chess 960 engines vs humans

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

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
lkaufman
Posts: 4324
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Contact:

Re: chess 960 engines vs humans

Post by lkaufman » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:11 am

Modern Times wrote:Logically I would have thought so, because the human can't rely on memorised opening theory, but if that is true in practice I don't know.

Perhaps the next Komodo vs human match can be chess960.... not that that would answer the question, but it would be good nevertheless :)
Actually I have been thinking about a Komodo vs. GM (or IM) match in chess960. The problem is that it is totally obvious to me (as a former U.S. Open chess960 champion and a GM in normal chess) that the human will need a larger handicap in chess960. Human GMs are very familiar with all the typical ideas and pawn structures that arise from normal openings in standard chess, but are quite uncomfortable in typical chess960 positions. It's not just that they can't rely on memorized openings (although that's already a big problem); it's more the sheer weirdness of the starting positions. For a computer this makes no difference.
It seems the only easy handicap for chess960 is knight odds, where the computer chooses which knight to remove after the position is chosen. But even at chess960 knight odds is probably too much for a GM; maybe it's okay for an IM, although even that seems questionable to me since the break-even point for knight odds in normal chess appears to be in the 1900s FIDE. But odds of a pawn or two would be too position-dependent, and the Exchange appears not to be enough even for strong GMs in normal chess.
I'm open to suggestions. If I hear something that sounds reasonable and close to fair we might try to work it into our upcoming match on chess.com with IM Daniel Rensch. I feel he's a bit too strong for knight odds even at chess960 (at 45' plus inc).
Komodo rules!

Modern Times
Posts: 2598
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: chess 960 engines vs humans

Post by Modern Times » Fri Aug 12, 2016 3:45 am

Yes, the question of the handicap did occur to me when I wrote that, and I'm not sure of the best way unfortunately. You know far better than me, but even with a knight removed I think Komodo would still prevail, or at least it would be a very close game. Never been tried, so we don't know !
.

Opinions expressed here are my own, and not necessarily those of the CCRL Group.

User avatar
George
Posts: 682
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:44 pm

Re: chess 960 engines vs humans

Post by George » Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:28 pm

lkaufman wrote:
Modern Times wrote:Logically I would have thought so, because the human can't rely on memorised opening theory, but if that is true in practice I don't know.

Perhaps the next Komodo vs human match can be chess960.... not that that would answer the question, but it would be good nevertheless :)
Actually I have been thinking about a Komodo vs. GM (or IM) match in chess960. The problem is that it is totally obvious to me (as a former U.S. Open chess960 champion and a GM in normal chess) that the human will need a larger handicap in chess960. Human GMs are very familiar with all the typical ideas and pawn structures that arise from normal openings in standard chess, but are quite uncomfortable in typical chess960 positions. It's not just that they can't rely on memorized openings (although that's already a big problem); it's more the sheer weirdness of the starting positions. For a computer this makes no difference.
It seems the only easy handicap for chess960 is knight odds, where the computer chooses which knight to remove after the position is chosen. But even at chess960 knight odds is probably too much for a GM; maybe it's okay for an IM, although even that seems questionable to me since the break-even point for knight odds in normal chess appears to be in the 1900s FIDE. But odds of a pawn or two would be too position-dependent, and the Exchange appears not to be enough even for strong GMs in normal chess.
I'm open to suggestions. If I hear something that sounds reasonable and close to fair we might try to work it into our upcoming match on chess.com with IM Daniel Rensch. I feel he's a bit too strong for knight odds even at chess960 (at 45' plus inc).
I spoke with GM Nakamura and he said that with any two pawns Stockfish with the same time control is beating him but with a knight odd even with his super fast PC he is sharing wins with stockfish using the same time control when he beat GM Aronian back in 2009 to become the last Chess960 Champion. ==> https://en.chessbase.com/post/che-claic ... ampionship

lkaufman
Posts: 4324
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Contact:

Re: chess 960 engines vs humans

Post by lkaufman » Sat Aug 13, 2016 12:18 am

George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
Modern Times wrote:Logically I would have thought so, because the human can't rely on memorised opening theory, but if that is true in practice I don't know.

Perhaps the next Komodo vs human match can be chess960.... not that that would answer the question, but it would be good nevertheless :)
Actually I have been thinking about a Komodo vs. GM (or IM) match in chess960. The problem is that it is totally obvious to me (as a former U.S. Open chess960 champion and a GM in normal chess) that the human will need a larger handicap in chess960. Human GMs are very familiar with all the typical ideas and pawn structures that arise from normal openings in standard chess, but are quite uncomfortable in typical chess960 positions. It's not just that they can't rely on memorized openings (although that's already a big problem); it's more the sheer weirdness of the starting positions. For a computer this makes no difference.
It seems the only easy handicap for chess960 is knight odds, where the computer chooses which knight to remove after the position is chosen. But even at chess960 knight odds is probably too much for a GM; maybe it's okay for an IM, although even that seems questionable to me since the break-even point for knight odds in normal chess appears to be in the 1900s FIDE. But odds of a pawn or two would be too position-dependent, and the Exchange appears not to be enough even for strong GMs in normal chess.
I'm open to suggestions. If I hear something that sounds reasonable and close to fair we might try to work it into our upcoming match on chess.com with IM Daniel Rensch. I feel he's a bit too strong for knight odds even at chess960 (at 45' plus inc).
I spoke with GM Nakamura and he said that with any two pawns Stockfish with the same time control is beating him but with a knight odd even with his super fast PC he is sharing wins with stockfish using the same time control when he beat GM Aronian back in 2009 to become the last Chess960 Champion. ==> https://en.chessbase.com/post/che-claic ... ampionship
What was the time control in these Nakamura vs Stockfish handicap games? Are you saying that results at knight odds were about even? If this was at a non-blitz tc I am surprised. Chess960 must be even harder than I thought it was for humans.
Komodo rules!

