OpenChess

Hello there )


1st of all, via current New Engine Settings Testing,
The target was to check the performance of the engines
Sure I mean which are near/close to GMs playing level

For examples,
In the 1st Test: CM11 Archangel vs CM11 Fischer

Strange results really... e.g + 190 Elo difference...
Normally it should not be so much diff. in strength!
----------------------------------------------------------
Or as other example,
In the below played test, more close to reality...
But anyhow still I can not say very close...e.g
According to calculations...Bobby Fischer should
Be minus plus 100 Elo points better...where in this
Test... as we see, about 25 Elo difference..
---------------------------------------------------------
And sure some may say not enough games etc and etc..
Actually they have right...!!
Because 100 games can lead to wrong conclusions !
But I have some experience...not much but I have..
Btw, what about you ? can you serve please your data..?
If possible..with games... too boring via comments,
I mean 'terrible' if we see 'standings' as without games!
Really... and many pay attention for them...sad indeed..
Nowadays everyone is hero...but under SCCT cond. it is not
Like that... it is hard hard conditions for sure, right... ?!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Btw, I wonder too what about this test ?) +346 Elo diff. !
But in reality...at their best... theirs av. peak Elo diff.
Between G. Kasparov and J. Polgar was about 150 Elo

In other words,
It's clear that Prodeo 1.86's Polgar setting does not
Reflect to actual (real) strength of Judit Polgar !!
At least far away.....even after +1000 games (per player)
I hardly doubt that the situation will be much changed...
Note: For the above test, Prodeo 1.86 engine is used...
As usual, for both players, separate folders installed
You may know.. different settings etc.. that's why...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Other test, played Rodent III engine, but this time used various
Rodent III's eng settings too.. plus as for comparing Fruit 2.1 used
So it is clear that as in all other tests..far away from reality!
Forger Fruit 2.1 that should be close in strength...at least
I say that Rodent's Anand should do better than Rodent's Spassky

E.g according chessmetrics.com: the difference is about 60 Elo:
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Peak ... 0024310100
But unfortunately in my test...both settings are very close in strength...
Even RIII Spassky seems to be stronger than RIII Anand...sad...
---------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile,
I have a note for BIG brains too, e.g these guys often say
Such as meaningless test.. or such as old, bad, poor engines etc.
Ok.here is a test, played by much newer engine: Shashchess 34.5

What I can say more,
Very likely... SH Capablanca came from other planet )
Definitely not from our planet, where now we live...))
Because too much diff. (in Elo points) from reality !

NON-NNUE Test + Capablanca setting is enabled...plus
The Elo settings is configured to play at 2700 Elo:
----------------------------------------------------------
Other series of tests, for example:
Shashchess's NN + Capablanca setting is enabled,
But configurated/reduced to play at 2600 Elo level...
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is last test, used Fruit 2.1 engine as alternative,
Where Shashchess configurated to play at 2000 Elo level,
But as we see here too.. unfortunately nothing correct!
If still not so clear, Fruit 2.1 is close to GMs level
Conditions (for all tests):
2x Epyc 7B12, CuteChess, 1 Core, Ponder OFF, 2m+1s, 128 MB Hash, 4-MEN

-----------------------------------------------------------

Ok.. as final words,
it's clear that mostly tests are not close to GMs strength levels!

And I hope also that next engine releases to be better in quality!
If nothing else, at least all chess engines to be with less bugs...!

GAMES:
https://mega.nz/file/T1hXVY7Y#GMTHgsfbJ ... QSMGE_MZaQ

Best Wishes,
Sedat

Hi dear sedat
I think these kind of tests are something new. Now we can only consider the results as fun tests and nothing more. As I understood when we use the same engine for both personalities but with different settings, results are more acceptable and at least closer to reality. But when we use two different engines with adjusted settings ( shashchess Capablanca and prodeo Kasparov) the results are terrible and completely misleading. Not reliable and far from the reality. If there was a chance for real match between two greats, Kasparov and Capablanca, Kasparov is the one who has more chance for victory. As I said this is something new. Should be discussed and tested more and the issues should be solved gradually. But many thanks as always for interesting idea, nice and interesting test too.
Greetings

Homayoun wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 31, 2024 4:04 pm

Hi dear sedat
I think these kind of tests are something new. Now we can only consider the results as fun tests and nothing more. As I understood when we use the same engine for both personalities but with different settings, results are more acceptable and at least closer to reality. But when we use two different engines with adjusted settings ( shashchess Capablanca and prodeo Kasparov) the results are terrible and completely misleading. Not reliable and far from the reality. If there was a chance for real match between two greats, Kasparov and Capablanca, Kasparov is the one who has more chance for victory. As I said this is something new. Should be discussed and tested more and the issues should be solved gradually. But many thanks as always for interesting idea, nice and interesting test too.
Greetings

Hello dear Homayoun ,

You are welcome..
And thanks for your useful posting...

