Does Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit cheat when playing ply games ?

[Spacious_Mind]

BTW I must correct a false usage of an engine as an example. I wrote Stockfish when I should have written Shark. A typo.

A final idea for you. If I were you with these ideas for tournaments with little ply, please do concentrate on The Dutch Dr. Muller. He is that sort of guy who is in love with minimalism instead of huge power. I saw that he already answered you.

All the best again from my side for your new life over there.
-Rolf

Hi Rolf,

Sorry I forgot to mention as ps...

Thanks a lot for your tip.

With regards to Stockfish or Shark, ....... no comments from me....

I have just spent the last 10 months as a recluse playing a C64 Tournament of over 1000 games manually just so that I can have a good database of 1MHz games

...... everyone to his own I guess........ regards

Nick

[Spacious_Mind]

Hi Uri,

I tried to play movei00_8_438 today under Winboard setting it to 600 moves in 1 Minute using the C64 Final Chesscard as a test opponent. The Final Chesscard runs at 5MHz therefore I set it to 36 seconds per move average time. Interestingly movei00_8_438 reaches depths of 8 to 11 ply at these settings whereas the Chesscard between 5 to 7 ply which seems to confirm that the old solftware searched differently but perhaps deeper in positions. The game itself seems to be very competitive and the two methods of search seem to offset each other into competitive games. I did not complete the game because its late here but I am quite happy with this first little test:

- Winboard seems to work very well for these type of games
- The differences in approach between old and new are interesting
- It seems at first glance that the matches might end up being extremely competitive.

Here is the incomplete first test game if you are interested into looking at the times per move from Movei.

[Event "Test Game"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "11/11/2009"]
[Round "-"]
[White "CBM 64 Final Chesscard"]
[Black "movei00_8_438"]
[Result "*"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 a5
5. Bxb4 axb4 {-0.01/10} 6. e3 d5 {+0.03/9} 7. Bd3 Nc6 {+0.03/9 1.0} 8. O-O
O-O {-0.04/9 1.0} 9. Nbd2 b6 {-0.11/8 1.0} 10. cxd5 exd5 {-0.23/8} 11. Qc2
Bd7 {-0.52/8 1.0} 12. Rfc1 Ra7 {-0.49/9 1.1} 13. Bb5 Ne7 {-0.38/9} 14. Bxd7
Qxd7 {-0.04/9 1.0} 15. Ne5 Qe6 {-0.02/8} 16. Ndf3 Ne4 {+0.00/9} 17. Nd3 Qd6
{+0.18/8} 18. Nfe5 f6 {+0.34/8} 19. Nc6 Nxc6 {-0.31/11 1.0} 20. Qxc6 Qxc6
{-0.70/11 1.0} 21. Rxc6 b3 {-0.49/10} 22. a3 Rf7 {-0.70/9} 23. Rd1 Rd7
{-0.69/8 0.5} 24. Nb4 Ra5 {-0.81/9} 25. Rd3 Re7 {-0.99/9} 26. Rxb3 Kf8
{-1.30/9} 27. Rc1 Rb5 {-1.32/9} 28. a4 Nd2 {-1.08/11} 29. axb5 Nxb3
{-0.96/11} 30. Rd1 Rd7 {-1.17/10} 31. Na6 Ke7 {-0.64/9} 32. Rd3 Na5
{-0.59/9}

Regards

Nick

Btw your assumption based on this firrst game seems to be accurate I think Winboard lets the engines react quicker.

[Uri Blass]

Hi Uri,

I tried to play movei00_8_438 today under Winboard setting it to 600 moves in 1 Minute using the C64 Final Chesscard as a test opponent. The Final Chesscard runs at 5MHz therefore I set it to 36 seconds per move average time. Interestingly movei00_8_438 reaches depths of 8 to 11 ply at these settings whereas the Chesscard between 5 to 7 ply which seems to confirm that the old solftware searched differently but perhaps deeper in positions. The game itself seems to be very competitive and the two methods of search seem to offset each other into competitive games. I did not complete the game because its late here but I am quite happy with this first little test:

- Winboard seems to work very well for these type of games
- The differences in approach between old and new are interesting
- It seems at first glance that the matches might end up being extremely competitive.