User avatar
George
Posts: 682
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:44 pm

Re: chess 960 engines vs humans

Post by George » Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:45 pm

lkaufman wrote:
George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
Modern Times wrote:Logically I would have thought so, because the human can't rely on memorised opening theory, but if that is true in practice I don't know.

Perhaps the next Komodo vs human match can be chess960.... not that that would answer the question, but it would be good nevertheless :)
Actually I have been thinking about a Komodo vs. GM (or IM) match in chess960. The problem is that it is totally obvious to me (as a former U.S. Open chess960 champion and a GM in normal chess) that the human will need a larger handicap in chess960. Human GMs are very familiar with all the typical ideas and pawn structures that arise from normal openings in standard chess, but are quite uncomfortable in typical chess960 positions. It's not just that they can't rely on memorized openings (although that's already a big problem); it's more the sheer weirdness of the starting positions. For a computer this makes no difference.
It seems the only easy handicap for chess960 is knight odds, where the computer chooses which knight to remove after the position is chosen. But even at chess960 knight odds is probably too much for a GM; maybe it's okay for an IM, although even that seems questionable to me since the break-even point for knight odds in normal chess appears to be in the 1900s FIDE. But odds of a pawn or two would be too position-dependent, and the Exchange appears not to be enough even for strong GMs in normal chess.
I'm open to suggestions. If I hear something that sounds reasonable and close to fair we might try to work it into our upcoming match on chess.com with IM Daniel Rensch. I feel he's a bit too strong for knight odds even at chess960 (at 45' plus inc).
I spoke with GM Nakamura and he said that with any two pawns Stockfish with the same time control is beating him but with a knight odd even with his super fast PC he is sharing wins with stockfish using the same time control when he beat GM Aronian back in 2009 to become the last Chess960 Champion. ==> https://en.chessbase.com/post/che-claic ... ampionship
What was the time control in these Nakamura vs Stockfish handicap games? Are you saying that results at knight odds were about even? If this was at a non-blitz tc I am surprised. Chess960 must be even harder than I thought it was for humans.
I suppose that Chess960 is harder for humans and the more time you allow the Monster the deeper it calculates. The time control was 20 minutes + 5s game, and his latest PC is an Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition i7-4960X Hexa-core (6 Core) 3.60 GHz Processor.

PS: I don't know if he is better off playing at faster time control where the monster can hardly calculate as deep, like in these games ===>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k4V_LJTvqM

GM Wesley So lost terribly with Knight Odd Vs Stockfish in Bullet Chess, but he is rated over 100 points less than Nakamura in Bullet Chess, and this version of Stockfish is rated over 200 points above the Rybka that GM Nakamura played back in 2008 :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-pSaN62lc

Now compared to S L OW E R Time Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQDQNBEsJ80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ue_woDfr9A

User avatar
George
Posts: 682
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:44 pm

Re: chess 960 engines vs humans

Post by George » Tue Aug 16, 2016 11:29 am

George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
Modern Times wrote:Logically I would have thought so, because the human can't rely on memorised opening theory, but if that is true in practice I don't know.

Perhaps the next Komodo vs human match can be chess960.... not that that would answer the question, but it would be good nevertheless :)
Actually I have been thinking about a Komodo vs. GM (or IM) match in chess960. The problem is that it is totally obvious to me (as a former U.S. Open chess960 champion and a GM in normal chess) that the human will need a larger handicap in chess960. Human GMs are very familiar with all the typical ideas and pawn structures that arise from normal openings in standard chess, but are quite uncomfortable in typical chess960 positions. It's not just that they can't rely on memorized openings (although that's already a big problem); it's more the sheer weirdness of the starting positions. For a computer this makes no difference.
It seems the only easy handicap for chess960 is knight odds, where the computer chooses which knight to remove after the position is chosen. But even at chess960 knight odds is probably too much for a GM; maybe it's okay for an IM, although even that seems questionable to me since the break-even point for knight odds in normal chess appears to be in the 1900s FIDE. But odds of a pawn or two would be too position-dependent, and the Exchange appears not to be enough even for strong GMs in normal chess.
I'm open to suggestions. If I hear something that sounds reasonable and close to fair we might try to work it into our upcoming match on chess.com with IM Daniel Rensch. I feel he's a bit too strong for knight odds even at chess960 (at 45' plus inc).
I spoke with GM Nakamura and he said that with any two pawns Stockfish with the same time control is beating him but with a knight odd even with his super fast PC he is sharing wins with stockfish using the same time control when he beat GM Aronian back in 2009 to become the last Chess960 Champion. ==> https://en.chessbase.com/post/che-claic ... ampionship
What was the time control in these Nakamura vs Stockfish handicap games? Are you saying that results at knight odds were about even? If this was at a non-blitz tc I am surprised. Chess960 must be even harder than I thought it was for humans.
I suppose that Chess960 is harder for humans and the more time you allow the Monster the deeper it calculates. The time control was 20 minutes + 5s game, and his latest PC is an Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition i7-4960X Hexa-core (6 Core) 3.60 GHz Processor.

