Curiosity Engine ??? (For Now It's Number 1 )

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Ozymandias
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:30 am

Re: Curiosity Engine ??? (For Now It's Number 1 )

Post by Ozymandias » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:36 am

IWB wrote:Ponder off was a compromise for engine games when you had limited resources years ago (which is no problem nowadays) but it is not the normal way to play chess. That is why I consider Ponder OFF games as a sub group of "real", "full" or "name it as you want" chess.

Bye
Ingo
Limited resources will always be a concern.

As for the normal way to play chess, as you mentioned before, I think that's Ponder=Off, which is how most people test.

IWB
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:02 pm

Re: Curiosity Engine ??? (For Now It's Number 1 )

Post by IWB » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:45 am

Ozymandias wrote:
IWB wrote:Ponder off was a compromise for engine games when you had limited resources years ago (which is no problem nowadays) but it is not the normal way to play chess. That is why I consider Ponder OFF games as a sub group of "real", "full" or "name it as you want" chess.

Bye
Ingo
Limited resources will always be a concern.

As for the normal way to play chess, as you mentioned before, I think that's Ponder=Off, which is how most people test.
I completly disagree here. No online game in chess, neither man or engine, is played ponder off. No one even would start to think of doing an online game or an over the board game playing ponder off. Why is that? Because they can. As soon as you don't care for the resources anymore you naturaly start to play Ponder ON. Ergo, that is the normal way to play chess and not the other way around.
Besides that: Ponder off is incredible boring to watch compared to Ponder ON games :-)

supersharp77
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 5:54 am
Location: Southwest USA

Re: Curiosity Engine ??? What in the World?!?!

Post by supersharp77 » Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:30 am

mehmet karaman wrote:I don't think Ingo is testing a clone engine.

He hasn't tested a clone or nearly clone engine of Stockfish yet (Sugar, Shark, Orca...) and he hasn't tested some derivative engines like Ippolit, Ivanhoe, Fire, ....

Steve Maughan wrote this at 07/07/2015 "The version of Shredder which played is a complete rewrite. Stefan only started the rewrite at the beginning of the year. It's a bitboards engine, as opposed to the letterbox structure used in previous versions. Stefan had also implemented a novel multi threading algorithm which seems to scale extremely well. He said he's aiming to have it released before the end of the year. I think it's got a good chance of eventually competing for the #1 position."

My decision is curiosity engine is the new chess engine of Stefan.
Nay Lin Tun wrote:Ipon is an old well known rating site comparable to CCRL and CEGT. The time control and other setting can be seen in the conditions tab.

If you say so.... From the Ipon site:
"General remarks:
This rating list is made for my private enjoyment! I am happy to provide it and hope you like it too.
In case you don't like it, I am sorry and hope you find something that fits your needs. Nonetheless
I will listen to any good argument about what could be improved or might be wrong."
ps. no games (pgn) avail for download.... :)

IWB
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:02 pm

Re: Curiosity Engine ??? (For Now It's Number 1 )

Post by IWB » Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:17 am

SzG wrote: As far as I know the way machines ponder is not the way humans do it.
Arguing that way, the whole chess engines are playing is not the way humans play it!
SzG wrote: There are two types of ponder, a human type and a machine type. Humans ponder while their opponents think but usually continue thinking after the opponent made his move, even if they have guessed the move. Machines do not think further when there is a ponder hit, they move immediately,
That is wrong, some do but not even all the times, as humans move imediatly sometimes ...
SzG wrote: I may be wrong here ...
You said that :-)
SzG wrote: Anyway, I can't see how ponder on could make watching more interesting. You have the output of the engine on move, why do you want two?
I said "I" think it more interesting. I dont mind what you do but can only advice to watch a few longer games to see how an engine is missing a move while its opponent thinks this particular move is winning (and then too see who is right or not) That is actually the only thrilling part which is left in computer chess as no human can understand what the top engines are doing :-)