Here is the incomplete first test game if you are interested into looking at the times per move from Movei.

[Event "Test Game"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "11/11/2009"]
[Round "-"]
[White "CBM 64 Final Chesscard"]
[Black "movei00_8_438"]
[Result "*"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Bb4+ 4. Bd2 a5
5. Bxb4 axb4 {-0.01/10} 6. e3 d5 {+0.03/9} 7. Bd3 Nc6 {+0.03/9 1.0} 8. O-O
O-O {-0.04/9 1.0} 9. Nbd2 b6 {-0.11/8 1.0} 10. cxd5 exd5 {-0.23/8} 11. Qc2
Bd7 {-0.52/8 1.0} 12. Rfc1 Ra7 {-0.49/9 1.1} 13. Bb5 Ne7 {-0.38/9} 14. Bxd7
Qxd7 {-0.04/9 1.0} 15. Ne5 Qe6 {-0.02/8} 16. Ndf3 Ne4 {+0.00/9} 17. Nd3 Qd6
{+0.18/8} 18. Nfe5 f6 {+0.34/8} 19. Nc6 Nxc6 {-0.31/11 1.0} 20. Qxc6 Qxc6
{-0.70/11 1.0} 21. Rxc6 b3 {-0.49/10} 22. a3 Rf7 {-0.70/9} 23. Rd1 Rd7
{-0.69/8 0.5} 24. Nb4 Ra5 {-0.81/9} 25. Rd3 Re7 {-0.99/9} 26. Rxb3 Kf8
{-1.30/9} 27. Rc1 Rb5 {-1.32/9} 28. a4 Nd2 {-1.08/11} 29. axb5 Nxb3
{-0.96/11} 30. Rd1 Rd7 {-1.17/10} 31. Na6 Ke7 {-0.64/9} 32. Rd3 Na5
{-0.59/9}

Regards

Nick

Btw your assumption based on this firrst game seems to be accurate I think Winboard lets the engines react quicker.

Movei has no problem to play at time control of 600 moves/1 minute but movei is not going to use 1/10 second per move in these conditions if this is your target because it has better time management and it practically treats it the same as 1 minute per game.

My guess is that movei 8-11 plies is clearly stronger than Chesscard 5-7 plies.

It is only a guess because I know nothing about Chesscard but I am sure that movei 8-11 plies is clearly stronger than stockfish 5-7 plies.

Uri

[Rolf]

But here is the rub, if you intend to use other platforms for your base and of course use other engines as your competition and become a Victor, then at least in my humble opinion use the settings provided correctly whether it be ponder on or off, random, ply etc so that you can play against Rybka in a way that these platform settings were intended. I genuinely mean this for every chess engine after all do not all programmers obtain their greatest satisfaction from seeing their creations however strong or weak be used and enjoyed without question by other people? Everyone here in this Forum I think has their own reasons for playing games with chess engines. I think mine have already been outlined.

If for example Rybka had clear disclaimers stating that for whatever uses it is not suitable then I would not have a problem with this at all because then I as a consumer could make my choice accordingly.

Let me humbly disagree with all that. NB when I was a kid I dismantled night watches because I wanted to understand the mechanical secrets, later I even had a complete Swiss chronometer on a handkerchief right in front of me with its dozens of parts, because the cleaning was a typical job for patients in Switzerland. But different to you I already knew as a kid if I missed the rebuilding of the entity that I was the responsible and not the factory. Thats crystal clear Western logic that is taught in West-Europe. Very early I learned however that worldwide this isnt the only existing wisdom. Magic and fraud normally reign everywhere.

