm. The old way was to suffer through months and years of climbing the rating ladder a little at a time and then finally reach that next level. Also, just my opinion, is that these days there really isn't a big difference in strengths between 1850 and 2450 given that we all have fast computers running on Rybka mostly. The difference I find is the human side of the ratings. The old days whether Shredder could beat Fritz, or Deep Junior could beat Hiarcs are long gone. So I guess what I'm trying to say without rambling any further, is that as much as I like playing in the higher section, I would prefer to "EARN" it the old way. Just one players opinion, Thank you
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-18 15:24:39)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn
Advanced chess "centaur" players should be interested by the following:
A "super" tournament for computers, named TCEC, just started. Premier Division finals started with the participation of the world's top engines.
Tournament format: double round robin
The participants:
1 Houdini 1.5
2 Rybka 4.0
3 Shredder 12.0
4 Stockfish 2.0.1
5 Naum 4.2
6 Ivanhoe B47cB
7 Hiarcs 13.2
8 Critter 0.9
I don't know much on this tournament, actually it may be a CCRL/SSDF system-like but as a tournament (and without rating list?), anyway thus it was able to reach the chess news in Chessdom & Susan Polgar blogspot.
The point is that the supposed "possible" Rybka-clones Ivanhoe & Houdini (both based on Ippolit, just like Firebird) entered the race... and Houdini is leading already, ahead of Rybka.
It is announced that Rybka 4 is playing, does anyone know who's behind this version of Rybka and what is the hardware? Does Vasik Rajlich know about that?
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2011/01/houdini-15-leads-tcec-computer-super.html
http://www.chessdom.com/news-2011/computer-chess-live-2011
http://www.tcec-chess.org/
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-22 20:49:23)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn
Ah, maybe it was finished already... So Houdini wins with no loss! Bad score for Hiarcs 13.2 & Naum 4.2 :/ Dunno what can be concluded from all this, we all knew that Rybka & Houdini are the best engines nowadays.
N Engine Pts SB
1 Houdini 1.5 24.0 147.00 1= == == == 11 1= 1=
2 Rybka 4.0 23.0 128.00 0= 0= =1 11 10 1= =1
3 Stockfish 2.0.1 20.0 128.00 == 1= 0= =0 == 11 =1
4 Ivanhoe B47cB 17.0 115.00 == =0 1= =0 =1 01 ==
5 Critter 0.9 17.0 114.50 == 00 =1 =1 == 01 ==
6 Shredder 12.0 12.0 91.50 00 01 == =0 == == ==
7 Naum 4.2 12.0 80.50 0= 0= 00 10 10 == ==
8 Hiarcs 13.2 11.0 91.50 0= =0 =0 == == == ==
Thibault de Vassal (2011-08-19 11:43:45)
Rybka banned from ICGA
Clone or not clone, I'm not sure if this question is worth something in computer chess but ICGA did it: Rybka was banned and stripped of titles...
I just partly read RybkaInvestigation document, a few points are particularly ridiculous (like 2.2 "Sudden Strength Increase"), I have no idea on the other ones and I'm not sure if this is really important in the real world.
Finally, the punishment:
- to strip Rajlich of all ICGA Tournament Titles and,
- force the return of trophies and prize funds to the ICGA and,
- ban his programs from future competitions until he can satisfy the ICGA that they are no longer derivatives and that he has satisfied the conditions of any other penalties the ICGA imposes.
- encourage other tournaments (Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, TACCL, etc.) to disallow the entry of Rybka until it is proven “clean”.
ICGA Panel Members
The Secretariat members:
Robert Hyatt - (Crafty, Cray Blitz, World Computer Chess Champion in 1983 and 1986)
Mark Lefler (author of Now)
Harvey Williamson (part of Hiarcs Team)
Panel members:
Albert Silver (software designer for Chess Assistant (1999-2002); currently editor of
Chessbase News (2010-present))
Amir Ban (author of Junior: World Champion 2002, 2004, 2006, World microcomputer
Champion 1997, 2001)
Charles Roberson (author of NoonianChess)
Christophe Theron (author of Chess Tiger)
Dariusz Czechowski (author of Darmenios)
Don Dailey (author of Cilkchess, Star Socrates, Rex, Komodo)
Eric Hallsworth (part of Hiarcs Team, Publisher of Selective Search magazine)
Fabien Letousky (author of Fruit)
Frederic Friedel (Chessbase.com)
Gerd Isenberg (author of IsiChess)
Gyula Horvath (author of Pandix, Brainstorm)
Ingo Bauer (Shredder team)
Jan Krabbenbos (Tournament Director of Leiden tournaments)
Kai Himstedt (author of Gridchess and Cluster Toga)
Ken Thompson (creator of Belle Chess Machine, World Computer Chess Champion
1980, Turing Award winner 1983, creator of B and C programming languages,
Unix and Plan 9 developer).