Well, the idea is born for my next planning tour!
E.g I plan to organize a new Human like tour, which
Will be based on Eng players, and same time will be used
As Openings, played by the real World Chess Champions...

You know, I will do my best... for better Human like...)
At least I guarantee about the openings...

Btw, based on my latest new strength testings, after checking..
As you see too.. it's clear some engines are far away from reality...
I mean not so much close to GMs playing level strength...

But I admit also that e.g
According to various data, e.g Man vs Machine matches,
Some of the engines seems to be more close to GMs levels!

And if you ask Me, which are those engines ?) e.g
The engines such as older Fritz, Junior series, or some
Fruit eng versions, ProDeo vers, older Hiarcs eng etc.
Even I believe that the ancient Stockfish 1x, Rybka 1b etc.
Seems be one of them....sure we can not say such as
Theirs strength or playing style is identical to GMs...
Otherwise..it will be madness... but my target is simply
To pick as eng players, which are close in strength to
The one of the greatest human players of all time...!

Btw, at the moment I am running a new strength test...
We will see...which candidate engines will be more
Suitable... more info very soon )

Greetings

Sedat Canbaz wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 31, 2024 5:44 pm

Homayoun wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 31, 2024 4:04 pm

Hi dear sedat
I think these kind of tests are something new. Now we can only consider the results as fun tests and nothing more. As I understood when we use the same engine for both personalities but with different settings, results are more acceptable and at least closer to reality. But when we use two different engines with adjusted settings ( shashchess Capablanca and prodeo Kasparov) the results are terrible and completely misleading. Not reliable and far from the reality. If there was a chance for real match between two greats, Kasparov and Capablanca, Kasparov is the one who has more chance for victory. As I said this is something new. Should be discussed and tested more and the issues should be solved gradually. But many thanks as always for interesting idea, nice and interesting test too.
Greetings

Hello dear Homayoun ,

You are welcome..
And thanks for your useful posting...

Well, the idea is born for my next planning tour!
E.g I plan to organize a new Human like tour, which
Will be based on Eng players, and same time will be used
As Openings, played by the real World Chess Champions...

You know, I will do my best... for better Human like...)
At least I guarantee about the openings...

Btw, based on my latest new strength testings, after checking..
As you see too.. it's clear some engines are far away from reality...
I mean not so much close to GMs playing level strength...

But I admit also that e.g
According to various data, e.g Man vs Machine matches,
Some of the engines seems to be more close to GMs levels!

And if you ask Me, which are those engines ?) e.g
The engines such as older Fritz, Junior series, or some
Fruit eng versions, ProDeo vers, older Hiarcs eng etc.
Even I believe that the ancient Stockfish 1x, Rybka 1b etc.
Seems be one of them....sure we can not say such as
Theirs strength or playing style is identical to GMs...
Otherwise..it will be madness... but my target is simply
To pick as eng players, which are close in strength to
The one of the greatest human players of all time...!

Btw, at the moment I am running a new strength test...
We will see...which candidate engines will be more
Suitable... more info very soon )

Greetings

Thanks, Waiting for tournament results.
Best regards

Homayoun wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 31, 2024 7:09 pm

Sedat Canbaz wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 31, 2024 5:44 pm

Homayoun wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 31, 2024 4:04 pm

Hi dear sedat
I think these kind of tests are something new. Now we can only consider the results as fun tests and nothing more. As I understood when we use the same engine for both personalities but with different settings, results are more acceptable and at least closer to reality. But when we use two different engines with adjusted settings ( shashchess Capablanca and prodeo Kasparov) the results are terrible and completely misleading. Not reliable and far from the reality. If there was a chance for real match between two greats, Kasparov and Capablanca, Kasparov is the one who has more chance for victory. As I said this is something new. Should be discussed and tested more and the issues should be solved gradually. But many thanks as always for interesting idea, nice and interesting test too.
Greetings

Hello dear Homayoun ,

You are welcome..
And thanks for your useful posting...

Well, the idea is born for my next planning tour!
E.g I plan to organize a new Human like tour, which
Will be based on Eng players, and same time will be used
As Openings, played by the real World Chess Champions...