Later I realised that our so clean medical science had its knowledge from illegal operations on the graveyard. But I always learned the limits how far I could go in my experiments and curiosity.

So in moving to your experiments I surely ask myself what this should have to do with chess. I could imagine that if I tried to cheat on servers with illegal help of machines then of course I had interest in these details. What setting could help me most in bullet chess or such.

Until now you were asked several times but you avoided to answer. Why do you think that Rybka should cheat in any thinkable context because you want to make your experiments? Since you are very new here it is this unusual determination in judging against the best chess software which provokes my critics. Couldnt you first study a bit closer the forum traditions? Why this term cheat in your very first message?

Again I ask this because I started with the same verdict, but I was talking about tricky business practice while you attack the morals of the author of a chess softwar itself.

Best, Rolf

[Spacious_Mind]

But here is the rub, if you intend to use other platforms for your base and of course use other engines as your competition and become a Victor, then at least in my humble opinion use the settings provided correctly whether it be ponder on or off, random, ply etc so that you can play against Rybka in a way that these platform settings were intended. I genuinely mean this for every chess engine after all do not all programmers obtain their greatest satisfaction from seeing their creations however strong or weak be used and enjoyed without question by other people? Everyone here in this Forum I think has their own reasons for playing games with chess engines. I think mine have already been outlined.

If for example Rybka had clear disclaimers stating that for whatever uses it is not suitable then I would not have a problem with this at all because then I as a consumer could make my choice accordingly.

Let me humbly disagree with all that. NB when I was a kid I dismantled night watches because I wanted to understand the mechanical secrets, later I even had a complete Swiss chronometer on a handkerchief right in front of me with its dozens of parts, because the cleaning was a typical job for patients in Switzerland. But different to you I already knew as a kid if I missed the rebuilding of the entity that I was the responsible and not the factory. Thats crystal clear Western logic that is taught in West-Europe. Very early I learned however that worldwide this isnt the only existing wisdom. Magic and fraud normally reign everywhere.

Later I realised that our so clean medical science had its knowledge from illegal operations on the graveyard. But I always learned the limits how far I could go in my experiments and curiosity.

So in moving to your experiments I surely ask myself what this should have to do with chess. I could imagine that if I tried to cheat on servers with illegal help of machines then of course I had interest in these details. What setting could help me most in bullet chess or such.

Until now you were asked several times but you avoided to answer. Why do you think that Rybka should cheat in any thinkable context because you want to make your experiments? Since you are very new here it is this unusual determination in judging against the best chess software which provokes my critics. Couldnt you first study a bit closer the forum traditions? Why this term cheat in your very first message?

Again I ask this because I started with the same verdict, but I was talking about tricky business practice while you attack the morals of the author of a chess softwar itself.

Best, Rolf

Hi Rolf,

I am reading and listening to your concerns and to your interesting life experiences, observations and past debates. But there is absolutely nothing of value that I can give you to the question that you are trying to get me to answer, I think you are making too many assumptions about what I wrote and what I think beyond the specific question that I asked.

With your “quote” from my previous post you already captured why I asked the question, which is "Does Rybka like latte machiato in ply?"

And then I followed this with a clear and specific question to all the learned people here as follows;

What I noticed was that most engines playing 5 ply on my laptop take about 30 seconds for 100 moves ie Stockfish 1.5.1, whereas Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit takes about half this time and almost gives me the feeling that Rybka continues to Ponder even though it is turned off. This also seems inconsistent with other engines that I tested. It actually feels way stronger then other engines with these settings.

Of course Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit may be a lot more efficient at these settings but perhaps there are some other explanations or perhaps I am missing something in the settings.

If anyone knows more about setting Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit to play ply games without Ponder then please let me know.

Therefore you have my concern and my question. The one response already ended this question days ago, since no one else added anything further.

I do not understand why you are trying to misrepresent my question or read further agendas into it. I asked a very precise and specific chess question (unanswered by you) therefore I do not possibly see what qualifies you to ask me an unrelated question and link your question to mine?