PS: I don't know if he is better off playing at faster time control where the monster can hardly calculate as deep, like in these games ===>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k4V_LJTvqM

GM Wesley So lost terribly with Knight Odd Vs Stockfish in Bullet Chess, but he is rated over 100 points less than Nakamura in Bullet Chess, and this version of Stockfish is rated over 200 points above the Rybka that GM Nakamura played back in 2008 :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-pSaN62lc

Now compared to S L OW E R Time Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQDQNBEsJ80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ue_woDfr9A
I was trying to compare an engine that could play chess960 as close to GM Nakamura, and I came with Hermann. Therefore I look at the last Chess960 position that GM Nakamura won the 2009 Chess960 Championship and I gave that position to Hermann to play as White and the Black position to Stockfish to play as Black, but I removed the a8 Knight immediately Hermann pick f4 as the best first move which GM Nakamura also played against GM Aronian but there was also something else that I noticed Hermann evaluated the advantage of White only as 2.45 when I removed the a8 Knight, but if I reverse the position and give it to Stockfish to start Stockfish evaluates his advantage much much greater which tells me that Hermann value of its knight at only 2.49 whereas Stockfish value its Knight higher than 3.23 ==>

[D]1rnkrbbq/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/NRNKRBBQ w - - 0 1[D]
FEN: 1rnkrbbq/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/NRNKRBBQ w - - 0 1

