Strelka and Rybka : played in 4 seconds !!!

[Sedat Canbaz]

Hello,

Just i'd like to inform you that the both engines:Strelka and Rybka are found the mate in 3 seconds and both engines are played in 4 seconds !

To see more different engines with the same position,please have a look:
http://www.sedatchess.com/hardwares.html



Used Hardware :Intel QX6700 Quad 2.66 GHz
Operating System: Windows XP Professional x64
Used Chess GUI :Deep Fritz 10 (20.05.2007)
HashTable Size :128 MB ( for all )
Time Control for the mate position:30 min


Not:The engines never saw the current mate position before,
they are just started to analyse for the 1st time on that pc !
------------------------------------------


[D]3Q4/bp3pp1/6k1/8/7R/6p1/B2p1PP1/q1rn2K1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Strelka 1.8 UCI played in 4 seconds:

1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 1 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 4 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 4 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 4 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 6 00:00:00 66kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 7 00:00:00 158kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 8 00:00:00 414kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 9 00:00:01 1162kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 10 00:00:02 3088kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+ Kf3

11.Qxf5+ Ke2 12.Qb5+ Rc4 13.Qxc4+ Kf3 14.Bd5#
+- (#14) Depth: 11 00:00:03 8340kN

*******************************************************************************


[D]3Q4/bp3pp1/6k1/8/7R/6p1/B2p1PP1/q1rn2K1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit played in 4 seconds:

1.Rg4+
= (0.00) Depth: 3 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 4 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7 4.Qh4+ Kg8 5.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7 4.Qh4+ Kg8 5.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 6 00:00:00 6kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7 4.Qh4+ Kg8 5.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 7 00:00:00 22kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7 4.Qh4+ Kg8 5.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 8 00:00:01 74kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7 4.Qh4+ Kg8 5.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 9 00:00:03 211kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5
+- (320.00) Depth: 9 00:00:03 223kN


****************************************************************************


[D]3Q4/bp3pp1/6k1/8/7R/6p1/B2p1PP1/q1rn2K1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Toga II 1.3x4 played in 47 seconds:

1.Qxd2 Nxf2+ 2.Qxc1 Qxc1#
-+ (-#2) Depth: 1/10 00:00:00
1.Bb1+ Qxb1 2.Qd6+ Kf5
-+ (-8.60) Depth: 1/13 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 1/15 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 2/18 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 3/21 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 4/24 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 5/28 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 6/32 00:00:00 159kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 7/35 00:00:00 399kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 8/40 00:00:00 1142kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Qh4+ Kg8 3.Qd8+ Kh7
= (0.00) Depth: 9/44 00:00:02 3022kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+ Kf3

11.Qxf5+ Ke2 12.Qb5+ Rc4 13.Qxc4+ Ke1 14.Qf1#
+- (#14) Depth: 9/44 00:00:05 5468kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+ Kf3

11.Qxf5+ Ke2 12.Qb5+ Rc4 13.Qxc4+ Ke1 14.Qf1#
+- (#14) Depth: 10/44 00:00:10 11265kN



*******************************************************************************



[D]3Q4/bp3pp1/6k1/8/7R/6p1/B2p1PP1/q1rn2K1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Spike 1.2 Turin played in 33 seconds::

1.Qd3+ Kf6 2.Qd6+ Kf5
-+ (-6.28) Depth: 1 00:00:00
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6
-+ (-5.57) Depth: 1 00:00:00
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6
-+ (-5.57) Depth: 1 00:00:00
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6
-+ (-5.57) Depth: 2 00:00:00
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6
-+ (-5.57) Depth: 2 00:00:00
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Qg3+ Kf6
-+ (-5.57) Depth: 3 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 3 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 3 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 3 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 4 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 4 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 5 00:00:00
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 6 00:00:00 51kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 6 00:00:00 126kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 7 00:00:00 153kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 7 00:00:00 300kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 8 00:00:00 352kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 8 00:00:00 733kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 9 00:00:00 845kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 9 00:00:01 1949kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 10 00:00:02 2194kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 10 00:00:04 4578kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 11 00:00:04 5153kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 11 00:00:08 10143kN
1.Rg4+ Kh7 2.Rh4+ Kg6
= (0.00) Depth: 12 00:00:10 11607kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+ Kf3

11.Qxf5+ Ke2 12.Qb5+
+- (#14) Depth: 12 00:00:12 13995kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+ Kf3

11.Qxf5+ Ke2 12.Qb5+
+- (#14) Depth: 12 00:00:12 13995kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+ Kf3

11.Qxf5+ Ke2 12.Qb5+
+- (18.72) Depth: 12 00:00:15 17659kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+
+- (19.91) Depth: 12 00:00:22 26155kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Qh2+ Kg6 6.Qg3+ Kh7 7.Qh4+ Kg6 8.Qg3+
= (0.00) Depth: 12 00:00:24 28639kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Qh2+ Kg6 6.Qg3+ Kh7 7.Qh4+ Kg6 8.Qg3+
= (0.00) Depth: 12 00:00:28 32942kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+ Kf3

