Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
It is also improving at a rate of ~100 "real world" Elo per day (conservatively) with quite limited resources.LCZero went 23 - 75 - 2 against Stockfish (L0), which would give it a conservative Elo rating around 900 by now.
Absolutely right, look at this game, for example; after move 33, black is left without any more choices other than moving the king around, and white just refuses to checkmate:Uri Blass wrote:From CCRL:
LaMoSca 0.10-Brutus RND 10.5-9.5(only one win for LaMoSca)
Ram 2.0-Brutus RND 20-0
Ram 2.0-LaMoSca 0.10 11.5-9.5(only 2 wins for Ram)
Without seeing the games I suspect that LaMoSca is one of the program that should be removed from CCRL because it artificially increase the rating of the random player.
Probably LaMoSca is relatively strong in the opening but later allow stalemates or repetitions and without seeing the games I suspect that in most games it get a winning advantage against Ram 2.0 but translate it to a draw.
That's a perfect review of the above game.CMCanavessi wrote:I have ran LaMoSca in my tournaments A LOT and it has an issue, it can't win (or maybe it was programed that way deliberately). It will not promote pawns, they will all remain in the 7th rank forever (except very rare cases where they can take a piece in the 8th rank). Its "real" strenght is around 800-1000 elo, but after capturing every piece of the oponent, it will 3-fold. That's why it will have a lot of draws, and no wins.
I guess that as LCZ strenght goes up, people will start paying more attention to it, meaning more people will help the project by training it. IMHO, it will have to get to ~2700 elo to catch some attraction. After that, it may become the new stockfish, or maybe stockfish will become the new LCZjhellis3 wrote:It is also improving at a rate of ~100 "real world" Elo per day (conservatively) with quite limited resources.LCZero went 23 - 75 - 2 against Stockfish (L0), which would give it a conservative Elo rating around 900 by now.
Of course that won't hold for too long before saturation and overall strength requiring more playouts/depth becomes an issue. Still, I wonder how many people believe a human based eval engine will be the strongest available by the end of the year.
I have only seen it win twice, both due to capturing moves. It looks to be the only way it can promote a pawn or checkmate (maybe a bug in the code that deliberately prevents it making winning moves, just speculating).Ozymandias wrote:Absolutely right, look at this game, for example; after move 33, black is left without any more choices other than moving the king around, and white just refuses to checkmate:Uri Blass wrote:From CCRL:
LaMoSca 0.10-Brutus RND 10.5-9.5(only one win for LaMoSca)
Ram 2.0-Brutus RND 20-0
Ram 2.0-LaMoSca 0.10 11.5-9.5(only 2 wins for Ram)
Without seeing the games I suspect that LaMoSca is one of the program that should be removed from CCRL because it artificially increase the rating of the random player.
Probably LaMoSca is relatively strong in the opening but later allow stalemates or repetitions and without seeing the games I suspect that in most games it get a winning advantage against Ram 2.0 but translate it to a draw.
[pgn][Event "CCRL 40/4"]
[Site "CCRL"]
[Date "2012.08.10"]
[Round "173.4.75"]
[White "LaMoSca 0.10"]
[Black "Brutus RND"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "477"]
[BlackElo "202"]
[ECO "D10"]
[Opening "QGD Slav defence"]
[PlyCount "158"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Qc2 Nf6 4. Nf3 g6 5. e3 Bf5 6. Bd3 Bxd3 7. Qxd3 Bg7 8. Qd1 Qd7 9. cxd5 Qxd5 10. h4 b5 11. Nc3 Qh5 12. Ne2 Bh6 13. b4 Bg7 14. Bb2 e6 15. Nf4 h6 16. Nxh5 e5 17. Nxf6+ Bxf6 18. Bc3 e4 19. Nd2 Na6 20. Qc1 Ke7 21. Nb3 Nc5 22. Nxc5 Bxd4 23. Bxd4 Rhc8 24. Bf6+ Ke8 25. f4 a6 26. Qa3 g5 27. fxg5 Rd8 28. Bxd8 h5 29. Bf6 Rc8 30. Qxa6 Rb8 31. Qxc6+ Kf8 32. Nd7+ Ke8 33. Nxb8+ Kf8 34. Qxe4 Kg8 35. Nc6 Kf8 36. Ne5 Kg8 37. Qd5 Kh7 38. Qxb5 Kg8 39. Qe2 Kf8 40. Qxh5 Ke8 41. Nxf7 Kd7 42. Bd4 Ke7 43. Ne5 Kd8 44. e4 Ke7 45. g6 Kd8 46. g7 Kc7 47. b5 Kd6 48. b6 Ke7 49. Qg6 Kd8 50. a4 Kc8 51. g4 Kb7 52. a5 Kc8 53. a6 Kd8 54. b7 Ke7 55. a7 Kd8 56. Qc6 Ke7 57. g5 Kd8 58. g6 Ke7 59. h5 Kd8 60. h6 Ke7 61. Qd7+ Kf6 62. Qc8 Kg5 63. Qc6 Kf4 64. Qc2 Kg3 65. h7 Kf4 66. Nd7 Kg3 67. Nb6 Kg4 68. Nd5 Kg3 69. e5 Kg4 70. e6 Kg3 71. e7 Kf3 72. Nc7 Kg4 73. Nd5 Kf3 74. Nc7 Kg4 75. Nd5 Kg3 76. Nc7 Kf4 77. Nd5+ Kg5 78. Nc7 Kf4 79. Nd5+ Kf3 1/2-1/2
[/pgn]That's a perfect review of the above game.CMCanavessi wrote:I have ran LaMoSca in my tournaments A LOT and it has an issue, it can't win (or maybe it was programed that way deliberately). It will not promote pawns, they will all remain in the 7th rank forever (except very rare cases where they can take a piece in the 8th rank). Its "real" strenght is around 800-1000 elo, but after capturing every piece of the oponent, it will 3-fold. That's why it will have a lot of draws, and no wins.
The ELO value has nothing to do with the usual ELO values.Jhoravi wrote:Hi. I explored some games on the given link http://162.217.248.187/user/GaryS But the blunderfeasted games are nowhere near 2000 elo IMO. Am I missing something?
I'll bite. Why?Not a very good start in my opinion.
LolLeo wrote:Not a very good start in my opinion.