Stockfish 7 x64:
1/1 00:00 25 8k +3.23 e2-e4
2/2 00:00 54 18k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3
3/3 00:00 90 30k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3
4/4 00:00 136 45k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6
5/5 00:00 215 72k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 f2-f4
6/6 00:00 302 101k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 f2-f4 e5xf4 Nc1-d3
7/7 00:00 427 142k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 f2-f4 e5xf4 Nc1-d3
8/8 00:00 576 192k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 f2-f4 e5xf4 Nc1-d3 f7-f5 e4xf5
9/11 00:00 900 225k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 f2-f4 e5xf4 Nc1-d3 f7-f5 e4xf5 Re8xe1+ Kd1xe1
10/13 00:00 1k 355k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 f2-f4 e5xf4 Nc1-d3 f7-f5 Bg1-d4 Bf8-g7 Bd4xg7 Qh8xg7 e4xf5
11/16 00:00 3k 618k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 g2-g3 f7-f5 e4xf5 g6xf5 f2-f4 e5-e4 c2-c3 Qh8-f6 Kd1-c2
12/17 00:00 13k 771k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 f2-f3 f7-f5 c2-c3 b7-b6 e4xf5 g6xf5 Kd1-c2 Nc8-d6 Bg1-f2 c7-c5
13/17 00:00 21k 823k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 f2-f3 f7-f5 c2-c3 b7-b6 Kd1-c2 Nc8-d6 Bf1-a6 f5xe4 f3xe4 c7-c5 g2-g3
14/17 00:00 32k 771k +3.23 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 f2-f3 f7-f5 c2-c3 b7-b6 Kd1-c2 Nc8-d6 Bf1-a6 f5xe4 f3xe4 c7-c5
15/18 00:00 72k 747k +3.30 e2-e4 e7-e5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 g2-g3 b7-b6 f2-f4 e5xf4 g3xf4 f7-f5 e4-e5 Nc8-e7 d2-d4 Bf8-g7 Bf1-g2
16/20 00:00 299k 792k +3.24 f2-f4 f7-f6 g2-g3 b7-b6 e2-e4 e7-e5 c2-c3 Nc8-d6 d2-d4 g7-g5 d4xe5 f6xe5 f4-f5 h7-h5 Na1-c2 g5-g4
17/22 00:00 302k 797k +3.30 f2-f4 f7-f6 g2-g3 b7-b6 e2-e4 e7-e5 c2-c3 Nc8-d6 d2-d4 g7-g5 d4xe5 f6xe5 f4-f5 h7-h5 Na1-c2 g5-g4 b2-b3 Bf8-h6 Bg1-e3 Bh6xe3
18/22 00:00 304k 799k +3.30 f2-f4 f7-f6 g2-g3 b7-b6 e2-e4 e7-e5 c2-c3 Nc8-d6 d2-d4 g7-g5 d4xe5 f6xe5 f4-f5 h7-h5 Na1-c2 g5-g4 b2-b3 Bf8-h6 Bg1-e3 Bh6xe3 Nc2xe3
19/22 00:00 310k 804k +3.30 f2-f4 f7-f6 g2-g3 b7-b6 e2-e4 e7-e5 c2-c3 Nc8-d6 d2-d4 g7-g5 d4xe5 f6xe5 f4-f5 h7-h5 Na1-c2 g5-g4 b2-b3 Bf8-h6 Bg1-e3 Bh6xe3 Nc2xe3
20/26 00:00 533k 816k +3.24 f2-f4 f7-f6 g2-g3 b7-b6 e2-e4 e7-e5 c2-c3 Nc8-d6 d2-d4 g7-g5 d4xe5 f6xe5 f4-f5 h7-h5 Na1-c2 g5-g4 Bg1-e3 a7-a5 Be3-g5+ Bf8-e7 Bg5xe7+ Re8xe7 Nc2-e3 b6-b5 Kd1-c2 Kd8-c8
21/31 00:01 1,164k 808k +3.32 f2-f4 f7-f6 g2-g3 b7-b6 e2-e4 e7-e5 c2-c3 Nc8-d6 d2-d4 g7-g5 f4xe5 f6xe5 Na1-b3 h7-h5 Nc1-d3 e5xd4 c3xd4 Nd6-c4 Rb1-c1 Kd8-c8 e4-e5 Qh8-h7 Rc1-c2
22/31 00:02 2,282k 791k +3.28 f2-f4 f7-f6 g2-g3 b7-b6 e2-e4 e7-e5 c2-c3 Nc8-d6 d2-d4 g7-g5 f4xe5 f6xe5 Na1-b3 h7-h5 Nc1-d3 e5xd4 c3xd4 Nd6-c4 Rb1-c1 Kd8-c8 Bf1-e2 a7-a5 e4-e5 a5-a4 Nb3-d2 Nc4xd2 Kd1xd2
23/31+ 00:03 2,955k 779k +3.35 f2-f4
23/31 00:06 5,546k 801k +3.31 f2-f4 f7-f6 g2-g3 e7-e5 e2-e4 g7-g5 f4xe5 f6xe5 c2-c3 a7-a5 Na1-b3 b7-b6 d2-d4 Nc8-d6 Nc1-d3 e5xd4 c3xd4 Bf8-g7 e4-e5 Nd6-c4 Rb1-c1 Re8-f8 Qh1-e4 a5-a4 Nb3-d2 Nc4xd2 Kd1xd2 Bg8xa2
24/31 00:19 14,824k 758k +3.27 f2-f4 f7-f6 g2-g3 b7-b6 e2-e4 e7-e5 c2-c3 Nc8-d6 d2-d4 g7-g5 d4xe5 f6xe5 f4-f5 h7-h5 Na1-c2 g5-g4 b2-b3 a7-a5 Qh1-g2 Rb8-a8 Bg1-e3 Kd8-c8 Nc1-d3 Bf8-g7
25/31 00:30 23,796k 778k +3.29 f2-f4 f7-f6 g2-g3 b7-b6 e2-e4 e7-e5 c2-c3 Nc8-d6 Na1-c2 a7-a5 d2-d4 Bg8-f7 Bf1-d3 b6-b5 Qh1-f3 g7-g5 b2-b3 h7-h5 d4xe5 g5-g4 Qf3-e3 f6xe5 Qe3-a7 Rb8-c8 Qa7xa5
26/31 00:48 39,011k 802k +3.31 f2-f4 f7-f6 g2-g3 b7-b6 e2-e4 e7-e5 c2-c3 Nc8-d6 Na1-c2 a7-a5 d2-d4 g7-g6 Bf1-d3 Kd8-c8 Bg1-e3 Rb8-a8 b2-b3 Qh8-g7 Re1-f1 a5-a4 f4xe5 f6xe5 d4-d5 Bf8-e7 Nc1-e2 a4xb3 a2xb3
27/33- 01:11 58,043k 813k +3.24 f2-f4 f7-f6

Hermann 2.8 64 bit:
1/2 00:00 22 22k +2.49 e2-e4
2/3 00:00 43 43k +2.34 e2-e4 e7-e5
3/7 00:00 182 182k +2.41 e2-e4 e7-e5 f2-f3
3/7+ 00:00 234 234k +2.42 f2-f4 f7-f5 Bg1-d4
3/8 00:00 378 378k +2.45 f2-f4 e7-e5 f4xe5 Re8xe5
4/11 00:00 2k 1,580k +2.39 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 f4xe5 f6xe5
5/12 00:00 3k 3,310k +2.41 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 g2-g3
6/15 00:00 11k 678k +2.39 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 f4xe5 f6xe5
7/18 00:00 23k 731k +2.44 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 f4xe5 f6xe5 Na1-b3
8/22 00:00 58k 739k +2.40 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 f4xe5 f6xe5 Bg1-f2 Nc8-b6
9/25 00:00 159k 641k +2.46 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 f4xe5 f6xe5 Na1-b3 Nc8-b6 Bg1xb6 a7xb6
10/25 00:00 372k 701k +2.45 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 f4xe5 f6xe5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 Bf1-e2 Bg8-e6 Bg1-e3
11/27 00:01 882k 716k +2.44 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 f4xe5 f6xe5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 g2-g3 Bg8-e6 Bg1-c5 Bf8-h6
12/31 00:03 2,588k 710k +2.47 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 f4xe5 f6xe5 Na1-b3 g7-g6 Bf1-e2 Bf8-e7 Re1-f1 Nc8-b6 Bg1xb6 a7xb6
13/31 00:07 5,430k 735k +2.46 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 g2-g3 Bg8-f7 Qh1-f3 Nc8-b6 Na1-b3 Qh8-g8 Bg1xb6 a7xb6 Bf1-h3 Bf8-e7
14/37 00:25 17,955k 703k +2.47 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 g2-g3 Bg8-f7 Qh1-f3 c7-c5 Bf1-h3 b7-b6 f4xe5 Re8xe5 Bg1-e3 Nc8-e7 Na1-b3
15/39 00:54 39,998k 741k +2.46 f2-f4 f7-f6 e2-e4 e7-e5 f4xe5 f6xe5 Na1-b3 b7-b6 Bf1-a6 Nc8-d6 d2-d3 Bf8-e7 Bg1-e3 Bg8-e6 Nc1-e2 Re8-f8

lkaufman
Posts: 4324
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Contact:

