hydra
FICGS - Search results for hydra
There are 26 results for hydra in the forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-04 16:21:00)
Danailov accuses Kramnik of using Fritz9
The manager of Topalov (Silvio Danailov) now accuses Kramnik of cheating, using Fritz 9.
Here are his statistics :
Game 1 :
From 75 moves: After move 12, from 65 remaining moves 41 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (63% of matches)
Game 2 :
From 63 moves: After move 17, from 46 remaining moves 40 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (87% of matches)
Game 3 :
From 38 moves: After move 10, from 46 remaining moves 40 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (87% of matches)
Game 4 :
From 54 moves: After move 14, from 40 remaining moves 30 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (75% of matches)
Game 6 :
From 31 moves: After move 13, from 18 remaining moves 14 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (78% of matches)
Out of 5 games, 78% of Vladimir Kramnik’s moves would match with the first line of Fritz 9.
Seems to be a lot but is it enough ? (no IMO, and it simply doesn't mean anything at all...)
Furthermore, it seems to be very hard to prove, as the "first line" of Fritz 9 depends on many parameters... It's probably easy to obtain this result on demand, or to say at a 2800 level, if it doesn't match with Fritz moves, that it matches with Shredder, Junior or Hydra or... :(
The only conclusion is Kramnik's style is closer to Fritz than other engines..
(what a scoop...)
Topalov's team has probably no other choice now than to attack & attack until death... This is clearly psychological attack, this match could end really dirty :/
I think these statistics are really too conclusive so that it's realistic ! .. Kramnik is not stupid : There's no need to play Fritz first line to win against Topalov (and finally be accused of using Fritz 9), and it's certainly not the best way to win either...
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 (2006-12-02 08:55:46)
Intuition?! What for ?
3 out of 4? Really? Which test-matches are you refering to?
Leotard made a test (won :-) and with grand manner) but that was years ago, and besides, he is one of the very best :-)
Then there is the match against a panel of different engines by Ham: even if he does not play at the same level than Leotard, he is quite a good player!... and the results were very far from 3 to 4 for human :-( (that was also years ago!)
Then there are the hydra matches... :-( the results are not very good also for humans and the game comments are very instructive: against first class expertise chess knowledge and intuition, the 'dump' brute force machine managed to handle quite well complex ending positions...at least as well as all correspondence players but the very best (I would say the top 20 at most :-()
Maybe there is some recent test I am not aware of?
But the point really is: who can play like, say, Leotard? Of course, he says he can crush computers, just by playing them like 2500 rated players... well, I can believe that... but when I play a fritz-push-button opponent, I am only a 2300 player... have I to use also an engine to have a chance (and one game out of ten, be very proud to have chosen another move than one of the few the engine suggested as best and still not have lost... ok, just kidding :-)?
It can be still fun, but I think it is not the same kind of chess Leotard alludes to when speaking of himself in his after match interview :-)
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 (2006-12-14 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 (2007-02-10 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.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-02-15 23:05:38)
more chess engine talk.
Thibault, you miss the boat on Hydra futre expectations in my opinion. Its advantage over pc engines was dedicated hardware (no necessarily speed) and ease of making program modifications.
However you perhaps neglect to consider the tremendous improvement in PC performance multiple cores, processors and et all. My thought is that the pc programs already are superior to Hydra. Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that Rybka has finished ahead of it in tournament play.
As far as other programs, you did not mention Zap. You best keep an eye on this one. It is very very strong and improving. Right now it is the only engine that has a chance of catching Rybka in eng-eng matches. I think it will be number two on the computer rankings. I will try to look further into Zap for a top CC engine. we see.
again, my thoughts
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-16 00:24:16)
Hydra, multi processors
Hi Wayne.
I think you're right about Hydra and actually it's quite unfair to compare it to other engines. I don't know if such an engine using dedicated hardware still has an interesting future against multi-processors engines. Quite hard to say. And what about the Chessbrain project that could use thousands of computers - http://www.chessbrain.net
About Zap!Chess, as Anthony Cozzie retired from computer chess, I don't think we'll hear about this one during a long time and that's a pity. The race just started !
Wayne Lowrance (2007-02-16 01:29:39)
Hydra, Multi processors
Tribault. I thought he was active. What then is the Zanzibar zap i am hearing so much about ?
BestWayne
Jason Repa (2007-04-21 10:35:27)
WCH Rules
Achim Mueller wrote: "In case of having 2 or more players with the same points at the top the player with the highest rating will qualify."
This is completely logical. The higher rated player will tend to be the stronger of the group, especially if he isn't outscored by the lower rated player, so it's obvious that if you have to choose between two that are equal in points, you take the one that is more likely to be stronger. Can you think of a better and more fair way to choose between the two?
Also, I disagree with your comments about how someone "can easily play on draw". This is completely wrong. Even with the Black pieces, games can be and are won all the time, even at the very highest level of chess. Top GM's constantly are winning with black, and what is arguably considered the top computer in the world "Hydra" was defeated more than once by a garden-variety GM who had the black pieces. Regardless of color and regardless of rating, chess is a game of skill and if you need a win against a certain opponent, the onus is on you to draw on all of your resources, including choosing the type of oppening that will not lend itself to an easy draw. A weak player who doesn't understand these concepts will have no chance in subsequent rounds in a tournament anyway and shouldn't worry about advancing.