Let me ask you or anyone one else who might be interested in this chess question. A few years ago it was quite common for people to play ply tournaments, but I have not seen any really in recent years. Probably because the interest has moved on into other areas and is no longer something that means anything in the way modern engines are designed. (I am just PONDERING aloud here). Now if TODAY I wanted to play a ply tournament with all the top engines in the world at the discussed 5 ply or any other ply (no old computers and dedicates), would the outcome be predetermined and if so would the outcome reflect the same ELO differences (taking into consideration the depth of search) as shown in ELO Lists in other Websites for other Level Settings? Or would the gap between engines be smaller or larger (because of their different approaches in search) or is it meaningless because ply search is no longer a consideration worth looking into. Or is this a stupid question? Any answer will do so long as it sticks to chess

I think I told you already I am not interested in Politics and Religion. I am also not interested Psychological Games, Upmanships, Downmanships or any other kind of ships

You asked about respect to the different people of the world or something similar in your first post. Were those just nice words or do you live your life by your words? Because if you live by what you have preached then I imagine as a learned scientist you will respect me and also respect the concise and specific question I asked, irrespective of it's naivety or relevancy in your world of thought.

Best regards

Nick

[Spacious_Mind]

Movei has no problem to play at time control of 600 moves/1 minute but movei is not going to use 1/10 second per move in these conditions if this is your target because it has better time management and it practically treats it the same as 1 minute per game.

My guess is that movei 8-11 plies is clearly stronger than Chesscard 5-7 plies.

It is only a guess because I know nothing about Chesscard but I am sure that movei 8-11 plies is clearly stronger than stockfish 5-7 plies.

Uri

I am starting to despair again Yesterday was late and perhaps I should not have posted without taking more care in what I write. For the listed moves Movei used about 21 seconds out of it's 60 therefore this probably explains it's high ply of 8-11. With the setting of 600 moves in 1 minute it may never get to a situation where it rushes or loses on time but at the same time it will probably play at a deeper search depth then intended for my platform comparisons.

Today I played another game at 50 moves in 0.6 seconds taking into consideration your 0.02 activation time which for my laptop might have to be set even higher after some tests. But at this level at first it started with searches of 5 and 6 ply then after 10 or so moves it dropped down to 3 ply so this method does not work well either, the engines performance dropped drastically with this setting.

I feel I really want to allow the programs whatever the platform the flexibility to choose their average time instead of fixed time because this I think would allow them to take better advantage of their programmers intentions but this is a really tough nut to crack sofar.

Yesterday's 600/1 option probably works but might be too high in search depth.

A C64 program at 180 sec will likely play anywhere between 4-6. The Final Chesscard (5 Mhz) 5-7 ply at 36 seconds therefore this is comparable...but the engine still eludes a correct time level setting An engine with its modern searches might go deeper but I cannot tell this at the moment because the different methods I used so far refuse to play ball.

Is there a possible way to calculate nodes and set Winboard's engines with an average or fixed timing control through nodes? Is this possible and would this be effective.

Also I worry about Winboards ability to control anything lower than 1 second per move.

The Final Chesscard came out in 1989 by TASC B.V. It is a 5 MHz card that plugs into the cartridge port of a C64/128. There was also a PC ISA Card Version of this card that came out at around the same time. It is considered by many a dedicated computer (this point is often disputed) even though you need a computer and a computer monitor or tv to use it, because all the programing and processing and controls were set into the card. The computer was only used as an interface for Options and display via a TV or Monitor. The programmer I believe was a Dutchman named Mark Derksen and judging from my games with it I estimate it to be around 1800-1900 Elo. The game is loaded with options and a lot of fun to play. Tasc B/V later created some other 16 and 32 Mhz cards with Ed Schroeder's Gideon programs from Version 2.0 to 3.1 and Johann DeKonings King programs from Version 0.5 to 2.2 and 2.54. The Madrid 3.1 Version from Ed Schroeder was winner of the last ever official dedicated Worldchampionship in 1991.