Re: chess 960 engines vs humans

Post by lkaufman » Tue Aug 16, 2016 5:04 pm

George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
Modern Times wrote:Logically I would have thought so, because the human can't rely on memorised opening theory, but if that is true in practice I don't know.

Perhaps the next Komodo vs human match can be chess960.... not that that would answer the question, but it would be good nevertheless :)
Actually I have been thinking about a Komodo vs. GM (or IM) match in chess960. The problem is that it is totally obvious to me (as a former U.S. Open chess960 champion and a GM in normal chess) that the human will need a larger handicap in chess960. Human GMs are very familiar with all the typical ideas and pawn structures that arise from normal openings in standard chess, but are quite uncomfortable in typical chess960 positions. It's not just that they can't rely on memorized openings (although that's already a big problem); it's more the sheer weirdness of the starting positions. For a computer this makes no difference.
It seems the only easy handicap for chess960 is knight odds, where the computer chooses which knight to remove after the position is chosen. But even at chess960 knight odds is probably too much for a GM; maybe it's okay for an IM, although even that seems questionable to me since the break-even point for knight odds in normal chess appears to be in the 1900s FIDE. But odds of a pawn or two would be too position-dependent, and the Exchange appears not to be enough even for strong GMs in normal chess.
I'm open to suggestions. If I hear something that sounds reasonable and close to fair we might try to work it into our upcoming match on chess.com with IM Daniel Rensch. I feel he's a bit too strong for knight odds even at chess960 (at 45' plus inc).
I spoke with GM Nakamura and he said that with any two pawns Stockfish with the same time control is beating him but with a knight odd even with his super fast PC he is sharing wins with stockfish using the same time control when he beat GM Aronian back in 2009 to become the last Chess960 Champion. ==> https://en.chessbase.com/post/che-claic ... ampionship
What was the time control in these Nakamura vs Stockfish handicap games? Are you saying that results at knight odds were about even? If this was at a non-blitz tc I am surprised. Chess960 must be even harder than I thought it was for humans.
I suppose that Chess960 is harder for humans and the more time you allow the Monster the deeper it calculates. The time control was 20 minutes + 5s game, and his latest PC is an Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition i7-4960X Hexa-core (6 Core) 3.60 GHz Processor.

PS: I don't know if he is better off playing at faster time control where the monster can hardly calculate as deep, like in these games ===>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k4V_LJTvqM

GM Wesley So lost terribly with Knight Odd Vs Stockfish in Bullet Chess, but he is rated over 100 points less than Nakamura in Bullet Chess, and this version of Stockfish is rated over 200 points above the Rybka that GM Nakamura played back in 2008 :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-pSaN62lc

Now compared to S L OW E R Time Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQDQNBEsJ80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ue_woDfr9A
Bullet chess for humans has almost nothing to do with any normal time control chess. Two things are very clear:
1. In human vs. computer chess, longer time controls always favor the human (within reason; of course if it's too slow without a break fatigue is an issue, but no one uses time controls that slow). Computers were beating GMs in blitz long before they could do so in rapid, and were winning in rapid long before they could do so in standard chess.
2. In handicap play, longer time controls always favor the handicap receiver. This is obvious, since the handicap giver has to hope for blunders. In normal (not 960) chess, at 3' + 2" Komodo is about even with 2600 level players at knight odds, but below 2000 level at 45' + 15".

Chess 960 is much less familiar for humans, so it should take a much stronger player than 2000 to win a knight odds match at 45' + 15". But if Nakamura was only around equal at 20' + 5", that suggests that a 2700 level human might be a fair match at knight odds 45' + 15". Frankly that is very hard for me to believe. Chess 960 is different from normal chess, but I can't believe it's so different that the break-even rating for a human would rise from less than 2000 to 2700. I would have guessed 2300.

I guess we will have to try it out in a match in the near future. Maybe I'll try a game or two myself just to get a feel for how difficult it is.
Komodo rules!

User avatar
George
Posts: 682
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:44 pm

Re: chess 960 engines vs humans

Post by George » Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:25 pm

lkaufman wrote:
George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
Modern Times wrote:Logically I would have thought so, because the human can't rely on memorised opening theory, but if that is true in practice I don't know.