At last: I think Ponder ON the the normal way of playing chess. I like that much more and think Ponder OFF is the lesser chess (another nice name). Whatever someone else thinks is his business, I just might not agree :-)

Ingo

User avatar
Ozymandias
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:30 am

Re: Curiosity Engine ??? (For Now It's Number 1 )

Post by Ozymandias » Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:04 pm

IWB wrote:No online game in chess, neither man or engine, is played ponder off. […] As soon as you don't care for the resources anymore you naturally start to play Ponder ON. Ergo, that is the normal way to play chess and not the other way around.
Besides that: Ponder off is incredible boring to watch compared to Ponder ON games :-)
Even if that were the case, which it's not (TCEC), the amount of online games isn't the total amount of games played. To determine what's normal, you have to consider them all.
You say you don't care what name is used, to label a particular tournament condition, like ponder, but so far, you've used the adjectives "real", "normal" and "natural". Words matter, and by using those, you're trying to establish some sort of irrefutable argument. In fact, with your last post, you've gone one step forward, and introduced a logical term: ergo. But the thing is, there's no logical conclusion to be reached here, there're just points in favor or against.
One thing we can agree upon, your last comment is beside the point.

Vinvin
Posts: 4862
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:40 am
Full name: Vincent Lejeune

Re: Curiosity Engine ??? (For Now It's Number 1 )

Post by Vinvin » Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:06 pm

IWB wrote:I know it would belong in the other section but I dont want to start another thread:

You are very close to your goal for a new release. If the current SF woudl be a final release the TOP of my list (if someone cares) would look like this:

Code: Select all

   1 SF151031                     :   3229     11   2771.5    3520   78.7%      98
   2 Komodo 9.2                   :   3214     11   3281.5    4180   78.5%     100
   3 Komodo 9                     :   3190     10   3120.0    3960   78.8%      89
   4 Stockfish 6                  :   3182      9   3951.5    5280   74.8%     100
   5 Stockfish 5s                 :   3141      8   3972.5    5280   75.2%      53
   6 Komodo 8                     :   3141      9   3789.5    5060   74.9%     100
   7 Houdini 4                    :   3127      6   7639.5   10590   72.1%     100
   8 Komodo 7a                    :   3104      9   2798.5    3960   70.7%      79
...
How did you count games where SF crashed : lost, win or doesn't count ?

IWB
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:02 pm

Re: Curiosity Engine ??? (For Now It's Number 1 )

Post by IWB » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:05 pm

Ozymandias wrote:
IWB wrote:No online game in chess, neither man or engine, is played ponder off. […] As soon as you don't care for the resources anymore you naturally start to play Ponder ON. Ergo, that is the normal way to play chess and not the other way around.
Besides that: Ponder off is incredible boring to watch compared to Ponder ON games :-)
Even if that were the case, which it's not (TCEC), the amount of online games isn't the total amount of games played. To determine what's normal, you have to consider them all.
You say you don't care what name is used, to label a particular tournament condition, like ponder, but so far, you've used the adjectives "real", "normal" and "natural". Words matter, and by using those, you're trying to establish some sort of irrefutable argument. In fact, with your last post, you've gone one step forward, and introduced a logical term: ergo. But the thing is, there's no logical conclusion to be reached here, there're just points in favor or against.
One thing we can agree upon, your last comment is beside the point.
You missed "lesser chess" for Ponder OFF games :-) You seems to keep interested in naming it as you pay attention to how I name and think of it. Give it your name which clerly distingush the two games and I am fine.

In my view you make the mistake to think "Chess" is what engines do. That is a point I strongly reject. Engines without humans to enjoy that in any (many) way(s) are useless. Humans play chess different, even do engine chess different when two humans meet and btw when they would not have to care for resources (or tradition to keep their old games for a rating list) ) they stick with Ponder ON (e.g. SSDF, started with Ponder on, continued that way until today). Just because more games are played that way doesn't mean it is the normal way. Have you ever thought about hw many humns look and enjoy Ponder ON games and how many really look at Ponder OFF games?
Again, my terms are right for me and they seem VERY logical to me given the fact what humans do. If you disagree to that fine, but that will not change my perception what a propper game of chess is.

I dont think that you refutet my argument with mentioning the TCEC. The TCEC has an excelent and unique presentation, if you would do the exactly same thing with Ponder ON the number of people watching t would for sure not be smaller. It's just not done as "Running on X Cores" sounds better than "Running on X/2 cores". One could advertise as well "Running Real chess", "More Human chess" or "Ponder ON". Interestingly no one wants to advertise with "Running with ponder off" and thinks that is a point of quality ...


But a least we agree to disagree. :-)

Ingo

IWB
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:02 pm

Re: Curiosity Engine ??? (For Now It's Number 1 )

Post by IWB » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:13 pm

Vinvin wrote: How did you count games where SF crashed : lost, win or doesn't count ?
I repeated them. I allways repeat crashed games at the end of a tourney. I have to as I dont have any result. (Basicaly every rating list is dong it that way)
But actually that doesnt matter, even if you count all 26 as lost, with a 79% rate that would be on average 20.5 points less than with the repeated games. ... That might change the rating about 1 Elo ... :-)

Ingo

Vinvin
Posts: 4862
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:40 am
Full name: Vincent Lejeune

Re: Curiosity Engine ??? (For Now It's Number 1 )

Post by Vinvin » Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:25 pm

IWB wrote:
Vinvin wrote: How did you count games where SF crashed : lost, win or doesn't count ?
I repeated them. I allways repeat crashed games at the end of a tourney. I have to as I dont have any result. (Basicaly every rating list is dong it that way)
But actually that doesnt matter, even if you count all 26 as lost, with a 79% rate that would be on average 20.5 points less than with the repeated games. ... That might change the rating about 1 Elo ... :-)

Ingo
OK, thanks.

Now, I can formulate my conclusion : this version of Stockfish loses a lot of rating points against weakest engines !

User avatar
Ozymandias
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:30 am

Re: Curiosity Engine ??? (For Now It's Number 1 )

Post by Ozymandias » Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:35 pm

IWB wrote:You seems to keep interested in naming it as you pay attention to how I name and think of it. Give it your name which clearly distingush the two games and I am fine.
They aren't two different games, we're talking about one tournament condition, nothing less, nothing more. You're the one stating that chess played under one condition is real, normal or natural chess, while in case that such condition isn't met, we'd be talking about some other kind of chess (which you only label indirectly). If I were interested at all, in searching for synonyms to "ponder on" and "ponder off", I would've presented my candidates, but I'm not and I haven't. I simply wanted to know how you would label "ponder off", considering that you were already labeling its counterpart.
IWB wrote:In my view you make the mistake to think "Chess" is what engines do. […] Just because more games are played that way doesn't mean it is the normal way. Have you ever thought about hw many humns look and enjoy Ponder ON games and how many really look at Ponder OFF games?
I wouldn't use the capital "c", but yes, engines play "Chess". I guess you're referring to the infinite monkey theorem, and its identity corollary. It's a valid argument, but one that's not been resolved, to my knowledge. If two engines replay on their own, a previously played human game, would it be less of a chess game?
If more games played under some specific condition, don't make it the "normal" condition, what definition of "normal" are you ascribing to?
Obviously, much more people look at games, payed under the "ponder on" condition, because that's how they have been traditionally been played. There you have a more accurate synonym, BTW.
IWB wrote:If you disagree to that fine, but that will not change my perception what a propper game of chess is.
Proper vs improper? I see a pattern in the terms you choose, they all enhance your choice of tournament, while diminishing ponder off.
IWB wrote:I dont think that you refutet my argument with mentioning the TCEC.
I wasn't trying to refute your argument, but rather pointing out that a part of it ("no online game in chess, neither man or engine, is played ponder off"), isn't a valid statement.

Post Reply