Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

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.
MikeB
Posts: 3275
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:34 am
Location: Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania

Re: Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

Post by MikeB » Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:00 am

Graham Banks wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:36 pm
I might be able to play a top engine with rook odds against the following player - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dreyer.

In a six game match, how do you think he'd fare?
My guess is that he will win 2 or 3 and draw the rest. Rooks odds are very tough for the engine.
I was able to pull this win off after losing 3 straight, and I'm nowhere near an FIDE Master. I did give a bishop back , but still had enough to win. The early exchanges of the Queens on move 8 helped me tremendously in this game. Single core/thread - that was enough for me.


lkaufman
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Contact:

Re: Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

Post by lkaufman » Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:09 am

Graham Banks wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:36 pm
I might be able to play a top engine with rook odds against the following player - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dreyer.

In a six game match, how do you think he'd fare?
Well, we would need to know:
1. What time limit is proposed?
2. Based on his activity or lack of it, what is his or your estimate of his current playing strength? If he plays online or club chess regularly, he might not be a lot weaker than his rating, but if he almost never plays a game of chess, he could be a lot weaker.
I imagine that he is probably at least not weaker than FMs John Meyer and Larry Gilden, both of whom won knight odds matches at 45' + 15" from Komodo on super hardware (by 3 to 1 and 3 to 0 respectively) despite being over age 70 and with estimated strength at the time of their matches around 2100 FIDE. So probably I would bet on him to win the match at knight odds unless the games are very fast or he really hasn't played chess for decades. From my experience, rook odds is more suitable for somone around 1900 FIDE strength.
Komodo rules!

User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 2330
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

Post by Ovyron » Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:26 am

lkaufman wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:54 am
Regarding your delay suggestion, is this just to create the illusion of a normal game?
No, it's because the slower the human's opponent plays, the better the human plays.

Try some extreme case:

Human 1 gets 1 minute on the clock.
Human 2 gets 2 hours on the clock.

What is human's 2 best strategy? Well, it turns out that the longest time used by human 2, the better human 1's level will be, so that in a normal rhythm, human 1 will play at a level much higher than 1 0 bullet. Human 2 would need to find a sweet spot where their own moves benefit from the extra time, but they're played at a rhythm that doesn't allow the opponent to increase their "bullet level" (which is incredibly low. I have actually checked, and my 10 0 blitz level is higher than Nakamura's 1 0 level. But if we played time handicap he'd destroy me, why? Because I can't play against his 1 0 level, because his level would increase tremendously as he waits for my moves, getting close to his 10 0 level.)

With computers it's similar (except that it doesn't work the other way around, with computers being really bad at pondering) so human with 1 0 on the clock against computer with 1 0 on the clock would play at their bullet level, but at 1 0 for them against 120 min for the comp, humans would play at a much higher level, as long as the comp plays the same moves it'd have played with 1 minute on the clock (these are just the extremes). Move delay solves for all this.
lkaufman wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:54 am
I personally prefer material
Except that's no longer chess. The engine wasn't built with handicap in mind, the human's elo wasn't built from playing material handicap games, so I don't understand how playing a different game altogether is better to people. Like, you don't see tournaments between humans where they're all set at the same level by removing their material (so one has to play against a Magnus Carlsen that has his two Bishops removed; something like this was tried at chesscube without much success), why is computer-human games different?

Time handicaps are natural, lichess allows users to go "berserk" by cutting their time in half, this is clearly still chess played at different levels, but when you make the engine play high chess level moves instantly, you don't let the human play at the level they'd play against an opponent that required that time to find that great move (unlike engines.) I hope move delay's effects get investigated more.
Make someone happy today.

lkaufman
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Contact:

Re: Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

Post by lkaufman » Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:56 am

Ovyron wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:26 am
lkaufman wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:54 am
Regarding your delay suggestion, is this just to create the illusion of a normal game?
No, it's because the slower the human's opponent plays, the better the human plays.

Try some extreme case:

Human 1 gets 1 minute on the clock.
Human 2 gets 2 hours on the clock.

What is human's 2 best strategy? Well, it turns out that the longest time used by human 2, the better human 1's level will be, so that in a normal rhythm, human 1 will play at a level much higher than 1 0 bullet. Human 2 would need to find a sweet spot where their own moves benefit from the extra time, but they're played at a rhythm that doesn't allow the opponent to increase their "bullet level" (which is incredibly low. I have actually checked, and my 10 0 blitz level is higher than Nakamura's 1 0 level. But if we played time handicap he'd destroy me, why? Because I can't play against his 1 0 level, because his level would increase tremendously as he waits for my moves, getting close to his 10 0 level.)

With computers it's similar (except that it doesn't work the other way around, with computers being really bad at pondering) so human with 1 0 on the clock against computer with 1 0 on the clock would play at their bullet level, but at 1 0 for them against 120 min for the comp, humans would play at a much higher level, as long as the comp plays the same moves it'd have played with 1 minute on the clock (these are just the extremes). Move delay solves for all this.
lkaufman wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:54 am
I personally prefer material
Except that's no longer chess. The engine wasn't built with handicap in mind, the human's elo wasn't built from playing material handicap games, so I don't understand how playing a different game altogether is better to people. Like, you don't see tournaments between humans where they're all set at the same level by removing their material (so one has to play against a Magnus Carlsen that has his two Bishops removed; something like this was tried at chesscube without much success), why is computer-human games different?

Time handicaps are natural, lichess allows users to go "berserk" by cutting their time in half, this is clearly still chess played at different levels, but when you make the engine play high chess level moves instantly, you don't let the human play at the level they'd play against an opponent that required that time to find that great move (unlike engines.) I hope move delay's effects get investigated more.
I understand your point about move delay, but let's do some math. Suppose that we are playing a ten minute game, with the computer actually thinking only a few milliseconds but programmed to delay so as to use about equal time to the human. Let's say that thinking on the opponent's time is worth 30% of thinking on our own time (I think this is roughly what ponder stats say). So the human is really getting 13 minutes instead of just ten this way. But we could also increase his strength the same amount by making it a 13 minute game, with the computer moving instantly, while cutting the total time for the game from 20 minutes to 13 minutes. So from the perspective of both spectators and the player himself, there is no advantage to this delay idea, just raise the time limit 30%.
Regarding material handicaps, it was standard to run tournaments this way in the 1800s, and we did run some rapid events this way even in the 1970s. Garry Kasparov played a widely publicized match giving two pawn odds. My guess is that you also don't like chess960, it's "not chess", but FIDE is putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into a chess960 world championship. I agree that it wouldn't be very interesting to watch a computer or Magnus Carlsen give queen odds to a patzer, but when the odds receiver is a titled player, even a GM, and still has trouble winning, it is really amazing to see how this is possible. I would find it very interesting to see Carlsen give f7 odds in a serious match to a 2500 GM, for example. Judging by how he saves so many bad or lost positions with Black in normal chess against the Elite, I would bet on him.
Komodo rules!

User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 2330
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

Post by Ovyron » Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:46 am

lkaufman wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:56 am
Let's say that thinking on the opponent's time is worth 30% of thinking on our own time (I think this is roughly what ponder stats say).
I think stats would be very different in time handicap matches, specially against computers. And it doesn't matter what happens on the game in general, or on 99% of the moves, the only thing that matters is the position where the GM blunders. The difference between knowing what the engine has played and being able to play the blunder on the board, and being unable to make it on the board (because the engine is still thinking) can be significant if in that time the human finds the move is bad and switches to another.

I guess another way to do this is forcing the human to think, instead of move delay, the engine plays instantly, but there's a set time every move where the human has to wait before making their move, and this set time doesn't decrease the human's time. This is all psychological, and about the human blundering because they have to move fast to avoid losing on time. This is different from Fischer increment in that it can be advantageous with FI to play fast to accumulate time for future moves, and different to just starting the human with more time, because it's clear that if the human played a blunder, they played too fast on this position.

Anyway, probably take-back handicap solves for all of this (who cares if the human blunders if they can just take it back?), so I'm looking forward to such a match. I wonder what other handicaps have yet to be discussed on the thread.

Chessqueen
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 12:16 am
Full name: Nancy M Pichardo

Re: Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

Post by Chessqueen » Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:53 am

Ovyron wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:46 am
lkaufman wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:56 am
Let's say that thinking on the opponent's time is worth 30% of thinking on our own time (I think this is roughly what ponder stats say).
I think stats would be very different in time handicap matches, specially against computers. And it doesn't matter what happens on the game in general, or on 99% of the moves, the only thing that matters is the position where the GM blunders. The difference between knowing what the engine has played and being able to play the blunder on the board, and being unable to make it on the board (because the engine is still thinking) can be significant if in that time the human finds the move is bad and switches to another.

I guess another way to do this is forcing the human to think, instead of move delay, the engine plays instantly, but there's a set time every move where the human has to wait before making their move, and this set time doesn't decrease the human's time. This is all psychological, and about the human blundering because they have to move fast to avoid losing on time. This is different from Fischer increment in that it can be advantageous with FI to play fast to accumulate time for future moves, and different to just starting the human with more time, because it's clear that if the human played a blunder, they played too fast on this position.

Anyway, probably take-back handicap solves for all of this (who cares if the human blunders if they can just take it back?), so I'm looking forward to such a match. I wonder what other handicaps have yet to be discussed on the thread.
Take-back is a bad idea since even a very weak player in the near 1500-1600 Elo if you allow him to take as many take-backs as possible he can prolong a game for months if NOT for years and make it longer than any correspondence game, and eventually he will find the best and stronger move by try and error after many many many take-backs and constantly watch the evaluation of the engine and know if he is standing slightly better or not and continue the game until he finally beat the best engine.

User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 2330
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

Post by Ovyron » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:02 am

Chessqueen wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:53 am
Take-back is a bad idea since even a very weak player in the near 1500-1600 Elo if you allow him to take as many take-backs as possible he can prolong a game for months if NOT for years and make it longer than any correspondence game, and eventually he will find the best and stronger move by try and error after many many many take-backs and constantly watch the evaluation of the engine and know if he is standing slightly better or not and continue the game until he finally beat the best engine.
Then you limit the take backs. You can also add restrictions like you can't take back to a position that has already been played on the game more than once (or more than n times.) Taking back not recovering time would also solve the thing with game lasting too much. It can be done, we have the technology.
Make someone happy today.

lkaufman
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Contact:

Re: Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

Post by lkaufman » Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:46 am

MikeB wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:00 am
Graham Banks wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:36 pm
I might be able to play a top engine with rook odds against the following player - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dreyer.

In a six game match, how do you think he'd fare?
My guess is that he will win 2 or 3 and draw the rest. Rooks odds are very tough for the engine.
I was able to pull this win off after losing 3 straight, and I'm nowhere near an FIDE Master. I did give a bishop back , but still had enough to win. The early exchanges of the Queens on move 8 helped me tremendously in this game. Single core/thread - that was enough for me.

I'm not familiar with the engine "McCain", but every strong engine should know that rooks are more valuable in the endgame and so you don't trade queens voluntarily when down a rook. Komodo would surely not do this. By the way, it would help if you mention the time limit and your own rating, estimated or actual.
Komodo rules!

MikeB
Posts: 3275
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:34 am
Location: Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania

Re: Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

Post by MikeB » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:21 am

lkaufman wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:46 am
MikeB wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:00 am
Graham Banks wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:36 pm
I might be able to play a top engine with rook odds against the following player - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dreyer.

In a six game match, how do you think he'd fare?
My guess is that he will win 2 or 3 and draw the rest. Rooks odds are very tough for the engine.
I was able to pull this win off after losing 3 straight, and I'm nowhere near an FIDE Master. I did give a bishop back , but still had enough to win. The early exchanges of the Queens on move 8 helped me tremendously in this game. Single core/thread - that was enough for me.

I'm not familiar with the engine "McCain", but every strong engine should know that rooks are more valuable in the endgame and so you don't trade queens voluntarily when down a rook. Komodo would surely not do this. By the way, it would help if you mention the time limit and your own rating, estimated or actual.
The trade was not in the endgame and even Komodo might trade the queens a rook down if you catch it just right. Once black played 7....Qe7, the queens were coming off...
Komodo 12.3 single core analysis

Code: Select all

dep	score	nodes	time	(not shown:  tbhits	knps	seldep)
 28	 -6.18?	63.4M  	0:52.06	O-O O-O? 
 28	 -6.13!	61.6M  	0:50.51	O-O O-O Be6! 
 28	 -6.25?	55.9M  	0:45.65	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 28	 -6.17?	51.6M  	0:42.15	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 27	 -6.11 	48.2M  	0:39.51	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 Be6 Bg3 Nxg3+ hxg3 c6 Rae1 O-O Kd2 Nd7 Ne2 Nf6 Nf4 Ng4 Re2 Bd7 c3 a6 Bc2 Bc8 Nd3 Nf6 Kc1 Ne4 Nd2 Nf6 Ne5 Be6 f3 c5 dxc5 Bxc5 
 27	 -6.11?	39.4M  	0:32.43	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 27	 -6.06!	38.1M  	0:31.42	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 27	 -6.14!	37.4M  	0:30.84	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 26	 -6.20 	34.4M  	0:28.36	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 Be6 Bg3 Nxg3+ hxg3 c6 Rae1 Nd7 Kd2 O-O Ne2 Nf6 Nf4 Ng4 Rhf1 Bd7 c3 g6 Ne5 Nxe5 dxe5 Bb8 e6 Bxf4+ gxf4 Bxe6 Bxg6 fxg6 Rxe6 
 26	 -6.17?	30.0M  	0:24.81	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 25	 -6.11 	26.9M  	0:22.22	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 Be6 Bg3 Nxg3+ hxg3 a6 Nd1 O-O Ne3 Re8 c3 Nd7 b4 Nf6 Ne5 c6 Kd2 Bc8 f4 Ne4+ Bxe4 dxe4 a4 Bc7 Rae1 f6 Ng6 Kf7 
 25	 -6.08?	24.2M  	0:20.00	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 25	 -6.01!	23.6M  	0:19.49	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 25	 -6.06?	19.6M  	0:16.44	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 25	 -6.02!	19.3M  	0:16.14	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 24	 -6.08 	18.5M  	0:15.49	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 c6 Bg3 Nxg3+ hxg3 Be6 Rae1 Nd7 Nd1 O-O Ne3 Re8 c3 Nf6 a3 Bc7 Ne5 c5 Bc2 a6 Nf3 Bg4 Kd3 c4+ Kd2 
 24	 -6.07?	17.1M  	0:14.32	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 23	 -6.01 	16.4M  	0:13.73	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 c6 Bg3 Nxg3+ hxg3 Be6 Rae1 O-O Nd1 Nd7 Ne3 Re8 c3 Nf6 a3 Bc7 Ne5 c5 Bc2 a6 f3 cxd4 cxd4 
 23	 -5.95!	16.1M  	0:13.49	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 23	 -6.05?	15.5M  	0:13.03	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 23	 -5.98!	15.4M  	0:12.94	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 23	 -6.14?	14.9M  	0:12.50	O-O O-O? 
 23	 -6.03?	13.8M  	0:11.72	O-O O-O? 
 23	 -5.99!	13.5M  	0:11.49	O-O O-O Bg4! 
 23	 -6.11?	13.1M  	0:11.14	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 22	 -6.05 	12.0M  	0:10.28	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 Nf4+ Kf1 Nxd3 cxd3 Nc6 Nxd5 Bf5 Rd1 Bg4 Re1+ Kd7 Bg3 Bxf3 gxf3 Nxd4 Kg2 f5 Bxd6 Kxd6 Ne7 Ra8 Ng6 Rd8 
 22	 -6.20?	11.1M  	0:09.48	O-O O-O? 
 22	 -6.09?	8.29M  	0:07.20	O-O O-O? 
 22	 -6.01?	7.15M  	0:06.28	O-O O-O? 
 21	 -5.95 	6.65M  	0:05.85	O-O O-O Bg4 Re1 Nbd7 Nc3 c6 Bg3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Bxg3 hxg3 Qb6 Ne2 Re8 Rab1 Nf8 a3 Ne6 c3 Kh8 
 21	 -6.02!	6.44M  	0:05.67	O-O O-O Bg4! 
 21	 -6.07?	6.13M  	0:05.37	O-O O-O? 
 21	 -6.03!	5.93M  	0:05.20	O-O O-O Bg4! 
 20	 -6.09 	4.77M  	0:04.20	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 Nbd7 Nc3 c6 Qd2 c5 dxc5 Nxc5 Nb5 Be7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd4 Qb6 Rab1 Bg4 c3 Bxf3 Nxf3 Ne6 Bf5 Qc6 Ne5 
 20	 -6.09?	3.69M  	0:03.23	O-O O-O? 
 19	 -6.03 	2.82M  	0:02.45	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 Re8 Nc3 c6 Bg3 a6 a3 Bxg3 hxg3 Nbd7 Qd2 Ng4 Rab1 g6 Rbd1 Ndf6 
 19	 -6.11?	2.70M  	0:02.35	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 19	 -5.96?	2.38M  	0:02.09	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 19	 -5.91!	2.24M  	0:01.96	Qe7+ Qe2 Be6! 
 19	 -6.03?	2.09M  	0:01.82	O-O O-O? 
 19	 -5.95?	1.67M  	0:01.46	O-O O-O? 
 18	 -5.89 	1.37M  	0:01.19	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 c5 dxc5 Bxc5 c3 Nc6 Nbd2 Bb6 Nb3 d4 Nbxd4 Nxd4 cxd4 g5 Bg3 g4 
 18	 -5.94!	1.31M  	0:01.13	O-O O-O Be6! 
 18	 -5.98?	1.14M  	0:00.99	O-O O-O? 
 17	 -5.92 	979406	0:00.83	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 Nbd7 Nc3 a6 Ne5 c6 Qf3 Qc7 Qe3 c5 f4 c4 f5 cxd3 fxe6 
 17	 -5.92!	968913	0:00.82	O-O O-O Be6! 
 17	 -5.96?	868990	0:00.73	O-O O-O? 
 16	 -5.90 	753699	0:00.62	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 a6 Nbd2 Nbd7 Ne5 c5 Nxd7 Bxd7 dxc5 Bxc5 c3 g5 Bg3 Re8 
 16	 -5.90!	699613	0:00.57	O-O O-O Be6! 
 16	 -5.97?	543817	0:00.44	O-O O-O? 
 16	 -5.92!	526936	0:00.42	O-O O-O Be6! 
 16	 -6.04?	498881	0:00.40	c5 dxc5? 
 16	 -5.96?	415675	0:00.34	c5 dxc5? 
 15	 -5.90 	350469	0:00.29	c5 dxc5 Bxc5 O-O O-O c3 Nc6 Nbd2 Be6 Re1 g5 Nb3 Bb6 Bg3 d4 Nfxd4 Nxd4 
 15	 -5.93?	296280	0:00.25	O-O O-O? 
 14	 -5.87 	279790	0:00.23	O-O O-O Na6 c3 c6 Ne5 Nc5 Nxf7 Rxf7 dxc5 Bxc5 Nd2 g5 Bg3 Bd6 Bxd6 
 14	 -5.87?	180752	0:00.15	O-O O-O? 
 14	 -5.78?	134953	0:00.11	O-O O-O? 
 13	 -5.72 	113473	0:00.10	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 c5 dxc5 Bxc5 c3 Nc6 Nbd2 g5 Bg3 g4 Nb3 Bb6 
 12	 -5.73 	87663  	0:00.07	O-O O-O Be6 Nc3 Nc6 Re1 a6 a3 Re8 h3 Kh8 Bg3 Bxg3 
 12	 -5.72?	61634  	0:00.05	O-O O-O? 
 12	 -5.63?	32349  	0:00.03	O-O O-O? 
 11	 -5.57 	28258  	0:00.02	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 Re1 a6 Bg3 Bxg3 hxg3 Bg4 
 11	 -5.59!	27237  	0:00.02	O-O O-O Nc6! 
 11	 -5.63?	17270  	0:00.02	O-O O-O? 
 10	 -5.57 	11358  	0:00.01	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 Nb5 g5 Bg3 Re8 Nxd6 
 10	 -5.51?	8584    	0:00.01	O-O O-O? 
  9	 -5.45 	7188    	0:00.01	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 Nb5 g5 Bg3 Re8 
  9	 -5.40?	5310    	0:00.01	O-O O-O? 
  8	 -5.34 	4457    	0:00.01	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 a3 Re8 Re1 
  8	 -5.28?	3674    	0:00.01	O-O O-O? 
  7	 -5.22 	3036    	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 Bxf6 
  7	 -5.32!	2727    	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6! 
  6	 -5.39 	2460    	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 Re1 
  6	 -5.31?	2112    	0:00.00	O-O O-O? 
  6	 -5.10?	1905    	0:00.00	O-O O-O? 
  6	 -4.95?	1579    	0:00.00	O-O O-O? 
  6	 -4.84?	1378    	0:00.00	O-O O-O? 
  5	 -4.78 	1198    	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6 Bxf6 
  5	 -4.78!	1083    	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6! 
  5	 -5.01!	1003    	0:00.00	O-O Ne5 Nc6! 
  5	 -5.16!	923      	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6! 
  5	 -5.27!	867      	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6! 
  4	 -5.33 	573      	0:00.00	O-O O-O Bg4 Nc3 
  3	 -4.52 	376      	0:00.00	O-O O-O g5 
  2	 -5.11 	197      	0:00.00	O-O O-O 
  1	 -1.32 	131      	0:00.00	O-O Bxf6 
game was set to 2 to 3, but I had auto flag turned off and went two or 3 minutes over . as I did glanced at the clock now and then. There was no pondering.

McCain is my own personal Stockfish derivative , probably plays 95% of the time just like SF. The initial driver for me to make fork was not playing strength - SF is plenty strong for me, but the additional options I wanted to see in SF, MCCain today can use 4 polyglot books in sequential order., it has play by ELO option which I developed on my own. It is not based on randomness, but the strength is reduced simply by reducing the nps , if effect reducing the horizon. A ussr can pick specific level World Champion, SIM etc or one can pick an ELo and its pretty accurate - not perfect . but pretty close. At the Word Champion level, McCain wills about 80,000 nps. At the FIDE Master level, it wills see about 1600 NPS. At the Expert level , it wills see about 500 nps.

You can try it yourself. I get the lower nps by introducing a sleep command and if you have a super strong computer , you can adjust the setting to match your computer, It assumes your computer would bench McCain at about 1500K nps, but you can adjust it if you need to.

It also has Jekyll & Hyde setting that can make McCain play a little bizarrely.

Binaries of all flavors can be found here:

https://github.com/MichaelB7/Stockfish/releases/tag/X4

I played in a chess club for years and I'm an average club player in the 1600 to 1700 range.

User avatar
Guenther
Posts: 2953
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:33 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Full name: Guenther Simon
Contact:

Re: Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

Post by Guenther » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:31 am

MikeB wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:21 am

My guess is that he will win 2 or 3 and draw the rest. Rooks odds are very tough for the engine.
I was able to pull this win off after losing 3 straight, and I'm nowhere near an FIDE Master. I did give a bishop back , but still had enough to win. The early exchanges of the Queens on move 8 helped me tremendously in this game. Single core/thread - that was enough for me.

...
Have you tried raising contempt a lot? That should help SF in such handicap games vs. Humans.
Current foe list count : [91]
http://rwbc-chess.de/chronology.htm

Post Reply