 |
| Home |
| Informations |
| Login |
| Register |
| Waiting lists |
| Membership |
| Hall of fame |
| Tournaments |
| Best game |
| Wikichess |
| Rating list |
| Problems |
| Forum |
| Links |
| Help |
| About |
|
Game result (chess) F. Amos, 2190 F. Vasquez, 2029 1-0 See game 21855 |
|
Armenia wins gold at 38th Chess Olympiad
Deep Fritz 11 is available (Chessbase.com) Dominguez-Perez wins World Blitz Championship Hikaru Nakamura wins Cap d'Agde tournament Viswanathan Anand is FIDE world champion 2008 Nigel Short wins Commonwealth Championship Rybka wins World Computer Chess Championship 2008 Topalov tops the October 2008 FIDE rating list Pentala Harikrishna wins Spice Cup in Lubbock GM Jan Werle wins EU Individual Championships more chess news... |
|
Oh Chi-Min 7d wins Go-to-Innovation tournament Andy Liu 7d wins Masters Open at NY Go Center Gu Li 9p wins the 10th Chinese Agon Cup Hugh Zhang 6d wins Ing's Cup Youth Go Tournament Zou Jin 6d wins Pandanet Go European Cup more Go news... |
|
In the forum... Money games... Moneybookers, Paypal, credit card and bank transfer are available to play money games... Affiliate links... Win E-Points by linking to us as an affiliate, for each new member referred by your link, 1 E-Point will be added to your account... E-Points prizes... Ficgs now offers free games & tournaments with E-Points prizes... Rybka 3, Fritz 12... Rybka 3, Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13, your predictions on forthcoming chess engines... Translators... Translators are needed for chinese, japanese, indian, romanian, polish home pages... Vacation help... Hello all, I've entered a vacation time in error. Is it possible to cancel the vacation ? |
|
Last referers : ALGONET AOL YAHOO LIVE WANTWAGERS 123PEOPLE ASK WIKIPEDIA CHESSMASTERY |
|
Feel free to link to this page to get referer backlinks to your website ! |
Want your banner here ? |
Back to forum
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 21:19:14)
statistics
Dear Thibault, I don't have the answer, I suspect there is no solution for this problem. If you apply statistics to extreme situations, there will always be some outliers that will prove your prediction wrong. One good example is ICC(internet chess club) and their self-proclaimed perfect method to detect online cheaters. I can tell you some OTB 2100-2300 players can perform sometimes close to 2600 strength, and sometimes more than 95% of their moves coincide with one of the chess engines...statistically you can call this a cheater, but reality is not respectful of normal distributions
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-22 18:31:31)
What future for correspondence chess ?
You may have noticed this "grave" question on the home page... :)
---------
Are draws and chess engines killing chess game, are the level and play simply standardized by Deep Fritz and Rybka... Is the extraordinary performance by Christophe Léotard at XIX th. ICCF correspondence chess world championship 'chancy', a statistical happening, or is there a place yet for human play in modern correspondence chess ?
"I really believe that Go is destined to take the place of Chess as the leading intellectual game of the Occident, just as it has reigned supreme in the Orient for some four thousand years." (Edward Lasker, international chess master)
"... {it is} something unearthly... if there are sentient beings on other planets, then they play go." (Emanuel Lasker, chess world champion)
It had been said that Chess 960 would replace Chess too. I don't think so...
Any predictions ?
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-22 19:50:51)
Interesting Discussion Topic
Thibault - this is a interesting discussion topic. Of course, no one knows the future with certainty, but we can all offer an opinion :)
I'm nearing my 40th year of correspondence play. Sometime later this year I will complete my 1000th tournament game. All my games were played by postcard until the mid 90's. E-mail dominated my CC schedule from about 1998 until 2002. Now I only play server chess. I've played on the FICGS, IECG, GameKnot, ChessFriend, Schemingmind and ICCF servers.
Contrary to many people who've played as long as I have, I do NOT see chess engines as a threat to the game. I think they've changed the game, but not hurt the game. I believe they've increasd CC's popularity and game quality. The same is true for opening and ending databases.
Some of the changes that will occur in CC the next ten years:
- Servers will improve functionality and ease of use.
- Due to engine use we will grow to accept 2200 as an "average" rating rather than "Master."
- Tournaments will be re-structured to include fewer players per section and shorter tournament durations. This particularly applies to ICCF where 15 player sections and slow time rules to simulate postal chess are used.
- New server functionality will be added to allow players the option to SLOW down the game. It's too easy to get caught in a mindless "server flurry."
- New chess software will be developed to analyze games. This analysis tool will give proability estimates on what engine one's opponent is using. That information will allow one to counter and plan against one's opponent.