The Final Chesscard looks like this:











Best regards

Nick

[Rolf]

But here is the rub, if you intend to use other platforms for your base and of course use other engines as your competition and become a Victor, then at least in my humble opinion use the settings provided correctly whether it be ponder on or off, random, ply etc so that you can play against Rybka in a way that these platform settings were intended. I genuinely mean this for every chess engine after all do not all programmers obtain their greatest satisfaction from seeing their creations however strong or weak be used and enjoyed without question by other people? Everyone here in this Forum I think has their own reasons for playing games with chess engines. I think mine have already been outlined.

If for example Rybka had clear disclaimers stating that for whatever uses it is not suitable then I would not have a problem with this at all because then I as a consumer could make my choice accordingly.

Let me humbly disagree with all that. NB when I was a kid I dismantled night watches because I wanted to understand the mechanical secrets, later I even had a complete Swiss chronometer on a handkerchief right in front of me with its dozens of parts, because the cleaning was a typical job for patients in Switzerland. But different to you I already knew as a kid if I missed the rebuilding of the entity that I was the responsible and not the factory. Thats crystal clear Western logic that is taught in West-Europe. Very early I learned however that worldwide this isnt the only existing wisdom. Magic and fraud normally reign everywhere.

Later I realised that our so clean medical science had its knowledge from illegal operations on the graveyard. But I always learned the limits how far I could go in my experiments and curiosity.

So in moving to your experiments I surely ask myself what this should have to do with chess. I could imagine that if I tried to cheat on servers with illegal help of machines then of course I had interest in these details. What setting could help me most in bullet chess or such.

Until now you were asked several times but you avoided to answer. Why do you think that Rybka should cheat in any thinkable context because you want to make your experiments? Since you are very new here it is this unusual determination in judging against the best chess software which provokes my critics. Couldnt you first study a bit closer the forum traditions? Why this term cheat in your very first message?

Again I ask this because I started with the same verdict, but I was talking about tricky business practice while you attack the morals of the author of a chess softwar itself.

Best, Rolf

Hi Rolf,

I am reading and listening to your concerns and to your interesting life experiences, observations and past debates. But there is absolutely nothing of value that I can give you to the question that you are trying to get me to answer, I think you are making too many assumptions about what I wrote and what I think beyond the specific question that I asked.

With your “quote” from my previous post you already captured why I asked the question, which is "Does Rybka like latte machiato in ply?"

And then I followed this with a clear and specific question to all the learned people here as follows;

What I noticed was that most engines playing 5 ply on my laptop take about 30 seconds for 100 moves ie Stockfish 1.5.1, whereas Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit takes about half this time and almost gives me the feeling that Rybka continues to Ponder even though it is turned off. This also seems inconsistent with other engines that I tested. It actually feels way stronger then other engines with these settings.

Of course Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit may be a lot more efficient at these settings but perhaps there are some other explanations or perhaps I am missing something in the settings.

If anyone knows more about setting Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit to play ply games without Ponder then please let me know.

Therefore you have my concern and my question. The one response already ended this question days ago, since no one else added anything further.

I do not understand why you are trying to misrepresent my question or read further agendas into it. I asked a very precise and specific chess question (unanswered by you) therefore I do not possibly see what qualifies you to ask me an unrelated question and link your question to mine?