Perhaps the next Komodo vs human match can be chess960.... not that that would answer the question, but it would be good nevertheless :)
Actually I have been thinking about a Komodo vs. GM (or IM) match in chess960. The problem is that it is totally obvious to me (as a former U.S. Open chess960 champion and a GM in normal chess) that the human will need a larger handicap in chess960. Human GMs are very familiar with all the typical ideas and pawn structures that arise from normal openings in standard chess, but are quite uncomfortable in typical chess960 positions. It's not just that they can't rely on memorized openings (although that's already a big problem); it's more the sheer weirdness of the starting positions. For a computer this makes no difference.
It seems the only easy handicap for chess960 is knight odds, where the computer chooses which knight to remove after the position is chosen. But even at chess960 knight odds is probably too much for a GM; maybe it's okay for an IM, although even that seems questionable to me since the break-even point for knight odds in normal chess appears to be in the 1900s FIDE. But odds of a pawn or two would be too position-dependent, and the Exchange appears not to be enough even for strong GMs in normal chess.
I'm open to suggestions. If I hear something that sounds reasonable and close to fair we might try to work it into our upcoming match on chess.com with IM Daniel Rensch. I feel he's a bit too strong for knight odds even at chess960 (at 45' plus inc).
I spoke with GM Nakamura and he said that with any two pawns Stockfish with the same time control is beating him but with a knight odd even with his super fast PC he is sharing wins with stockfish using the same time control when he beat GM Aronian back in 2009 to become the last Chess960 Champion. ==> https://en.chessbase.com/post/che-claic ... ampionship
What was the time control in these Nakamura vs Stockfish handicap games? Are you saying that results at knight odds were about even? If this was at a non-blitz tc I am surprised. Chess960 must be even harder than I thought it was for humans.
I suppose that Chess960 is harder for humans and the more time you allow the Monster the deeper it calculates. The time control was 20 minutes + 5s game, and his latest PC is an Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition i7-4960X Hexa-core (6 Core) 3.60 GHz Processor.

PS: I don't know if he is better off playing at faster time control where the monster can hardly calculate as deep, like in these games ===>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k4V_LJTvqM

GM Wesley So lost terribly with Knight Odd Vs Stockfish in Bullet Chess, but he is rated over 100 points less than Nakamura in Bullet Chess, and this version of Stockfish is rated over 200 points above the Rybka that GM Nakamura played back in 2008 :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-pSaN62lc

Now compared to S L OW E R Time Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQDQNBEsJ80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ue_woDfr9A
Bullet chess for humans has almost nothing to do with any normal time control chess. Two things are very clear:
1. In human vs. computer chess, longer time controls always favor the human (within reason; of course if it's too slow without a break fatigue is an issue, but no one uses time controls that slow). Computers were beating GMs in blitz long before they could do so in rapid, and were winning in rapid long before they could do so in standard chess.
2. In handicap play, longer time controls always favor the handicap receiver. This is obvious, since the handicap giver has to hope for blunders. In normal (not 960) chess, at 3' + 2" Komodo is about even with 2600 level players at knight odds, but below 2000 level at 45' + 15".

Chess 960 is much less familiar for humans, so it should take a much stronger player than 2000 to win a knight odds match at 45' + 15". But if Nakamura was only around equal at 20' + 5", that suggests that a 2700 level human might be a fair match at knight odds 45' + 15". Frankly that is very hard for me to believe. Chess 960 is different from normal chess, but I can't believe it's so different that the break-even rating for a human would rise from less than 2000 to 2700. I would have guessed 2300.

I guess we will have to try it out in a match in the near future. Maybe I'll try a game or two myself just to get a feel for how difficult it is.
Those were only the first two games, later he played 4 more games always playing different positions and won 3 and drew one.

lkaufman
Posts: 4324
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Contact:

Re: chess 960 engines vs humans

Post by lkaufman » Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:54 pm

George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
Modern Times wrote:Logically I would have thought so, because the human can't rely on memorised opening theory, but if that is true in practice I don't know.

Perhaps the next Komodo vs human match can be chess960.... not that that would answer the question, but it would be good nevertheless :)
Actually I have been thinking about a Komodo vs. GM (or IM) match in chess960. The problem is that it is totally obvious to me (as a former U.S. Open chess960 champion and a GM in normal chess) that the human will need a larger handicap in chess960. Human GMs are very familiar with all the typical ideas and pawn structures that arise from normal openings in standard chess, but are quite uncomfortable in typical chess960 positions. It's not just that they can't rely on memorized openings (although that's already a big problem); it's more the sheer weirdness of the starting positions. For a computer this makes no difference.
It seems the only easy handicap for chess960 is knight odds, where the computer chooses which knight to remove after the position is chosen. But even at chess960 knight odds is probably too much for a GM; maybe it's okay for an IM, although even that seems questionable to me since the break-even point for knight odds in normal chess appears to be in the 1900s FIDE. But odds of a pawn or two would be too position-dependent, and the Exchange appears not to be enough even for strong GMs in normal chess.
I'm open to suggestions. If I hear something that sounds reasonable and close to fair we might try to work it into our upcoming match on chess.com with IM Daniel Rensch. I feel he's a bit too strong for knight odds even at chess960 (at 45' plus inc).
I spoke with GM Nakamura and he said that with any two pawns Stockfish with the same time control is beating him but with a knight odd even with his super fast PC he is sharing wins with stockfish using the same time control when he beat GM Aronian back in 2009 to become the last Chess960 Champion. ==> https://en.chessbase.com/post/che-claic ... ampionship
What was the time control in these Nakamura vs Stockfish handicap games? Are you saying that results at knight odds were about even? If this was at a non-blitz tc I am surprised. Chess960 must be even harder than I thought it was for humans.
I suppose that Chess960 is harder for humans and the more time you allow the Monster the deeper it calculates. The time control was 20 minutes + 5s game, and his latest PC is an Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition i7-4960X Hexa-core (6 Core) 3.60 GHz Processor.