- There will be more anti-computer books written and theories developed. We will use these techniques to beat our opponent and and improve our chess planning skills.
Bottomline ... I am excited by the new technology. I see continued advances in the way we manage our gameload, the way we send moves, the way we play, plan and analyze our moves. The way we play in the future will be different and will still be fun for those who embrace new technology. My disappointment is I am an old man and unlikely to enjoy all the advantages the future brings. I hope those who follow me enjoy what I will miss :)
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-24 17:04:52)
Thanks Thibault
Thanks Thibault for the response.
I definitely concur that today's correspondence chess is different than 40 years ago. The two biggest things I miss about today's CC are the 1) blunders and 2) open tournaments. I remember the excitement of getting a postcard and rushing to check my opponent's move. Blunders weren't common, but they occured. Now they're non-existant. Blunders made for great lore!
Why no more open tournaments? Took me 40 years to get my rating where it's at. I'm not a top player, but what I've earned, I've earned mostly the "old fashioned" way. I avoid open tournaments to avoid losing to low rated players who just learned the moves, but because they have a a high powered muti-processor running Deep Fritz they can knock me down a hundred points. I miss chatting with beginners, teaching them the ins and outs of CC. Oh well :)
You mentioned the top CC players winning and then not sticking with the game because winning is too hard due to chess engines. Is the drop out rate at the WC level any different than it was in the past? Berliner won and dropped out 40 years ago. Palciauskas won 30 years ago and then he dropped out. Chess engines were not a factor when they won. I don't think top players drop out because of engines, but because it is too hard to keep a competitive edge to play at a top level for any length of time. Good results are a combination of talent, hard work and good fortune. Keeping all three together for any length of time is a HUGE endeavor.
Personally I think a bigger threat to CC burn-out is not chess engines, but chess servers. Servers make CC too easy. Today's CC today is like Bill Murray in "Ground Hog Day." You wake up to an inbox full of chess moves. You work all day/night replying. Then you wake up the following day to moves from the same people and do it all again. There are no week long breaks breaks between games like in the postcard days. Server chess is burning out everyone, not just the top players. The progressive server owners will need to address this issue someday.
Sooooo ... what's the bottomline for me? I liked the old days better, but the old days are gone. Chess engines are here to stay. Progress is part of life. I embrace progress and am determined to enjoy it. I get my thrills by learning about chess engines and their weaknesses. That gives me an edge and keeps the game fresh. But then that's me :)
Charlie Neil (2006-09-05 09:50:08)
why play corr-chess
Marc, excuse me I didn't make the difference between chess engines/databases and someone playing straight moves straight off their own computer. Yes, use books and databases that's what they are there for. But I feel sorry for the individual who relies solely on their computer to play their games for them. It is a bit like taking a fork lift to a weight lifting competition. The use of computers and servers is still relatively new to me. There are sites that ban the use of computers. but who is to know who is using their computer in an illegal way? There can be no profit for them or enjoyment in the game. It is good that FICGS has this forum for free discussion. I enjoyed reading "The future for Corr-chess" thread. There has always been points in time when it has been discussed that chess has "burnt-out" and the game will die off. I don't think that will ever happen in light of the passion for this terrible game expressed in all these forums. So, forgive an ignorant "free-range" "organic" chessfriend for not being clear about the differences about databases and computer-slaves who rely on their machines. The game is the thing. ( and maybe just maybe I wasn't drinking just coffee the time I posted the cheats slur...:-/)
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-09-12 13:19:57)
Math... *sigh*
LOL Thibault, I guess it was.
I'm no mathematician (far from it), but I don't think that this theory will turn out to be true anytime in the near future, even in a "predictable" game like chess. Even chess engines depend on the skill of their programmers to find new ways to make their search algorithms become reliable and faster, and tablebase development is still petabytes away from being complete.
Anyway, I guess the future generations will have to tell us if it worked or not. Only God knows what can get in the way of this "gaming nirvana" as they call, and after I heard that it was proven possible that a computer user can subconciously influenciate the way an idle machine performs, I don't feel like trying to impersonate Baba Vanga on this subject! ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-14 13:33:14)
Chess engines prohibited
Please note :
"The use of databases and chess engines will be prohibited for this challenge." (games unrated)"
Lots of fun ! .. Join us :)
Miguel Pires (2006-09-15 01:05:13)
Chess database
This is the rules of the gk, you can see in this link http://gameknot.com/pg/pol_community.htm What is important is this one: 3. You may not use chess engines, chess programs, chess computers to help you decide your next move. You may not consult with anyone nor ask advice about any games in progress. You may analyze games with chess engines after they are finished. You may consult chess books or game/move databases at any time. Soo i can consult databases. You can fin the tablebases in PGN or other thing, by this rule you can use, any databasese, oppening, games etc. Don't you agree? Regard's Miguel Pires
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-18 14:00:30)
FICGS vs. GameKnot
Thomas :
I agree with you, the match is for fun only, I like the idea whatever the result, even 100-0 :) .. If players use engines, their problem.. we can't avoid the risk totally... I think it's more logical to prohibite databases too or to allow both databases and chess engines, playing "real correspondence chess", and we could have a larger team for sure... Still discussing.
Miguel :
I prefer to avoid to "mail" everyone about the match.. It's clearly announced in the news, so I think most players here are "more CC ones" and don't trust the no use of engines...
James Stripes (2006-09-18 15:56:13)
27 years ago
When I first played correspondence chess, books were encouraged and the few chess engines in existence were garbage. Good quality engines and comprehensive databases have changed the nature of correspondence play. Nearly everyone permits databases (electronic books), although endgame tablebases are less clear. Engines are permitted some places, while banned others. This site is my first foray into CC where engine use is permitted, but I've played at dozens of sites where I can use databases. (I don't believe I've ever reached a position in which tablebases would be useful, except a few elementary positions that any average player could win against Kramnik.) These inter-site matches, it seems to me, nurture connections across the broad community of correspondence players--a rapidly expanding coterie of chess aficionados thanks to the likes of GameKnot and similar sites.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-19 19:13:07)
No cumputer use at all
Thomas & I finally agreed to prohibite chess engines & chess databases for this friendly match ! :-)
Games should be really interesting this way.
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...
Roger Weber (2006-10-03 15:06:37)
50% ?!
Are you serious?
I mean, it is just bad to use chess engines.
1) You don't improve your own skill level
2) If I want to play against a chessengine I can just install one instead of trying to play people over the internet
Roger Weber (2006-10-03 15:11:47)
Go
The one thing that makes humans good at Go is our ability to recognize patterns.
Go is all about seeing patterns and making strategical moves.
Chess engines are so good at Chess because there aren't that many possibilites to be played, so a computer can calculate the best one by looking at databases.
However Go has a much larger board and much more possibilites of moves for a game, making it impossible for a computer to calculate the best move.
Also computers do not have an AI yet to enable them the recognition of patterns, or not to a degree that humans do.
So a Go-engine could theoretically beat you on a 9x9 sized board, but it is very improbable that it will do so on a 19x19 board.
At least for the moment ...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-03 15:19:04)
Humans vs. centaurs
This kind of discussion happened already here :
http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_857-Why-do-you-play-corrchess.html
People obviously play chess here for many different reasons, and there are very different ways to improve... I think that using a chess engine or not is not so important, centaurs will play with centaurs & humans against humans. The fact is chess engines are allowed here, and we can suppose that most players under elo 1700 don't use engines and most players over elo 1700 use engines.
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.
Roger Weber (2006-10-04 13:21:29)
Computers
@Marius
If I may ask the question, why would you even want to play a match with chess engines?
I don't see the point, except if you're a chess engine addict and can't play without.
I am totally against the usage of chess engines on internet servers, as its just not sportsmanlike and a match where both players agree using engines is IMHO not worth playing it.
Roger Weber (2006-10-04 16:53:51)
hmm
Well I guess there's a point in using chess engies, however to a certain degree. If you only play with chess engines and only do the moves that the engine suggests, you shouldn't play chess anymore.
I think I can accept the combination of a sensible player and an engine from an ethical point of view.
Although I still don't like it, but that's just my opinion on it. I did not mean to offend anyone.
Regards,
Roger.
Glen D. Shields (2006-10-05 05:25:52)
Wayne no one ...
Wayne - no one is time trouble because no one is using their time. That's the point! "Correspondence chess" on a server has basically become an OTB match between chess engines. Players in all organizations are complaining about server burnout. Players who swore off postal are re-considering their decision.
What Thibault is trying to find out is how prevalent is the burnout. What I'm proposing any player can do manually, but why should it be done manually when the server can do it for us? Isn't automation the whole purpose of the server?
Help from the server to manage the pace (and one's game load) is a perfectly logical extension of server play. If you want to play fast, play fast. If you want to play slow, slow the pace, use the server to do it for you. Why is that bothersome? No one is suggesting a change from the 40/10 limit. There's no proposal to deviate from the 100 maximum accumulated days (great rule - every server should follow this rule!). What am I missing? I really don't get it :)
Yannick Maret (2006-10-09 09:39:01)
A question about chess engines
At first I was against using engines but the opinions given in another thread made me believe that they might be an useful teaching mean.
So I'm starting to think about using a chess engine here... but just to check if the moves I chose spring any tactical opportunities for my opponent! Following the suggestions of the engine would just remove the fun of the game for me.
