Gaviota, Wasp, The Baron, Pro Deo

[matejst]

I have a few questions to some of our honourable members:

Miguel Ballicora: dear Miguel, do you still work on Gaviota? It's a fine engine I use a lot to analyze and I would be very disappointed if its development was finished. Will there be a new version anytime soon?

Frank Quisinsky: Do you know if John Stanback will release the version of Wasp you tested recently?

Ed Schröder: dear Ed, a new Pro Deo perhaps?

I am also interested in a more recent version of The Baron. Basically, I like to analyze and sometimes play against positionnal engines, and those some of my favourite (although I have recently discovered Zarkov 6.55, which also has a very... understandable style of play). I also think that the paradigm in computer chess these engine represent is not a dead end, quite the opposite, and that these engines have awful lot to offer.

I would be very grateful for answers, and some good news.

[BrendanJNorman]

I have a few questions to some of our honourable members:

Miguel Ballicora: dear Miguel, do you still work on Gaviota? It's a fine engine I use a lot to analyze and I would be very disappointed if its development was finished. Will there be a new version anytime soon?

Frank Quisinsky: Do you know if John Stanback will release the version of Wasp you tested recently?

Ed Schröder: dear Ed, a new Pro Deo perhaps?

I am also interested in a more recent version of The Baron. Basically, I like to analyze and sometimes play against positionnal engines, and those some of my favourite (although I have recently discovered Zarkov 6.55, which also has a very... understandable style of play). I also think that the paradigm in computer chess these engine represent is not a dead end, quite the opposite, and that these engines have awful lot to offer.

I would be very grateful for answers, and some good news.

+1

I also REdiscovered Prodeo 1.2/1.6 and really like the default playing style (even without personalities).

The Baron 1.7.0 is a fun engine and yep Zarkov is great - I like the 4.5e version, but 6.55 is nice too.

As for Wasp, I actually like the 1.01 version most, for me, strength isn't everything (more testing required to truly test 1.01 with the most recent version though).

Another thing you could do is tweak the new Rodent pre-release and make a very positional personality.

Pawel reveals a mouth-watering array of options for tuners in UCI options.


I could literally test this one engine all day.

Ed has begun a similar approach, making personality creation much easier than before (which was to edit text files).

P.S Which version of Gaviota should I test?

[matejst]

Dear Brendan,

I already use Rodent III with the Rubinstein personnality. I hoped for a Karpov personnality, but one needs time to understand the engine one already uses. I'll stick with Rubinstein for now, then I'll try Fischer with white and Petrosian with black.

About Pro Deo: its search is faster now, but its game makes less sense. And I have already seen Ed's tweaking tool. Recently, I also found a huge collection of excellent personnalities for Pro Deo on another site.

About Wasp: I didn't use the first one. I find the latest version very sensible, and I am mostly interested in features: learning ability, multi PV. John promised all of this, and the 20 ELO improvements is totally irrelevant to me.

I often analyze openings with engines -- I do my own calculations and search my own plan, than compare with the game (or book) and the engine output. And here, in position where there are no clear paths, one can really discover the engine... let's say... "personnality". I was delighted with Gandalf 7, and the last Zarkov, at 12 plies, is somewhere on my screen, although it usually find much better moves with more time, at 14 or 15 plies. But I also need time to make my mind, so it's okay.

I am against TBs, since I have the impression that authors code less and less knowledge in engines -- seems to be the easier way. I expected a lot of Norman (the other one), but I play chess under wine, in a 32-bit system, and can't get Fire to work. I had it under windows, on another machine, but it just looks too "machine-like".

Saw that Miguel had a 1.01 version of Gaviota at TCEC, and hoped for a new version, perhaps with more knowledge in endings (although Miguel B. developed its own TBs), or a way to recognize better closed pawn structures.

Then, I think it's the right paradigm. When I see how Aronian beats Carlsen, I have no doubts that the change of time control, the transformation of chess in a full fledge sport for young players deteriorated his quality. It's kinds "the Kasparov approach", with engines instead of a team of seconds. You win in the opening or you wait for a blunder. Players like Karpov, Salov, or even Fischer, with a great positionnal technique are out of fashion.

And now, when the development of Stockfish has stalled, I guess it's time not for simplification, but for a more developped evaluation, use of selected data (Ed think that there is more in big data, but there must be a way to extract knowledge from big data, the way Larry tries).