Marcel van Kervinck (author of Rookie)
Maciej Szmit (assistant professor at Technical University of Lodz)
Mark Watkins (MAGMA Computer Algebra Group, School of Mathematics and
Statistics, University of Sydney)
Mark Uniacke (Hiarcs, World Microcomputer Champion 1993)
Mincho Georgiev (Pawny)
Olivier Deville (Tournament Director of ChessWars)
Omid David (author of Falcon)
Peter Skinner (Tournament Director of CCT--the major annual online computer chess
tournament)
Ralf Schäfer (author of Spike)
Richard Vida (author of Critter)
Richard Pijl (author of The Baron)
Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (author of Shredder, multiple world champions from 1996-2007)
Thomas Mayer (author of Quark)
Tord Romstad (author of Stockfish, Glaurung)
Tom Pronk (ProChess, Much)
Vladan Vuckovic (Axon, Achilles)
Wylie Garvin (game Programmer at Ubisoft Montreal)
Yngvi Björnsson (The Turk)
Zach Wegner (author of ZCT and Rondo, an upgraded version of Anthony Cozzie’s
Zappa program, which was world champion in 2005)
ICGA Board
President - David N.L. Levy
Vice-President: Yngvi Björnsson
Secretary-Treasurer: Hiroyuki Iida
Programmers Representative: Rémi Coulom
WCCC Tournament Director
Jaap van den Herik
http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/rybkaevidence/RybkaInvestigation.pdf
http://www.chess.com/news/rybka-banned-and-stripped-of-titles-3798
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQshTNJ4pSM
Eros Riccio (2013-05-10 16:29:52)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Hi Alvin:
1) It depends on the position. Deciding a move may take from a few seconds to many days. My longest thought was 64 days for a move, in a decisive game of a past Italian Championship, the move was so hard for me that I also used the 30 days leave in order not to exceed the time limits for a single move. If someone is curious, it's move 40...Rh3 of the game Baiocchi - Riccio 0-1, 57 Italian Championship, played in 2007. Back then, after all my analysis with many different engines, I found out that Hiarcs was the engine that understood better than all the others that endgame, so I sticked to it mostly and its suggestions rewarded me with a win that allowed me to become Italian Champion.
2)The top 2 engines, which I usually use (and consider about equal) in infinite analysis at the same time with 3 cores each on my 6 cores computer are houdini 3 and deeprybka 4.1. Then come all the others, hard to pick a third place, probably critter or stockfish, depending on positions (stockfish is very strong in endgames, critter in tactical positions)
Thibault de Vassal (2019-11-11 20:29:20)
Komodo 13
I guess that it is very hard to answer as many of us have very subjective preferences (like the old times with the quatuor Shredder, Hiarcs, Fritz & Junior, at least before Rybka took it all)... As for me, I can't even answer for now but I always used to consider CEGT rating lists to bias my opinion ^^
Thibault de Vassal (2020-07-30 01:28:33)
Chess engines levels from 1985 to 2020
What do you think about these elo estimations for chess engines, from Mephisto to DeepBlue, then AlphaZero and Stockfish, Komodo & so on?
Old names surfacing: Rybka of course, all Chessbase engines (Fritz, Junior, Hiarcs & Shredder) but also older but well known names like Fruit, Crafty, Chess Tiger, Chess Genius, Chessmaster, Rebel, Saitek, Nimzo and many others... Those graphics are always funny to watch :)
Stanislas Gounant (2022-11-21 18:00:54)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Cela fait 15 ans que je joue sur ce site, assisté par ordinateur. Il y a 15 ans pour gagner une partie il fallait utiliser plusieurs programmes d'analyse suivant les phases de jeu. Je crois me souvenir que Hiarcs était meilleur en finale que les autres programmes. Il y a quelques années encore, il était possible de trouver des forteresses qui résistaient aux assauts de l'adversaire, même quand mon programme me disait que j'avais perdu. Mais cela fait 3 ans que je n'ai gagné que contre des joueurs qui jouaient sans l'aide de l'ordinateur ou qui se sont trompés de case en jouant leur coup. Ce que j'aimerais c'est qu'une solution soit trouvée pour redonner de l'intérêt au jeu par correspondance.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-11-22 02:31:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Voilà un débat qui pourrait être intéressant...
Stanislas' message in english:
"I've been playing on this computer-assisted site for 15 years. Fifteen years ago to win a game you had to use several analysis programs depending on the game phases. I seem to remember that Hiarcs was better in the final than the other programs. Until a few years ago, it was possible to find fortresses that resisted the onslaught of the adversary, even when my program told me that I had lost. But it's been 3 years since I only won against players who played without the help of the computer or who made a mistake when playing their move. What I would like is that a solution be found to restore interest in the game by correspondence."
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
Social network : create your photo albums, discuss with your friends...
Hot news & buzz : discover the latest news and buzz on the internet...
Discussions : questions and answers, forums on almost everything...
Seo forums : search engines optimisation forums, web directory...
Play the strongest international correspondence chess players !
|
Ygouf, Laurent (FRA) [member # 14712] Correspondence chess : 2424 SM Ranked # 71 in the rating list. This member has no profile in the social network. |
 | Correspondence chess World championship Play chess games Go (weiqi, baduk) Advanced chess Play big chess Chess trainer apk Rated tournaments Poker texas hold'em Fischer random chess |  |