You know, I will do my best... for better Human like...)
At least I guarantee about the openings...

Btw, based on my latest new strength testings, after checking..
As you see too.. it's clear some engines are far away from reality...
I mean not so much close to GMs playing level strength...

But I admit also that e.g
According to various data, e.g Man vs Machine matches,
Some of the engines seems to be more close to GMs levels!

And if you ask Me, which are those engines ?) e.g
The engines such as older Fritz, Junior series, or some
Fruit eng versions, ProDeo vers, older Hiarcs eng etc.
Even I believe that the ancient Stockfish 1x, Rybka 1b etc.
Seems be one of them....sure we can not say such as
Theirs strength or playing style is identical to GMs...
Otherwise..it will be madness... but my target is simply
To pick as eng players, which are close in strength to
The one of the greatest human players of all time...!

Btw, at the moment I am running a new strength test...
We will see...which candidate engines will be more
Suitable... more info very soon )

Greetings

Thanks, Waiting for tournament results.
Best regards

Sure, but before I have to create the opening books...
But in a few days... I think all will be ready to start...

Greetings

Update

Be aware of that too,
Chessmetrics site is not updated since 2006 year
So many of latest players are not calculated...

But I have good news,
E.g according to my calculations, 5 year peak range:
M. Carlsen is close to 2857, where D. Liren 2796 Elo

Meanwhile, best of all time is Garry Kasparov!
Btw, Carlsen is quite close..just 18 Elo behind..
Impressive also Lasker, Capablanca, Botvinik etc.
Are not too far from the level of 2850 Elo points!

And here are Classical World Champions
Peak Average Ratings: 5 Year Peak Range

Where on the right side of the rankings are
The planning engines, which will be played..

Btw, as you may see too,
Mostly of World Champions Elo points are almost
Identical or close to the planning chess engines!
And very soon I'll share the latest eng ratings..
And then you will have chances to compare that
All shared below ranking is very close....
Have fun,
Sedat

And here is the mentioned, latest strength results/ranking:

Sure later... all games will be shared.. I need to take rest )

Note also that as most suitable engines are picked, which
Are best, stable ones...I mean as without time forfeits etc.
Besides as players are picked, which are close in strength!

E.g Deuterium 14.2 is out due to has several games lost on time..
Arasan, plus Pedone are not so stable too... e.g lost on time...
Not so frequent of course, 1 or 2 games, but lost...

Hi Sedat, a suggestion:
Play all games with the same engine, for example Komodo Dragon 3.3 with 1 cpu and select ”Human” and enter player elos as well.

All the best.

ZamChess wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 01, 2024 8:49 am

Hi Sedat, a suggestion:
Play all games with the same engine, for example Komodo Dragon 3.3 with 1 cpu and select ”Human” and enter player elos as well.

All the best.

Hello Zam,

Thanks...

Note that for the planning new competition,
Main target is to use various classical engines!
In this way,
I believe that we will see more variety of play...

Btw, in one of my older tours - limit playing strength,
Many of the tested engines were far from real Elo points:
https://sites.google.com/site/computers ... g-strength

Anyhow, just out of curiosity
I will check and test Komodo Dragon 3.3 too
I wonder what will be Komodo Dragon at 2880 Elo
And plus Komodo Dragon at 2740 Elo ...

All this mystery will be solved soon as possible..

Greetings )

UPDATE 2
ALL GAMES (I included the recent candidate games as well):
https://mega.nz/file/flgW1YqY#mVpWgoCYs ... xquaXi2fWg

Conditions:
2x Epyc 7B12, CuteChess, 1 Core, Ponder OFF, 2m+1s, 128 MB Hash, 4-MEN

More Details:
It's clear that Komodo Dragon is optimized for limited playing strength
Especially Komodo at 2880 Elo is close in strength to Stockfish, nice!
But what about Komodo at 2600 Elo ? as we see far away from reality...

And once more we noticed that,
The best, ideal way is to use various chess engines,
Sure before starting.. I suggest serious strength testings!
Otherwise, our tours may lead to wrong, unfair results!

And as same words are going for book competitions as well...
I mean run beta eng strength testings (before serious tours)
Because some engines are too DRAWISH, or some are buggy...
E.g with book settings etc...or some produce too DOUBLES

In other words,
The BIG efforts, which we spend.. should not be gone for nothing!

If nothing else... in most cases I am doing this job in that way,.
And I feel much better... !)


Greetings )