PS: I don't know if he is better off playing at faster time control where the monster can hardly calculate as deep, like in these games ===>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k4V_LJTvqM

GM Wesley So lost terribly with Knight Odd Vs Stockfish in Bullet Chess, but he is rated over 100 points less than Nakamura in Bullet Chess, and this version of Stockfish is rated over 200 points above the Rybka that GM Nakamura played back in 2008 :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-pSaN62lc

Now compared to S L OW E R Time Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQDQNBEsJ80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ue_woDfr9A
Bullet chess for humans has almost nothing to do with any normal time control chess. Two things are very clear:
1. In human vs. computer chess, longer time controls always favor the human (within reason; of course if it's too slow without a break fatigue is an issue, but no one uses time controls that slow). Computers were beating GMs in blitz long before they could do so in rapid, and were winning in rapid long before they could do so in standard chess.
2. In handicap play, longer time controls always favor the handicap receiver. This is obvious, since the handicap giver has to hope for blunders. In normal (not 960) chess, at 3' + 2" Komodo is about even with 2600 level players at knight odds, but below 2000 level at 45' + 15".

Chess 960 is much less familiar for humans, so it should take a much stronger player than 2000 to win a knight odds match at 45' + 15". But if Nakamura was only around equal at 20' + 5", that suggests that a 2700 level human might be a fair match at knight odds 45' + 15". Frankly that is very hard for me to believe. Chess 960 is different from normal chess, but I can't believe it's so different that the break-even rating for a human would rise from less than 2000 to 2700. I would have guessed 2300.

I guess we will have to try it out in a match in the near future. Maybe I'll try a game or two myself just to get a feel for how difficult it is.
Those were only the first two games, later he played 4 more games always playing different positions and won 3 and drew one.
Okay, so the computer performed around 2600 level, which at 45' + 15" would perhaps drop to 2500 level. So knight odds in 960 is reasonable for a below-average GM or an IM. Good to know.
Komodo rules!

User avatar
George
Posts: 682
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:44 pm

Re: chess 960 engines vs humans

Post by George » Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:35 am

lkaufman wrote:
George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
George wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
Modern Times wrote:Logically I would have thought so, because the human can't rely on memorised opening theory, but if that is true in practice I don't know.

Perhaps the next Komodo vs human match can be chess960.... not that that would answer the question, but it would be good nevertheless :)
Actually I have been thinking about a Komodo vs. GM (or IM) match in chess960. The problem is that it is totally obvious to me (as a former U.S. Open chess960 champion and a GM in normal chess) that the human will need a larger handicap in chess960. Human GMs are very familiar with all the typical ideas and pawn structures that arise from normal openings in standard chess, but are quite uncomfortable in typical chess960 positions. It's not just that they can't rely on memorized openings (although that's already a big problem); it's more the sheer weirdness of the starting positions. For a computer this makes no difference.
It seems the only easy handicap for chess960 is knight odds, where the computer chooses which knight to remove after the position is chosen. But even at chess960 knight odds is probably too much for a GM; maybe it's okay for an IM, although even that seems questionable to me since the break-even point for knight odds in normal chess appears to be in the 1900s FIDE. But odds of a pawn or two would be too position-dependent, and the Exchange appears not to be enough even for strong GMs in normal chess.
I'm open to suggestions. If I hear something that sounds reasonable and close to fair we might try to work it into our upcoming match on chess.com with IM Daniel Rensch. I feel he's a bit too strong for knight odds even at chess960 (at 45' plus inc).
I spoke with GM Nakamura and he said that with any two pawns Stockfish with the same time control is beating him but with a knight odd even with his super fast PC he is sharing wins with stockfish using the same time control when he beat GM Aronian back in 2009 to become the last Chess960 Champion. ==> https://en.chessbase.com/post/che-claic ... ampionship
What was the time control in these Nakamura vs Stockfish handicap games? Are you saying that results at knight odds were about even? If this was at a non-blitz tc I am surprised. Chess960 must be even harder than I thought it was for humans.
I suppose that Chess960 is harder for humans and the more time you allow the Monster the deeper it calculates. The time control was 20 minutes + 5s game, and his latest PC is an Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition i7-4960X Hexa-core (6 Core) 3.60 GHz Processor.