11.Qxf5+
+- (#14) Depth: 13 00:00:28 33002kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+ Kf3

11.Qxf5+
+- (#14) Depth: 13 00:00:28 33002kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+ Kf3

11.Qxf5+ Ke2 12.Qb5+ Kf3 13.Qh5+ Ke4 14.Qd5#
+- (#14) Depth: 13 00:00:33 38737kN
1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+ Kf3

11.Qxf5+ Ke2 12.Qb5+ Kf3 13.Qh5+ Ke4 14.Qd5#
+- (#14) Depth: 13 00:00:33 38737kN

Best Wishes,
Sedat Canbaz

[AdminX]

Analysis by Alaric 70617: 24 Seconds

1.Qd3+ f5 2.Qxg3+ Kf6 3.Qd6+ Kg5 4.Rh5+ Kxh5 5.Bf7+ Kg5 6.Qg3+ Kf6 7.Qg6+ Ke5 8.Qe6+ Kf4 9.g3+ Kg4 10.Qg6+ Kf3 11.Qxf5+ Ke2 12.Qb5+ Kf3 13.Qh5+ Ke4 14.Qd5#
+- (#14) Depth: 10 00:00:24 12897kN

Pentium M 1.7

[Eelco de Groot]

Toga 1.3 x4 finds 1.Qd3+ in 5 seconds and Spike 1.2 finds 1.Qd3+ in 12 seconds, Rybka 1.0 Beta and Strelka 1.8 UCI are a bit faster, and both stop analyzing after they have found a matescore. As usual when these two programs have a similar evaluation, Strelka is two plies earlier than Rybka but the plydepths of Rybka 1.0 Beta are not the real plydepths. At least that is what I read in your results. Nothing more. I'm sorry Sedat but that is not telling an awful lot new, is it supposed to illustrate something about the similarities the two programs have? That is true up to a point, and I don't think it can be all coincidences, but what exactly does that say? What point are you trying to make?

Regards, Eelco

[Sedat Canbaz]

Hello,

With my current post i'd like to inform about the similarities of the two engines exactly on that mate position !

[D]3Q4/bp3pp1/6k1/8/7R/6p1/B2p1PP1/q1rn2K1 w - - 0 1


Just a question:
-Do you know why of these two chess programs are finding the mate position at 3 seconds and both engines are playing at 4 seconds and why rest of the engines can not find the same mate position in a such time ???


Thanks,
Sedat

[Eelco de Groot]

Hello,

With my current post i'd like to inform about the similarities of the two engines exactly on that mate position !

[D]3Q4/bp3pp1/6k1/8/7R/6p1/B2p1PP1/q1rn2K1 w - - 0 1


Just a question:
-Do you know why of these two chess programs are finding the mate position at 3 seconds and both engines are playing at 4 seconds and why rest of the engines can not find the same mate position in a such time ???


Thanks,
Sedat

Hello Sedat,

No, I do not know exactly why there are these sort of positions. Uri has posted more of these positions before and when you let Rybka and Strelka analyze together you will find more of them and also lots and lots of positions where the analysis is very different indeed.

It is possible that the author of Strelka had a good look at the way Rybka played, probably Rybka 1.0 Beta, and especially where his program played different things than Rybka.

He could also have taken a look at the compiled machinecode, which is not encrypted in Rybka 1.0 Beta. Actually then he would not be the first because that was done before as we all know, by other programmers who openly admitted this..

It is possible that he could have studied the behaviour of the program in these positions where it played different moves and could even have found a way to see what part of the code was analyzing them. He could maybe have tried to see what was going on in the program at that point in the code, and then try to do a very similar thing. That would certainly not be very original work anymore but it still would not make Strelka a copy. In my opinion it does not, but I'm no legal expert, this would possibly be pushing the limit of what is legal to do.

Not a clone: Dann Corbit and Bryan Hoffman as programmers and compilation experts from this forum have studied the source code of this program, not just the final program, the sources were supplied by the author, which he needn't have done to satisfy anyone's questions, and declared here in this forum that it is not a clone.

I'm just saying that is possible something like this happened however, you cannot 100% exclude that by studying the sources.

You must decide for yourself if to: either dislike that extremely much, or not really care very much about some possibly copied or very closely studied ideas, because on the other hand that still leaves a very interesting engine, part of the program could still represent years of original work and besides it is completely free.

Personally I'm somewhere in between.

If a known commercial program suddenly started to do such things, I would probably be very disappointed and not buy it anymore. There must be better ways to make progress. But I would not call that program an illegal clone in the sense that it was simply an outright copy of someone else's work and especially not when the experts here have also stated it is not a clone.

I think there are many programmers studying what Rybka is doing, maybe never by studying any inside machinecode but can they say 100% sure that after studying another program they are completely original in their own work? It is not possible.

That sums about up my thoughts about the subject, but everybody has to make their own opinion.

Regards,
Eelco