Wow, that website is really a work of art.Robert Houdart wrote:You can find that information at the TCEC web site, all the games are available for replay.notyetagm wrote:What was the Houdini 1.5 eval of 16 Nb5xa7?! ?
Stockfish 2.0.1 on the chessbomb site gives it an eval of -0.36, a far cry from Rybka's dubious 0.24 eval.
Rybka was at +0.24, Houdini at -0.32.
Rybka 4 won the World Cumputer Chess Championship 2009 with a large margin. It was a culmination of years of dominations on the computer chess scene. However, despite winning the 2010 title, things have been going on a downwards spiral for Rybka. Strong competitors have been emerging and new algorythms have been challenging the top spot.
They cannot block out reality forever.kingliveson wrote:This headline could create more chaos:
Houdini 1.5 stays perfect, destroys Rybka 4 with black
Ivanhoe jumps into clear second position
Rybka 4 won the World Cumputer Chess Championship 2009 with a large margin. It was a culmination of years of dominations on the computer chess scene. However, despite winning the 2010 title, things have been going on a downwards spiral for Rybka. Strong competitors have been emerging and new algorythms have been challenging the top spot.
Are they now blocking chessdom at Rybka forum?
P.S. I do believe it is spelled IvanHoe -- someone please correct me if am wrong.
When the engine is installed in any GUI it's spelled like you believe, with a capital H.kingliveson wrote:sdom at Rybka forum?
P.S. I do believe it is spelled IvanHoe -- someone please correct me if am wrong.
I happen to agree with some of this (especially after I figured out how the TCEC openings are chosen), though, alternatively, one could spin it the other way: "A bold new leap into chess reporting by ChessDom, putting computer chess on par with human events, enabling pawn-ogling fanatics to fend off virtual starvation until the mere ~2800 chess in Wijk aan Zee starts on Friday..."Fascinating, and an incredible blunder by ChessDom. It isn't to besmirch Houdini BTW, as that is not the problem. It is the fact they are promoting a small private computer chess tournament, with no official recognition, on their front page as the main article, after only three rounds, which is the sort of reporting reserved for major international chess tournaments.... It is amazingly bad judgment, and beyond stupid.
I too try to imitate internal capitalisation from the engine makers (though it is not always easy), but the book/movie is definitely with a small haitch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IvanhoeP.S. I do believe it is spelled IvanHoe -- someone please correct me if am wrong.
It's beautiful. Well done.Martin Thoresen wrote:Honestly, I am a bit surprised by all this. But also glad. Glad that people visit my site and enjoy chess, and glad that Chessdom actually dares to write an article like they have done.
I might point out that (in my opinion) RR is more "redundant" than QR, particularly when the opponent's King is not safe in the latter.As a human I wouldn't go for the RR+6 vs RBN+5 with Nxa7 as Rybka did, as two minors tend to win these, especially when White has redundant majors.
Just to round this off, with BN vs R and no other majors, Dvoretsky's maxim "The Strongest Piece is the Rook" can sometimes be true, especially if there are pawns on both sides of the board (the knight can't be two places at once too easily), or there are rook-pawns with a mis-matched bishop. Müller's third column on the subject of the strength of the Rook in the endgame has the notable Tal-Geller endgame and some other examples. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/mueller60.pdfAs a human I wouldn't go for the RR+6 vs RBN+5 with Nxa7 as Rybka did, as two minors tend to win these, especially when White has redundant majors. [...]
I might point out that (in my opinion) RR is more "redundant" than QR, particularly when the opponent's King is not safe in the latter.
If you were to run TCEC how would you define/make the opening rules?BB+ wrote:I happen to agree with some of this (especially after I figured out how the TCEC openings are chosen), though, alternatively, one could spin it the other way: "A bold new leap into chess reporting by ChessDom, putting computer chess on par with human events, enabling pawn-ogling fanatics to fend off virtual starvation until the mere ~2800 chess in Wijk aan Zee starts on Friday..."
My opinion is that random openings of length X are useful for testing, but trying to splice this into a "league" concept is not so palatable. Choosing 12 moves from a large PGN file can lead to funky play, especially when strange moves are made at the opening part in the game. Maybe if you stuck to "top GM" games it would work better, but from what I've seen, a non-negligible percentage of the games have "quirks" in the first few moves. [Computers shouldn't have to put up with openings from dodgy humansIf you were to run TCEC how would you define/make the opening rules?
]. Also, especially with 3:1:0 scoring, if engine X happens to get 4-5 drawish opening from the 7 choices, and engine Y receives two less, it could be a burden.