Anybody has an idea on how to do that easily, and what engine to use? I would like a method that avoid the temptation of playing moves suggested by the engine!
Thanks in advance,
Yannick
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-09 11:19:53)
UCI / Winboard engine
Hello Yannick.
Maybe you could try a free chess engine like Crafty (quite strong already, also running on Chessbase / Fritz interface), GNUchess, Arasan, Ghost or any engine running on Winboard / Arena free interfaces...
See a list of chess engines here :
http://www.ficgs.com/wiki_en-chess_engines.html
A well-known french speaking website about computer chess :
http://perso.orange.fr/lefouduroi/computerchess.htm
Actually it's probably very hard not to be influenced by chess engines suggestions, but the point is to understand, then find better moves...
All depends on the level you want the engine to play. There are hundred of engines to download...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-10 16:04:54)
Arena chess
I suppose it's possible to evaluate a position without displaying the lines under Arena...
Free program, hundreds of chess engines...
http://www.playwitharena.com
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-26 18:33:58)
Reveal your software
Actually I wouldn't say that any engine vs. engine games are played here.
(or at ICCF, IECG ...)
This kind of statistics may be relevant on Playchess server or FICS [Free Internet Chess Server] at fast time controls where human can't help much, not in correspondence chess. That's obvious anyway that most players above 2000-2200 elo use chess engines, but games are not 100% engines, or any particular engine for sure...
I'm convinced Fritz or Shredder 'alone' wouldn't reach 2200.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-30 18:13:36)
Big chess "birthday" tournament !
FICGS now counts more than 1000 members :)
The display of Big Chess games has just been improved : Last move marked, coordinates, speed, bugs fixed... So it may be funny to see more games !!
A special tournament will start soon, if you want to enter it, just post "I'm in." (or something like that :)) in this thread. The first 7 players will be in.
The tournament will be there :
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__BIG_CHESS__THOUSAND_MEMBERS_EVENT.html
Games unrated, time control is 30 days + 1 day / move... 7 players -> 6 games per player (big challenge).
Reminder : To see what Big Chess is, see the Inaugural match game...
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__BIG_CHESS__INAUGURAL_MATCH.html
100% human chess guaranteed, no chess engines & databases :)
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-05 20:25:29)
Fischer : "Now chess is completely dead"
Why should be a (very, very) good chess player also a wise person? Bobby by himself has showed us that there are no correlation between theese abilities. It must be very frustrating for a grandmaster that very weak players can tell him for many positions (but far from all positions!!!) on an easy way by using chess engines what had been his mistakes in last competition!
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-12 13:42:38)
White to move!
Is there a way to win for White and if it is - which could be the only move to realize this? ChessPosition (see diagram) Black's last move has been 49...Qa7. Has there been any better move for Black? Have attention to the proposals of your chess engines!
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 (2006-11-24 01:16:50)
dreams are not reality...
Elmer, let me dream a few days more, please :)
If the match is not 'arranged', everything can happen. I'm sure Kramnik can win 1 game or 2, and draw the other ones...
Chess engines have nothing more to prove, a win for Kramnik would give new interest for the match Kramnik vs. Fritz 12, a draw would be a non-event and a loss for Kramnik would be interpreted as "Chess is completely dead"... Not so good for Chessbase... Choose.
But finally, if Bobby was right ? :) .. (sure not)
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 :/
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-02 13:40:46)
Chess engines CC ratings
It is my estimation. 3 out of 4 represents about 200 elo points. I doubt Chessbase will organize a Man(+Machine) vs. Machine correspondence chess match... However there are a few examples : Arno Nickel - Hydra (2,5-0,5), Hydra which beat Adams over the board 5,5-0,5 ... And I suppose Arno Nickel did not have access to the program, but knowing better his opponent I'm sure it's possible to reach such a score against any program.
About your test, it's been discussed here already :) .. In my opinion such a player's rating would travel between 2200 and 2400 (at most) mark !
Waiting for a match against Rykba :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-02 15:55:16)
Engines and intuition
About chess engines, that's hard to say. If we call 'intuition' their ability to play speculative moves - calculating less possibilities than usual in complex positions - it's quite easy to change some parameters and say "this engine plays according his evaluation function more than calculation", like us... It's a question of proportion and that's hard to compare with human thinking.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-04 12:52:51)
Intuition
I don't agree with that. If you oppose intuition to calculation / algorithm / reasoning, chess engines do have intuition. Even Fritz has chess knowledge, that looks like ours by the way, and can play at a 1900-2000 level OTB without any calculation (1 move forward) IMO. And the same, some chess engines improve their evaluation of positions by training.