PS: I don't know if he is better off playing at faster time control where the monster can hardly calculate as deep, like in these games ===>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k4V_LJTvqM

GM Wesley So lost terribly with Knight Odd Vs Stockfish in Bullet Chess, but he is rated over 100 points less than Nakamura in Bullet Chess, and this version of Stockfish is rated over 200 points above the Rybka that GM Nakamura played back in 2008 :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-pSaN62lc

Now compared to S L OW E R Time Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQDQNBEsJ80

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ue_woDfr9A
Bullet chess for humans has almost nothing to do with any normal time control chess. Two things are very clear:
1. In human vs. computer chess, longer time controls always favor the human (within reason; of course if it's too slow without a break fatigue is an issue, but no one uses time controls that slow). Computers were beating GMs in blitz long before they could do so in rapid, and were winning in rapid long before they could do so in standard chess.
2. In handicap play, longer time controls always favor the handicap receiver. This is obvious, since the handicap giver has to hope for blunders. In normal (not 960) chess, at 3' + 2" Komodo is about even with 2600 level players at knight odds, but below 2000 level at 45' + 15".

Chess 960 is much less familiar for humans, so it should take a much stronger player than 2000 to win a knight odds match at 45' + 15". But if Nakamura was only around equal at 20' + 5", that suggests that a 2700 level human might be a fair match at knight odds 45' + 15". Frankly that is very hard for me to believe. Chess 960 is different from normal chess, but I can't believe it's so different that the break-even rating for a human would rise from less than 2000 to 2700. I would have guessed 2300.

I guess we will have to try it out in a match in the near future. Maybe I'll try a game or two myself just to get a feel for how difficult it is.
Those were only the first two games, later he played 4 more games always playing different positions and won 3 and drew one.
Okay, so the computer performed around 2600 level, which at 45' + 15" would perhaps drop to 2500 level. So knight odds in 960 is reasonable for a below-average GM or an IM. Good to know.
Mr: Kaufman Here is the initial chess960 position where Booot has the e7 and f7 pawns odds from Stockfish + plus the initial f4 move for White. Just by comparison I believe that either GM Nakamura or Carlsen can be given the odds of 2 pawns in Chess960 at longer time control like game in 30 minutes per side.
[D]nrnkrbbq/pppp2pp/8/8/5P2/8/PPPPP1PP/NRNKRBBQ b - - 0 1[D]

[pgn][Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "HP"]
[Date "2016.08.17"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Booot6_32"]
[Black "Stockfish 7 x64"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[BlackElo "2828"]
[WhiteElo "3100"]
[TimeControl "5400"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "nrnkrbbq/pppp2pp/8/8/5P2/8/PPPPP1PP/NRNKRBBQ b - - 0 1"]
[WhiteType "program"]
[BlackType "human"]

1. ... g5 2. g3 Bh6 3. Nab3 gxf4 4. Bd4 Bg7 5. Bxg7 Qxg7 6. gxf4 Nd6 7. Nd3
Qh6 8. e4 b6 9. Qf3 c5 10. Ne5 Nc7 11. Qg3 Bf7 12. Kc1 a5 13. Bh3 a4 14.
Bxd7 Rxe5 15. fxe5 Kxd7 16. Rf1 Rg8 17. Rxf7+ Nxf7 18. Qxg8 Nxe5 19. Qg3
Qf6 20. Nxc5+ bxc5 21. b3 axb3 22. axb3 Kc6 23. Qg2 Ne6 24. Qh3 Nf4 25. Qf5
Qxf5 26. exf5 Kd6 27. Ra1 Nd7 28. c3 Ke5 29. Ra7 Kd6 30. Ra5 Nd3+ 31. Kd1
Nf4 32. Ra4 Ke5 33. Ra7 Kd6 34. Kc2 h5 35. b4 cxb4 36. cxb4 Nd5 37. Kb3
N5b6 38. Ra5 h4 39. h3 Nd5 40. d4 Nf4 41. Ra6+ Kd5 42. Kc3 Nxh3 43. Rh6 Ng5
44. Rxh4 Ne4+ 45. Kd3 Nd6 46. Rh7 Nb8 47. Rh5 Nd7 48. Rg5 Nf6 49. Rg6 Nh5
50. Rg4 Nf6 51. Rg2 Nxf5 52. b5 Ne4 53. Rh2 Nf6 54. Rf2 Nxd4 55. Rxf6 Nxb5
56. Rf5+ Kc6 57. Rg5 Nd6 58. Kd4 Nb5+ 59. Ke5 Kc5 60. Rg1 Kc4 61. Rc1+ Nc3
62. Rc2 Kb3 63. Rd2 Kc4 64. Rd4+ Kc5 65. Rd7 Kc4 66. Rc7+ Kd3 67. Re7 Kc4
68. Rd7 Nb5 69. Rd1 Nc3 70. Rd4+ Kc5 71. Rf4 Nb5 72. Rf2 Kc4 73. Rh2 Nc3
74. Rh1 Kc5 75. Rh8 Kc4 76. Rc8+ Kd3 77. Rc5 Ne2 78. Rc7 Nc3 79. Ra7 Kc4
80. Re7 Nb5 81. Rg7 Kb4 82. Rg2 Kc4 83. Rb2 Kc5 84. Rc2+ Kb6 85. Kd5 Nc7+
86. Kc4 Kc6 87. Re2 Kd6 88. Rh2 Ke7 89. Kc5 Ne6+ 90. Kd5 Nf4+ 91. Ke5 Ng6+
92. Kf5 Nf8 93. Rh1 Kf7 94. Re1 Nd7 {White forfeits on time} 1/2-1/2 Thank you Graham, I followed your direction and here is the result between Booot vs Stockfish giving two pawns odds.[/pgn]

Post Reply