I am very disappointed that chess engines aren't opponents any more, hadn't become teachers, but are only used for hyperbullet matches and tournaments.

[matejst]

P.S Which version of Gaviota should I test?

I use the Gaviota 1.0 version. It's a fine positionnal player, and if you use it as a WB engine, there are a lot of options and features: books, learning, book learning... It's very balanced, not too fast, and I like its plans. It's a tough positionnal player, a bit weaker than Wasp, probably, although better in simple positions (Wasp is faster). It's often able to find original and active plans that make sense while being refreshing.

I often read your blog (and use your rating list and comments to find new engines), so it's probably not the kind of attacking player you seem to have a penchant for. But, why not try it for yourself?

I forgot to mention SmarThink as one of my favourite engine, and I feel that Markoff is on the right track, although he seems to have slowed down a bit with the development.

I liked StockFish a few years ago: it played very well complicated endgames, positions somewhere between middlegame and pure endgame. But although you name this kind of engines "truth seeker", I am very disappointed with its new iterations. The development is focused on beating other engines -- and it's well known that speed is primordial in this. That's what it has become: a modern beancounter.

Ed tried to use Toga's search with different evaluations, but, unfortunately, he's semi-retired, because he could have discovered new ways of doing things.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi,

1. Gaviota
No engine played more games as Gaviota in FCP Rating List with more as 11.000 games (without looking, after the information I have in my brain). I had so many fun with Gaviota and I like the engine a lot. I hope that Miguel don't lost the fun on computer chess. The work on Ordo must be very hard and Miguel do here a lot for all of us. Absolutly clear ... after this hard work the programmer need a break ... loud thinking ... of coures not sure, loud thinking only.

2. Wasp
The beta in my test made +25 after 4.000 games. John have a newer beta with +15 to the beta before or +40 to the last release version. I am testing after the FEOBOS Spark test-run a newer Wasp version. John have the opinion that a new release will be ready if Wasp can offer +50 Elo. So a new release version can be available middle - end of October or a bit later. At the moment John is working on it. With other words v3 is on the way.

Best
Frank

PS: A new Gaviota version would be great. I like Gaviota so much ... and the christmas time with Wasp - Gaviota can be very interesting. Miguel and Arena ... Gaviota is a partner program from Arena. Migual supported Arena from the first hour in young years. I ask him and got directly the "yes". For me is Migual one of the best chess programmers in the World. Of course John Stanback too (without any words). But my topic is Gaviota ... yes, Argentina have the computer chess flagship and the guys from Argentina can be very proud. I am not from Argentina, but I am proud too for the work Miguel do and if I read messages from him ... from the knowledge Miguel must have and humanly ... the manner of doing in his messages here.

[Kohflote]

Hi,

In your experience which (Giovta or Rodent III, Rubinstein personality) plays better positional chess?

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi,

can't say it.
Not easy the topic: Positional style!

From Rodent I know the standard setting from my own games. Very strong in tactics with many pieces on board.

But indeed, in the late middlegame Gaviota can play very fine positional moves. I think one of the strenghts of Gaviota. In the beginning Gaviota have some tactical holes. Rodent is in endgames not good.

But to the positional style ...
Here I am not strong enough to see that in detail. Feeling is only that Gaviota can play strong positional moves in the late middlegame.

Also not easy to generate statistics about "positional styles".

Best
Frank

[BrendanJNorman]

Hi,

In your experience which (Giovta or Rodent III, Rubinstein personality) plays better positional chess?

LOTS to say on this matter.

Already done a small test on Gaviota (wow!), and can compare to my Rodent II Karpov personality and some others.

I haven't checked out Rubinstein personality of Rodent ( I will!), but have my own Capablanca personality which is interesting.

Will update this thread after I finish working today (3pm Beijing time).

See you soon friends.

[Rebel]

Ed Schroder: dear Ed, a new Pro Deo perhaps?

Actually I just released one, but you need to go to the CTF sub forum. Not suitable to post it here.

[BrendanJNorman]

Ed Schroder: dear Ed, a new Pro Deo perhaps?

Actually I just released one, but you need to go to the CTF sub forum. Not suitable to post it here.

Ed, you are literally the Einstein of chess programming.

So many crazy (but creatively brilliant) ideas coming in each release.

Here's the link for anybody interested in what I'm talking about (I know you're curious)

http://rebel13.nl/prodeo/prodeo25.html

By the way, keeping the theme of this thread, how would you suggest making a ProDeo personality as positional as possible?