Quite complex question, nearer philosophy than computers :)
Wayne Lowrance (2006-12-05 03:26:24)
Chess Engines CC Ratings
Waiting for a match against Rybka ? :) hummmm Wayne
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-12-13 16:37:20)
Rybka clearly the best ?
There are many investigations of chess engines in web their resultats are showing the same like yours. But the open questions is whether playing against other chess engines is the same like assisting human to analyze a chess position?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-14 00:09:56)
Rybka clearly the best engine vs. engine
I fully agree with both of you... We must be careful, even if all these results are really impressive, most chess engines have been designed to play against humans and to be useful analysis tools. As I said in another thread, there are still many things to improve to make it the best engine vs. engine fighter.
Nowadays, the best chess engines try to 'think' like humans and actually have inherited human weaknesses from them, so IMO a Hydra or Deep Blue would crush ie. Shredder or Junior which try to make it harder for human brain while Fritz is clearly better balanced.
Maybe this new engines generation started with Fruit which plays very solid. So Rybka, which is clearly designed to beat his rivals but I'm not convinced at all it is a better tool to play correspondence chess.
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
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-18 01:19:11)
Chess engines rating
Very nice information. A great big word of caution. We play coorespondence games here. Those engine-engine tournaments do not indicate directly which program is best suited for correspondence deep analysis, I do not have enough experience with the engines except earlier versions of Fritz, shredder, Hiarc, Junior and of course Dr Robert Hyatts Various versions of Crafty and Rybka. Rybka is top rated eng-eng program for fast time controls. But not sure that it is best for deep analysis. My guess is that Latest Fritz is at least as well suited for deep analysis and perhaps better. Then their is Shredder another top eng-eng program that is very very good at deep analysis. From what I read and for what it is worth those are the best engines. But if you want the strongest program for 40/120 time control down to bullet chess,then the clear winner is Rybka by Vas. Hope this is of interest. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-18 01:22:34)
Chess engines ratings
+1
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-18 02:13:03)
Chess engines rating
+1......huh ?
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-18 17:42:27)
Chess engines
Ahhhh, thank you. I was not familiar with that one. Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-19 00:25:10)
Nigel davies
http://www.chesscafe.com/davies/davies.htm This very interesting link provided here on FICS is good reading "chess Cafe" The article by Nigel is very interesting and informing. I find it very interesting that he uses Fritz as his analysis partner here on Fics. Speaks volumes for Fritz I think. I have had Fritzies for long long time starting with Fritz5, and have learned a lot that has helped me with OTB as with Nigel. I would love to find out what Nigel thinks about the latest releases of other chess engines. Sad to hear him say he no longer has time for coorespondence chess. The loss is mine and all of you. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-19 10:25:53)
Correspondence chess
As I wrote to Nigel, correspondence chess teaches 'best' moves, probably not best chess IMO... I'm not sure at all this is the way a GM (should) play.
Definitely it's a very different game and we must keep an over the board vision of the game if we still want to play exciting games and avoid quick dead draw positions. (look at the games of Wladyslav Krol in example :)) .. Chess engines are a very important tool, so think different. A full debate.. to be continued...
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 (2007-02-12 09:47:18)
Rybka 2.3
The new version of the engine seems to be late, and it seems not only authors of chess engines are addicted to computerchess :)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=204#fp
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-17 18:07:31)
Gameknot vs. FICGS, other challenges
It seems GameKnot leads 5-4 in the games played here... Not bad :)
Any news about the games played at GameKnot ?
It could be interesting to discuss about other team challenges... A team tournament, matches against other servers or forums (which ones ?), maybe at different time controls or playing chess variants (chess 960) or other games (could be fun to play chess & Go, poker or anything against the same players).. with or without computer assistance and so on... It should be easier to build teams now thanks to the chat bar.
It seems there was no problem of cheating with chess engines during the match against GameKnot, that's encouraging to organize other ones.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-22 17:34:01)
Zap! Chess Zanzibar
Nice results for Zap!Chess Zanzibar chess engine, that now appears 2nd (Rybka 1st, of course) on all CEGT (Chess Engines Grand Tournament) rating lists.
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn
Definitely, that's a pity Anthony Cozzie can't give more time to computer chess.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-25 13:23:18)
Big Chess
Finally, Big Chess tournaments waiting list is open !