Let me ask you or anyone one else who might be interested in this chess question. A few years ago it was quite common for people to play ply tournaments, but I have not seen any really in recent years. Probably because the interest has moved on into other areas and is no longer something that means anything in the way modern engines are designed. (I am just PONDERING aloud here). Now if TODAY I wanted to play a ply tournament with all the top engines in the world at the discussed 5 ply or any other ply (no old computers and dedicates), would the outcome be predetermined and if so would the outcome reflect the same ELO differences (taking into consideration the depth of search) as shown in ELO Lists in other Websites for other Level Settings? Or would the gap between engines be smaller or larger (because of their different approaches in search) or is it meaningless because ply search is no longer a consideration worth looking into. Or is this a stupid question? Any answer will do so long as it sticks to chess

I think I told you already I am not interested in Politics and Religion. I am also not interested Psychological Games, Upmanships, Downmanships or any other kind of ships

You asked about respect to the different people of the world or something similar in your first post. Were those just nice words or do you live your life by your words? Because if you live by what you have preached then I imagine as a learned scientist you will respect me and also respect the concise and specific question I asked, irrespective of it's naivety or relevancy in your world of thought.

Best regards

Nick

Hi Nick,
my point is just that you come here with a valid and highly interesting question and then you use the word CHEAT in yor title. So, excuse me but we have a situation where IMO shortsighted-wise the whole competition is being destroyed in a field where over 90% is always taken from other sources it is now argued that all smart but poor talents from East Europe where you cant enforce copyright laws should have the right to publish their code not to play with it on the Wch but just to destroy the market for the little pool of yearlong managed progs. Was that intended with Freedom of Speech in the USA? Hate speech and public code against the best chess engine??

[Spacious_Mind]

Hi Nick,
my point is just that you come here with a valid and highly interesting question and then you use the word CHEAT in yor title. So, excuse me but we have a situation where IMO shortsighted-wise the whole competition is being destroyed in a field where over 90% is always taken from other sources it is now argued that all smart but poor talents from East Europe where you cant enforce copyright laws should have the right to publish their code not to play with it on the Wch but just to destroy the market for the little pool of yearlong managed progs. Was that intended with Freedom of Speech in the USA? Hate speech and public code against the best chess engine??

Good morning Rolf,

The word I used may be inapropriate, but on the other hand not. I asked the question in order to find out if I should be banning the program in playing games at the stated setting against other programs. I could have named the question "Irregular", "Different", "Unusual" but nothing changes with the question.

I really hate rules and regulations when I am at work and I always look for shortcuts or ways to change or bend them to my needs, therefore that part I understand and appreciate, if people are working to push against the borders since this often leads to the next step of advancements. But since I love sports in general I have to concede that rules are important (until it is changed for everyone) because otherwise you would not be able to govern a sport successfully and everything ends in chaos and the sport would lose attraction. Would you allow a team to play soccer with 12 players against an opponent, or a swimmer have his feet artificially extended, allow drugs in sport? In all these instances I think the contestant or team would end up not being allowed to play the competition, not until the situation is reviewed and ruled on.

For the games against opponents at 5 ply (and I am sorry if I keep harping about 5 ply, but that was the rule for these games), the program shows irregularities which need to be investigated and ruled on before I can allow it to compete with other engines (athletes) in this sport. Therefore the program is temporarily banned from competing in these matches

The question that concerns you, is a difficult one for me to answer because I am not a suitable person to enter this discussion because I am not a programmer and therefore my rights to commenting do not exist. I can only as I have done in my question with ply, ask specific questions based on the the experiences and behaviours I observe in playing games. The insides of engines is not my territory today.

Sometimes answers are very simple. If am an author and I spent thousands of hours writing a book using my own words and ideas and not copying someone elses, then of course I should be protected.

But even this simple example becomes difficult sometimes and I do not have a base for any kind of answer. How much of any engine really belongs to an author is I think the question and the dilemma. I am not sure but I do not think that there is a program that exists in this world which was written 100% from scratch and 100% from the mind of the author. Parts were taken either from other authors freely or not freely and there I think your problem lies. Which is what in this case? I do not think that the program in discussion or any other program that makes a similar stand can afford to open its books because I imagine that X% is probably never original programming code. There I think may be the dilemma and the reason for the fight for protection. Sometimes it is not what you have done (which you can protect, there are laws for this I am sure) it is more for what you have not done and for the big monster MONEY

All the best

Nick