Without having done any tests, I have pretty much the same intuitive understanding.lkaufman wrote:I suppose ponder hits are much lower against a human than against another computer. Maybe in your example 2 min with ponder might be about as strong as 3.5 or so minutes without ponder, which would in turn be about like 2 min plus 3 sec increment without ponder. Note that the greater the time odds, the more ponder adds to elo. With equal time it might be 20 elo or so in fast games, but at say one hour to one minute odds it might be more than a hundred elo. That's why when we played GM Erenburg with 90 to 3 min time odds we also turned off ponder, as with ponder the odds would have been much less.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I guess MS and GS did not understand LK and LT, or vice-versa.Milos wrote:His answer has nothing to do with ponder at all. He doesn't mention ponder in it, and to estimate Elo in case of ponder engine against non-ponder one needs to know ponder-hit ratio which depends on the absolute strength of the engines.Guenther wrote:Well, you are in the wrong thread and LKs post has nothing to do with what you replied, obviously driven by some agenda.
He simply answered to a question of LT, but the orginal quote somehow slipped away:
If engine A draws a match of 20 games against engine B with both engines not pondering, what would be the score, how many elos will engine A that ponders gain in the same match against engine B that does not ponder?
How much dependent this will be on time control?
On the other hand LT replies to LK's post with:which means it is you who obviously got it wrong.That ballpark would make for 5 full points in 100 games, just the difference between Komodo or Houdini winning TCEC.
My question was actually very simple: in case I have 5 minutes for the game, and the machine 2 minutes, just as an example, and the machine ponders, how much strength it would gain in comparison to the case, when it will not ponder?
Could this be translated into time increment?
Human versus Machine
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Human versus Machine
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Stockfish and Fischer
I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.
After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078N ... _rd_i=4406
While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.
Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.
So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.
After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078N ... _rd_i=4406
While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.
Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.
So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.
-
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 10:49 pm
Re: Stockfish and Fischer
sounds interesting Lyudmil ... may buy and take a look ...Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.
After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078N ... _rd_i=4406
While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.
Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.
So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Stockfish and Fischer
[d]r4rk1/2q1bpp1/pn3n1p/1pp1pP2/6P1/1BP4P/PP1N1P2/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 17pilgrimdan wrote:sounds interesting Lyudmil ... may buy and take a look ...Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.
After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078N ... _rd_i=4406
While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.
Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.
So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.
One of the positions from the positional suite my SF does not see(I don't know about the latest version on big hardware).
17. h4 wins
Does any engine see this easily wins?
Why would SF fail to see that?
It's not you Dan, I guess SF developers need the book.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Stockfish and Fischer
Oops, this is Fischer-Benko, New York 1965
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Stockfish and Fischer
One more SF will probably never get:
[d]r3r1k1/pp1q1p2/2p2npb/PPPp1bnp/3PpN2/2N1P1PP/1R1B1PBK/3Q1R2 b - - 0 19
Andrew already has posted this.
SF has to find 19...Bg4. When?
This is from Nikolic-Fischer, Vinkovci 1968
[d]r3r1k1/pp1q1p2/2p2npb/PPPp1bnp/3PpN2/2N1P1PP/1R1B1PBK/3Q1R2 b - - 0 19
Andrew already has posted this.
SF has to find 19...Bg4. When?
This is from Nikolic-Fischer, Vinkovci 1968
-
- Posts: 1187
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:11 pm
Re: Stockfish and Fischer
The move h4! doesn't win LyudmilLyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:[d]r4rk1/2q1bpp1/pn3n1p/1pp1pP2/6P1/1BP4P/PP1N1P2/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 17pilgrimdan wrote:sounds interesting Lyudmil ... may buy and take a look ...Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.
After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078N ... _rd_i=4406
While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.
Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.
So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.
One of the positions from the positional suite my SF does not see(I don't know about the latest version on big hardware).
17. h4 wins
Does any engine see this easily wins?
Why would SF fail to see that?
It's not you Dan, I guess SF developers need the book.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Stockfish and Fischer
You bet!beram wrote:The move h4! doesn't win LyudmilLyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:[d]r4rk1/2q1bpp1/pn3n1p/1pp1pP2/6P1/1BP4P/PP1N1P2/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 17pilgrimdan wrote:sounds interesting Lyudmil ... may buy and take a look ...Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.
After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078N ... _rd_i=4406
While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.
Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.
So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.
One of the positions from the positional suite my SF does not see(I don't know about the latest version on big hardware).
17. h4 wins
Does any engine see this easily wins?
Why would SF fail to see that?
It's not you Dan, I guess SF developers need the book.
Any analysis?
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Stockfish and Fischer
Here another test from the positional suite:
[d]rnbqk2r/1p2bpp1/p2ppn1p/8/3NPP1B/2N2Q2/PPP3PP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 0 9
Any self-respecting engine should find here 9...g5! for full equality. 10. fg5 hg5!(Nfd7 Qh5! is weaker, as black can not recapture with the h pawn towards the center) 11. Bg5 Nfd7, with nice outpost square for the knight on e5, pawn less, but central phalanx.
9...e5 instead might be losing after 10. Nf5, but the lines are long.
9... Nc6 is simply worse than 9...g5, as no full equality here.
Any self-respecting engines on this forum?
[d]rnbqk2r/1p2bpp1/p2ppn1p/8/3NPP1B/2N2Q2/PPP3PP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 0 9
Any self-respecting engine should find here 9...g5! for full equality. 10. fg5 hg5!(Nfd7 Qh5! is weaker, as black can not recapture with the h pawn towards the center) 11. Bg5 Nfd7, with nice outpost square for the knight on e5, pawn less, but central phalanx.
9...e5 instead might be losing after 10. Nf5, but the lines are long.
9... Nc6 is simply worse than 9...g5, as no full equality here.
Any self-respecting engines on this forum?
-
- Posts: 1187
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:11 pm
Re: Stockfish and Fischer
I will give you this testposition after 17 h4Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:You bet!beram wrote:The move h4! doesn't win LyudmilLyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:[d]r4rk1/2q1bpp1/pn3n1p/1pp1pP2/6P1/1BP4P/PP1N1P2/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 17pilgrimdan wrote:sounds interesting Lyudmil ... may buy and take a look ...Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.
After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078N ... _rd_i=4406
While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.
Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.
So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.
One of the positions from the positional suite my SF does not see(I don't know about the latest version on big hardware).
17. h4 wins
Does any engine see this easily wins?
Why would SF fail to see that?
It's not you Dan, I guess SF developers need the book.
Any analysis?
Which black move equalizes here?
A Nfd5
B c4
C Nh7
D Ne8
E Nfd7
I will give you the analysis if you choose the right one
[d] r4rk1/2q1bpp1/pn3n1p/1pp1pP2/6PP/1BP5/PP1N1P2/R1BQR1K1 b - - 0 17