If you like to play without chess engines and against human players only, you may try this really interesting variant of chess. (unrated games)
Have a look at these Big Chess events by clicking 'Tournaments', then 'FICGS__CHESS__SPECIAL_EVENTS' :
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__THOUSAND_MEMBERS_EVENT
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__INAUGURAL_MATCH
Have good big chess games :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-09 16:16:41)
GM vs. chess engines database
Someone mentioned "Marc Lacrosse´s database" in a Rybka forum's thread, I did not find it with Google, but I found this interesting Man vs. Machine database, 2837 GM vs. engine games on ICC so far, on Marc's website : Chessbazaar (link was on this forum :))
http://users.skynet.be/mlcc/chessbazaar/gmvscompsicc2006.html
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-05-02 14:46:08)
Fun and competition
For me is correspondence chess just fun and competition. It is possible, that some of my played games may give others a feeling of art (in this case not in the meaning of artificial :-)), but this is just a result of a random process. A special science of correspondence chess (beside normal chess theory) can I see only in programming chess engines or in finding of Tablebases – both not my skills. I love chess, but I’m too weak playing OTB chess on a high level, possible not by my fundamental understanding of chess positions but by my missing personal power of memory, computing (without computers) and nerves. So correspondence chess is ideal for me, because I can substitute my individual weaknesses by a computer und have no time stress to analyse the positions in all ways – artificial and human – to find out the most efficient chance.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-07 14:32:34)
science,art and bluff
The environment is different but there's a lot of bluff in correspondence chess IMO, even if the number of draws is higher at 2400+ level. It is no more based on obvious mistakes but on apparent "weak" moves that actually can win ie. a long endgame, particularly moves that are completely missed by the best chess engines such as Rybka. This kind of moves happens often yet, fortunately.
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 (2007-06-15 17:12:39)
Online chess today
A few links to discussions at TCCMB (The Correspondence Chess Message Board) on chess servers nowadays, future of ICCF, correspondence chess [once more] and so on...
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=105.0
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.0
In the second discussion I tried to answer on the future of correspondence chess & chess engines :
1) Like the 'tour de France', it is impossible to organize a "bicycle race" at chess without doping today IMO. Also there are so many 'products' : Various books, databases, engines, human help.. so it seems to me that it is a non-sense to try to make it like an OTB tournament. Online chess is "motorcycle races" & freestyle, nothing else.
2) The ratio of wins does not decrease much in computer games & advanced chess (blitz), and correspondence chess games will never be all drawn IMO. We just have to follow the horizon line... Engines still have difficulties when there are 32 pieces on the board... Make the position more and more complex & critical, play Benoni structures, East indians and English openings... There will probably be more and more draws but when looking at CC 2500+ games, the ratio is still quite good. The problem at CC is mainly the style of play with humans 'humanly' trying to remain in known positions where they can win and can't lose.
'The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy', 'Opportunities multiply as they are seized' (Sun Tzu)
A solution is to make rules that motivate players to avoid draws, particularly when playing against a higher rated opponent. (ie. the rule for FICGS 8-games matches)
3) We feel that engines play almost perfect chess because of our poor human's level of play (I should say ratings)... But engines & computers have to improve a lot yet - not obvious they can do it in a more or less near future -, the horizon line is not so far, each version of Rybka wins about 30 elo points... We'll see engines at level 3200, 3300 maybe much more... (4000 ?)
4) If too many players have their CC rating between 2750-2800 in future, we can make new rules : Ratings wouldn't be calculated on the basis of each game, but on the basis of ie. 8-games matches... Then strategy would be more important & we would see rating gaps again between the best players...
Finally if I'm completely wrong, play Big Chess ;D
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-16 22:00:18)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
Hello to all.
I'm glad to announce a new match between chess servers, that should start in about 10 days to 2 weeks. The previous match was FICGS vs. GAMEKNOT (we lost :))
The opponent is the russian server - http://www.igame.ru , an opportunity to meet new chessfriends from eastern countries :)
Here is the agreement :
1. Teams should consist of 25 players maximum (an exact number should be agreed later);
2. Number of games on each board equals 2 (one for White and one for Black);
3. Time control is 30 days + 3 days/move;
4. Leaves are provided, 30 days/year;
5. The match is played on www.ficgs.com;
6. Start date of the match should be agreed by both sides after squads are completed;
7. ICCF rules of play are applied.
In this match chess engines are allowed, it goes without saying we need a strong correspondence chess team, but anyone who wish to play may email me (or use the 'message to webmaster' form in "My account"), or just respond to this post.
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 05:32:40)
WCCC
Hi Wayne.