My experience is proof also. I had the black pieces against a significantly higher rated opponent in my WCH group and I beat him to secure my advancement.
Michael Aigner (2007-06-22 21:27:50)
Re: Rybka's strength at CC time controls
I think you are right with your Elo approximation (2200 to 2300). There is just a little problem. In the case everybody would know he/she is playing against the latest Rybka version this would be a big problem for the program.
In this case Rybka should loose almost every game because everybody would know Rybkas response to any move and could build wonderful traps.
Did you hear about the so called "Planetenmatch" (match of the planets) where correspondence Chess GM Arno Nickel played against several Programms of unknown identity (the alias was the name of a planet). I think the engines had 24 hours per move and no chance - a desaster for the programs. That was of course before Rybka appeared, on the other hand he won also against Hydra!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-22 22:35:34)
GM Arno Nickel vs. engines
I heard about this match (that happened on the Chessfriend server if I remember well)... but it seems that actually the engines won 3,5 - 2,5 ! .. A quite surprising result. Hydra was everything but designed to play at correspondence chess time controls, so let's wait for a more interesting experience, most probably with Rybka.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-26 18:45:47)
Chess, love... ego
In a discussion where Susan Polgar (in her new forum, see link below) encourages members to ask questions to strong OTB GM & IM, I suggested to ask them :
"...how the venue of Rybka and other engines crushing them OTB (ie. Hydra-Adams) in classical games affected their love of the game ! .. More than learning us & them humility, obviously noone can feel the same than Bobby Fischer in front of the chessboard anymore (and probably before him also). How can a human player love the game like he did, nowadays ? .. What is the place of the ego in this strange relationship ? Finally... do they play other games more and more as time passes ?"
An interesting point, undoubtly to be discussed, is the place of ego in the love of the game IMO. Go players may have an interesting point in this discussion ;)
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=196
Benjamin Block (2008-06-06 18:59:39)
Hydra vs Adams.
What was the time control in this game?
How could Adams know that his move was better when the computer?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-07 17:28:51)
Hydra vs Adams
Wasn't it classical time control ? (40 moves/2 hours)
What does mean your second question ?
Benjamin Block (2008-06-08 08:51:48)
oops
It was a mistake. i mean Nickel vs Hydra. What was the time control in this corr game? I guess Nickel used a computer too. But how could he know that his move was better then the his computer?
Jason Repa (2008-06-08 11:09:30)
Nickel vs Hydra
I believe that Nickel used various chess engines to assist him with error-checking and analysis, similar to what any good corr. player does.
I especially liked the game where Nickel beat Hydra with the Black side of a French Tarrasch
Benjamin Block (2008-08-30 15:07:48)
How good is the program vs the man?
I want more test game in corr man vs computer. To know how high elo the computer have? It was a long time ago the Hydra played vs Nickel i want to see Rybka vs GM Nickel or some one other.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-02 15:14:21)
How good is the program vs the man?
True, I don't know about any recent experience like Hydra-Nickel... We may organize something like that with Rybka 3.0 and why not a strong Go engine too, any idea (rules, time control and so on) ?
Normajean Yates (2008-12-15 06:57:08)
does anyone here use the hydra engine?
does anyone here use the hydra engine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(chess)
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-12-15 07:13:45)
Hydra!!!
I found this one:
http://www.ricardo.com/engineeringservices/engine.aspx?page=hydra
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-12-15 12:22:46)
More hydra ...
This time seriously, I have got an old version here:
http://tonythomas.mylivepage.com/file/240/5286
I have played with it using Arena but this old version seems not as strong as Toga.
Marc Lacrosse (2008-12-15 12:26:29)
You are abused by a mediocre clone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_(chess)
The machine described there relies on a 64 PCs cluster, each PC being equipped with specially designed FPGA hardware cards for chess processing.
So there is no sense in asking "do you use the hydra engine?" : the hydra engine proper won't run on anything else than its dedicated hardware.
At the time Hydra had just beaten a few GMs, there appeared a so-called Hydra engine in dubious sites. This was soon proven to be a mere clone of the Fruit engine, completely unrelated with the true Hydra machine.
This is what you may still find on sites like the TommyThomas one.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-15 14:48:44)
Hydra engine
The Hydra engine only has absolutely no interest but used on a dedicated hardware, its level & style of play may probably be compared to a quite old Fritz version.
Normajean Yates (2008-12-15 15:43:05)
oh..
what a letdown :( (not from you people; but from hydra!)
Thanks you people for satifying my curiosity on this, specially Prof Thibault :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-30 22:35:35)
Playchess PAL tournaments winners
Thanks Samy, so the list of winners so far :
1. ZackS
2. Zor_champ (Hydra)
3. Rajlich (Rybka's author)
4. Xakru (Jiri Dufek and Roman Chytilek)
5. Flying Saucers
6. Rajlich
7. Ibermax
8. Ultima (Eros Riccio)
There are 0 results for hydra in wikichess.
FICGS : hydra , Wikipedia : hydra , Dmoz : hydra , Google : hydra , Yahoo : hydra
Chess is thirty to forty percent psychology. You don't have this when you play a computer. I can't confuse it. (Judith Polgar)
The enormous mental resilience, without which no Chess player can exist, was so much taken up by Chess that he could never free his mind of this game. (Albert Einstein)
White lost because he failed to remember the right continuation and had to think up the moves himself. (Siegbert Tarrasch)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess