Raubfisch

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

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Dann Corbit
Posts: 9829
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: Raubfisch

Post by Dann Corbit » Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:48 pm

I think gambit positions are like positional moves or closed positions or other oddities that chess engines need extra time on, but eventually they make good decisions.

So, for instance, if you analyze gambit positions to 50 plies, all the move choices will be good move choices.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.

Stephen Ham
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Full name: Stephen Ham

Re: Raubfisch

Post by Stephen Ham » Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:57 pm

Hi Dann,

Some of the selected openings did indeed involve gambits, while some did not. But all of my opening lines successfully dropped the two chess engines into highly-unbalanced tactical situations which they competed to resolve. So, it's irrelevant how they got there.

The only relevant question is - why did these games generally terminate in draws when they were: tactically complex, unbalanced, and avoided massive piece exchanges? Whether chess engines "understand" gambits or not, they do understand complex tactics far better than humans. So given the dynamic positions and the top chess engines involved, I expected fewer draws.

Dann, I agree with you that chess engines have problems playing opposite side castling. So, please see my comment regarding the Goring Gambit where I had force them to play 9 0-0-0, as they otherwise would only play 9 0-0, which is weak.

All the very best,
-Steve-

MikeB
Posts: 3183
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:34 am
Location: Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania

Re: Raubfisch

Post by MikeB » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:32 am

Stephen Ham wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:49 am
Dear gents,

I stopped the match after 200 games. The result was a 15 victory to 12 loss result in favor of Raubfisch X40 over Stockfish 3/31/19.

Strictly on the basis of performance, this engine should be noticed. Statistically, this result could have been obtained by playing Stockfish against itself. After all, Raubfisch's mysterious "author(s)" admits it's derived from Stockfish.

Nonetheless, Raubfisch apparently has more code. I also perceive that it has a more accurate and stable evaluation function and slightly different move selection. But search speed and depth are virtually identical for both.

However, I remain VERY surprised that only 14% of the games were decisive, especially when the opening book was ultra-sharp and largely terminated after 10 moves or less. After all, I wanted the engines to solve their tactical situations as early as possible.

I can make all games available to interested parties.

Sincerely,
-Steve-
Hi Steve ,

Are the games still available? Would like some sharp lines to use for testing.

You can drop them off here:

https://www.dropbox.com/request/sWTaA8uqfrsENwB16OSp
Thanks,
Michael

Stephen Ham
Posts: 2409
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Full name: Stephen Ham

Re: Raubfisch

Post by Stephen Ham » Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:40 am

Hello Mike,

I sent all 200 games to Graham Banks and then deleted them, so I could group the subsequent match games there. But if you'd like them, I'm certain Graham will oblige.

As for sharp lines, Mike, I'll personally email you the Opening Book I created.

All the best,
Steve

Post Reply