I mean, WCCC is a tournament like any other (no federations or whatever...), it is a big event and program authors come to play, that's great. But the format with so few interesting games can't provide accurate results :/
I agree that Deep Fritz & Junior are not the strongest chess engines today, but they are a good test for other ones and a way to improve the results of a tournament. IMO a World Computer Chess Champion should be ie. the SSDF 1st ranked program, which is continuous tournament with many games played, or maybe the games played at SSDF should be organized like a continuous swiss tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 20:50:23)
Big chess theory : "Queens opening"
The first rated Big Chess tournament started a few days ago... I like this game more and more, no theory, no databases, no chess engines, many strategies & many queens captured already ;)
Every opening seems ok, we still don't know if taking pawns with the queen during the first moves is worth something or not, the value of the pieces is quite unpredictable... Many players now play 1.Nh4 to threaten 2.Qo7 then 3.Qc7 if needed, winning a pawn. What is the best response if you want to keep the same material ? .. Anyway that's very interesting to see a side with 1 or 2 pawns more, giving some rooks activity to the opponent.. Still looks like a draw theorically.
My main line is : 1.Nh4 Nh13 2.Qo7 No14 3.Qc7 Ql13
Any other suggestion ?
See Big Chess waiting list in Chess Special Tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 22:40:11)
Big chess software
Well, FICGS :)
I hope there will never be such a software, even if I would be curious to see big chess engines playing !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-20 22:54:33)
Internet chess
Well, the discussion with Tryfon Gavriel continues at TCCMB. As I had to explain the way I make FICGS, I copy my responses here :
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.15
Hello again Tryfon !
That's a very interesting discussion...
Actually I have to explain FICGS in its whole to respond :) .. To be continued for sure..
While registering a new member wrote to me a few months ago "Thanks for creating this ultimate chess challenge" or so... That's exactly what I try to do, mostly with the FICGS championship knockout & round-robin rules... Players just want challenge, that's the only assumption I start with, so I try to create interesting challenges. About the intellectual part, you're right but I'm quite sure that top level correspondence chess players still consider their game as an intellectual challenge, much more than a brute force or computer skills one. That's not the case for Advanced chess with fast time controls.
Let's take a look at the bicycle races again... The "Tour de France" is dying IMO.. because everyone understood we "don't know" if the champion is ok.. If doping was allowed (it would be a scandal for health of course), I'm sure the interest would raise again ! I think it is the same for chess & for everything else... The "Tour de France" syndrom happened in Elista with the match Kramnik vs. Topalov... It will have consequences. We need champions and we want true champions, every means are ok for this ! .. So the "engines allowed" rule is the only one possible or reasonable in my opinion.
Of course, chess & correspondence chess are changing, because these "walls" are nearer & nearer... maybe chess will die, maybe not.. The main problem is that in 1997, a super computer became World Champion... this year a "simple" computer Deep Fritz became world champion, soon Rybka on a cellular phone... :) Who is really interested to be a champion in "human category" ? FIDE world chess championship will continue to progressively lose its interest IMO...
Correspondence chess is just starting to grow in popularity and is told to be dying already. Surely correspondence chess will ask more & more time at a high level to win a few points, but it is possible to create more challenge by ie. changing the rating rules (the "design" of Elo rating system will become a problem).. Then, if it is not enough, we'll look for other challenges... It's told for years that Go (Weiqi) will replace chess in western countries... why not Big chess as the "brain only" game if there can't be doping in it.. just trying, as there's no other solution :)
A word about Poker of course, as it's probably the fastest growing game in popularity : IMO this game is at a stade like chess in year 1900, but the same problem will happen, even quicker. At a high level the game will be just more and more boring (if you wish to win real money) or chancy (in a wch tournament), or you'll have to always find weak players (well, not very challenging).
About the simultaneous exhibition against Alekhine or Capablanca, I'm not sure at all they would crush everyone at our chess servers, they are undoubtly more talented than all of us, but I feel it wouldn't be enough in all cases to win against correspondence chess style of play & knowledge accumulated for 50 years... A few players rated OTB 2000-2200 could draw against them IMO...
At last, yes I'm a fan of Sun Tzu's "The art of war" :) .. I strongly believe that correspondence chess will not die in the next few years because players will follow its principles more and more, as the only way to win ! .. Big chess follows the same principles... and Go is the most challenging game because of it too !
Tryfon, I'm not sure that we're opposite in our vision of chess ! .. Our servers have obviousy different goals, nothing more.. I do enjoy playing mad blitz games without chess engines... I just believe that the future of internet chess is "serious (engines allowed, rated) correspondence chess" on one hand and "human chess for fun (no engines, unrated)" on the other hand... The other ways look like nonsense to me.
I hope it responds.
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 06:06:29)
Chess Engine Strength
Hello Glen !
I see your point, that's quite true and a consequence is what I called at TCCMB "the extensive nature of elo rating", however rating rules are more dynamic at FICGS.. So, let's say Rybka playing the FICGS championship against players of all kinds of ratings in the round-robin cycle... Anyway 2200 is only my feeling.
