Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Man, I knew it: TCEC is ready, the engines are not ready.
Besides SF and Komodo there is no real competition, so I do not expect an interesting season. It would be completely different thing, if there were 2-3 other engines the level of SF and Komodo, then 5-10 times more people would follow TCEC, as the competition would be simply gorgeous. But with such dull competitors no big expectations.
One thing I would wish for the next season is a book roughly along the lines of the one we saw in stage 4 of last season, and not the one with which the final was played. Big difference indeed. The quality of chess in stage 4 was indeed much much higher.
I get great intrigue in seeing old giants being made to look like patzers, in comparrison with the most recent improvements.
Only then can we see that we are getting somewhere.
And for this reason too, I'd love to see Rybka 4.1 in it as well.
I wouldn't mind seeing Rybka 3 also.
There was a time in the early years of this millenium, when we had 4 or 5 almost equal competitors at the top: Fritz, Junior, Hiarcs, Shredder - and one never knew who was going to win the next event. This was a time of real competition and events were extremely interesting to follow, of course the level of chess was much lower.
In Rybka times there was no real competition, not interesting to follow events, almost the same was true of Houdini's supremacy - not much competition.
We need 2 or 3 more engines at the top, in order for things to get interesting and events to attract bigger attention. It is not difficult to create engines the level of SF and Komodo, as those are still relatively weak in a wide range of areas, but unfortunately, no one to create them...
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Man, I knew it: TCEC is ready, the engines are not ready.
Besides SF and Komodo there is no real competition, so I do not expect an interesting season. It would be completely different thing, if there were 2-3 other engines the level of SF and Komodo, then 5-10 times more people would follow TCEC, as the competition would be simply gorgeous. But with such dull competitors no big expectations.
One thing I would wish for the next season is a book roughly along the lines of the one we saw in stage 4 of last season, and not the one with which the final was played. Big difference indeed. The quality of chess in stage 4 was indeed much much higher.
I get great intrigue in seeing old giants being made to look like patzers, in comparrison with the most recent improvements.
Only then can we see that we are getting somewhere.
And for this reason too, I'd love to see Rybka 4.1 in it as well.
I wouldn't mind seeing Rybka 3 also.
There was a time in the early years of this millenium, when we had 4 or 5 almost equal competitors at the top: Fritz, Junior, Hiarcs, Shredder - and one never knew who was going to win the next event. This was a time of real competition and events were extremely interesting to follow, of course the level of chess was much lower.
In Rybka times there was no real competition, not interesting to follow events, almost the same was true of Houdini's supremacy - not much competition.
We need 2 or 3 more engines at the top, in order for things to get interesting and events to attract bigger attention. It is not difficult to create engines the level of SF and Komodo, as those are still relatively weak in a wide range of areas, but unfortunately, no one to create them...
There was a long period when Hiarcs was the top one, and a long period that Shredder (7.4?) was. And before all that there was the great genius 3. (some rating lists seemed to make things different, but i think that what i am saying was the accurate situation then).
Then came fruit and then Toga etc. And each were great in their time.
Until Rybka came out and topped all that came before it.
But now, SF and Komodo are almost absolutely matched and no one knows which is stronger, andneither is there much discussion as to which positions each one plays better/weaker than the other one.
And before SF and Komodo were the top 2, there were many engines around Rybka level, possibly a tad lower than rybka 4.1 and a tad stronger than Rybka 3. But all more or less equal.
They were considered to be the notorius clones, which spoiled a lot of fun and was not good for chess.
Maybe a part of the problem was that they were all almost equal.
Houdini just about got through them, but then there was a traffic jam until Komodo and SF got through them and are both together now.
It is better if there is a clear number 1, i think.
But i DO agree it is interesting if there are completely different styles of play, even if they are close in end results.
It would drain the brain trying to work out which engine is more correct, but at least it would be a system of how to think of what is going on (i.e. when you know that one is brilliant in tactics and the other profound in planning) between one engine and another.
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:It is not difficult to create engines the level of SF and Komodo, as those are still relatively weak in a wide range of areas, but unfortunately, no one to create them...
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Man, I knew it: TCEC is ready, the engines are not ready.
Besides SF and Komodo there is no real competition, so I do not expect an interesting season. It would be completely different thing, if there were 2-3 other engines the level of SF and Komodo, then 5-10 times more people would follow TCEC, as the competition would be simply gorgeous. But with such dull competitors no big expectations.
One thing I would wish for the next season is a book roughly along the lines of the one we saw in stage 4 of last season, and not the one with which the final was played. Big difference indeed. The quality of chess in stage 4 was indeed much much higher.
I get great intrigue in seeing old giants being made to look like patzers, in comparrison with the most recent improvements.
Only then can we see that we are getting somewhere.
And for this reason too, I'd love to see Rybka 4.1 in it as well.
I wouldn't mind seeing Rybka 3 also.
There was a time in the early years of this millenium, when we had 4 or 5 almost equal competitors at the top: Fritz, Junior, Hiarcs, Shredder - and one never knew who was going to win the next event. This was a time of real competition and events were extremely interesting to follow, of course the level of chess was much lower.
In Rybka times there was no real competition, not interesting to follow events, almost the same was true of Houdini's supremacy - not much competition.
We need 2 or 3 more engines at the top, in order for things to get interesting and events to attract bigger attention. It is not difficult to create engines the level of SF and Komodo, as those are still relatively weak in a wide range of areas, but unfortunately, no one to create them...
There was a long period when Hiarcs was the top one, and a long period that Shredder (7.4?) was. And before all that there was the great genius 3. (some rating lists seemed to make things different, but i think that what i am saying was the accurate situation then).
Then came fruit and then Toga etc. And each were great in their time.
Until Rybka came out and topped all that came before it.
But now, SF and Komodo are almost absolutely matched and no one knows which is stronger, andneither is there much discussion as to which positions each one plays better/weaker than the other one.
And before SF and Komodo were the top 2, there were many engines around Rybka level, possibly a tad lower than rybka 4.1 and a tad stronger than Rybka 3. But all more or less equal.
They were considered to be the notorius clones, which spoiled a lot of fun and was not good for chess.
Maybe a part of the problem was that they were all almost equal.
Houdini just about got through them, but then there was a traffic jam until Komodo and SF got through them and are both together now.
It is better if there is a clear number 1, i think.
But i DO agree it is interesting if there are completely different styles of play, even if they are close in end results.
It would drain the brain trying to work out which engine is more correct, but at least it would be a system of how to think of what is going on (i.e. when you know that one is brilliant in tactics and the other profound in planning) between one engine and another.
You are almost as funny as Frank is: clones or not, you can not do without Rybka and Houdini, they did a lot for chess.
Btw., there are way more and more complete clones than R and H in almost all rating lists, their authors have borrowed many more ideas from other engines on a ready-made basis and on a larger scale than R and H did, and their authors have had significantly less original ideas, own contributions, it is just that R and H are in the limelight, as they are strong and top, while other clones are much weaker.
So for me the whole clone discussion is a bit artificial.
About competition you are absolutely not right. Which Football Champions League is stronger and more fun to watch: one with just Barcelona and Real Madrid playing, or one with Barcelona, Real Madrid, Iuventus, Manchester United and Liverpool? Which pool attracts larger crowds?
It is the same in chess: the more equal strength top competitors you have, the more interesting the event and more fun to watch. Also the show is much better quality. So that a single engine dominance is not good at all for competition, but it simply happens that way from time to time, when the rest of the pack are not able to efficiently compete.