I understand your views about "rybka" [correspondence] chess nowadays, even if I don't agree with it completely. I saw some of your CC games played at IECG, and it looks much more like 'good old' chess with some unusual and beautiful tactical openings than typical 'correspondence computer chess' nowadays. I do believe there will be a place in the next CC years for more weird openings like bird, king's gambit, english... Also take a look at Peter Schuster and Wladyslav Krol games here !? .. Nothing boring with them, chess engine or not :)
Also advanced chess games with fast time controls could be quite interesting to watch in future as a way to see granmaster games with chess engines avoiding blunders 'only' (ok a bit more). We don't know exactly the human part in it, but draws won't be the rule for sure.
What is "boring" at correspondence chess (not new) is that achieving a top rating take a long... very long time ! .. But this is a great challenge yet IMO.
At last, thanks for you kind words :)
Best, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-14 14:31:34)
Strelka : Rybka clone ?
It seems the issue on whether Strelka is a clone of Rybka 1.0 or not has not ended... An interesting thread about it in Rybka forum, comparing code of both chess engines :
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=1655
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-30 16:05:11)
Without chess engines
It has been discussed here in the past, including this thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=2094
Letsplaychess.com, Itsyourturn.com, Gameknot.com and other chess servers & organizations offer correspondence chess games without chess engines, simply by 'forbidding' it...
We'll see, I will create a new unrated category (probably next week).
Best wishes, Thibault
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-01 12:43:09)
Free of chess engine
Thanks Thibault for reconducing me to this past forum. Very interesting. The part about "real" elo and correspondance elo is edifying. I know correspondence players could have a huge better elo than their real life one (if they have any) : more time to think, no stress, no pressure (or less) but I believe players who play without engines have a coorespondence rating approximately equal to their over the board one. Personnaly, I play coorespondence chess to try new opening, to train generally since I cannot play over the board so often since 2 years. I often play from the office, wtih sometimes a couple of minutes on a move, or sometimes I go home with the moves to think about my response in over the board conditions (30 minutes maximum on one move). My correspondence elo is around 2000 (with a good start with a peak to 2098, but declining since ;-D) and my over the board rating is now 1990 (with a peak to 2040 last year, and a rapid elo around 2100). So I sometimes feel a bit fed up with playing against chess engines, notably, but perhaps I'm wrong I have remarked that since I got an advantage, often opponents defend very very well, like computers in fact. Ok it's part of the game, and I know t could be a good training, fight hard to win a game, display a good technique, etc. but it could be disappointing to have the impression of play with a human opponent and have to finish with an another, i.e. the computer. Perhaps could we compare over the board elo, with correspondence elo to know if there is computer help or not ? Anyway, a special category of tournament will be great, and I'm eager to play with other ficgs "OTB-correspondence" players.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-02 13:26:25)
Ratings
Christophe, do you use no chess engines here ?
About ratings, probably most 2000+ correspondence chess players use chess engines whereas 1800- don't, so OTB players shouldn't play rated games with centaurs so often. Maybe new players should start with a 1800 rating (like ICCF) instead of 1600 so that most OTB players can't meet centaurs, what do you think ?
"ICC at least claims to have software that detects cheating" : You mean 'obvious' cheating... :)
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-03 12:53:52)
no chess engines
Hello Thibault, I play here without chess engine. Anyway, recently I tried to play "hippopotamus defence", (with no good result yet, I have to admit) so a computer is no use, it doesn't understand anything, but perhaps it's hippopotamus which is wrong, not the computer ;-D. Anyway a difficult defence in correspondence play). I began on this site with 2000, and so my elo was too high to play against human only ? I don't see how it's possible a sofware detect computer use ? Ok we see strange, computer-like moves sometimes, but... Perhaps two players, at the beginning of the game can agree to not use computer. Again about chess engine, I use a computer to record the moves (chessbase),to gain time, and replay fast the moves to get to the actual position, but my chess engines (an old fritz (5) and chess tiger (14) all that on a old PC) would certainly suffer a lot use against more recent chess engines ;-D Like Philip, I like to play on ficgs and it would be nice to plmay against more human opponent. I play one tournament on itsyourturn since last year, and I saw a lot more human mistakes than on ficgs. So, how explain it, I sometimes feel more comfortable on itsyourturn, but still I do like the spirit of ficgs, match against RU, the tournaments, forum, nice people to meet on the board, and so on
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-06 12:29:10)
Glen D. Shields
Hello Glen !
We had this discussion before, indeed chess engines killed imagination and a part of the fun. The game has changed a lot, more since Rybka appeared. Correspondence chess is now how to beat Rybka, that's a fact... and a new challenge.
Did you try another game, like Big Chess or Go (I really enjoy playing these games), where engines are completely useless and now both rated at FICGS ? My two cents ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-08 12:56:34)