what is the best engine for big material handicap?

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.
Uri Blass
Posts: 8557
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: what is the best engine for big material handicap?

Post by Uri Blass » Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:54 am

Ovyron wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:18 am
Dann Corbit wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:34 pm
"Real chess" or not, they can still be fun.
I'll not dispute that, I've been saying for years that Crazyhouse is a superior game to chess, and that people should consider dropping chess and moving into a more fun variant, instead of trying to fix chess drawing rules to artificially decrease draws, research what most people would be willing to play (though, it turns out if you put some big prize money, people would play anything), so if it turned out playing from a chess puzzle would be best, I'd support that. But I'd be against still calling it chess, which is easy to define whenever you invite someone to play chess and they're shocked when something is different from what they expect.
lkaufman wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:59 pm
What is "drawing on the chessboard"? I've never heard that expression.
It's... this:

Image

You can click on the image to see what is happening, but basically people are being able to draw arrows and circles on the chessboard as they play games. Whenever it happens, to me it's no longer chess, because on a game in person you'll not see people getting out their crayons to draw on the board to help them visualize.

FIDE did lose me when they legalized illegal moves, as in, if your opponent makes an illegal move and you don't notice and the game continues to completion then the result of the game stands, or something like that, which makes chess a joke, because I could potentially take advantage of illegal blunders, by pretending I didn't notice them, and win the game, and it'd stand, or whatever.

What I'm saying is that the word "chess" describes a game, and this game has some properties, and a game with different properties is no longer chess, no matter how similar, or if it feels the same (like the variant with different pawn promotions.)

Chess would have these properties:

-It is a game played on a 8x8 board (Things like Capablanca Chess would be eliminated)
-It is played with 6 pieces, called pawn, bishop, knight, rook, queen and king, respectively (anything with a fairy piece would be eliminated)
-The pieces move like this <insert moving rules> (Most positions from 960 Chess are eliminated because kings move differently when castling)
-There's two sides, white and black, that control the pieces, and want to checkmate the opposing king (Things like Losing chess and Suicide chess are eliminated here, as long as any chess variant that is -identical to chess but with different objectives for winning, like promoting a pawn wins the game)
-Players can't make illegal moves that violate <moving rules>, but otherwise, they can choose any legal move and play it on the board (this eliminates thematic chess, players arranging to play certain moves if they face each other, and anything that starts the game forcing the player to have made some moves before the game started)
-Players start the game with 32 pieces on the board <insert here what pieces are on the opening position and their arrangement>, white plays first (for the purposes of this part, the colors of the pieces don't matter, but they're still defined as white and black so they can be differentiated on the chessboard, and players know when is their turn) and then black plays next, and they continue alternating moves (this eliminates material handicap games, games with extra pieces, and most shuffle chess positions that don't have pieces in their starting squares, variants where white or black move more than once, or can skip a turn, and, I guess, games where multiple people control any of the sides, so getting assistance would be cheating.)
-<Insert here rules about checking the king, and how it has to escape, capture the attacker or block the attack, and how being unable to do that is checkmate>
-A player checkmating the opposing king is awarded 1 point, and the other 0.
-<Insert here rules about draws, defining stalemate, draws for insufficient material, repetition of positions, and draws for going too long without a pawn move or capture happening>
-A player can resign at any point, doing so is the same as getting checkmated by the opponent.
-Players can offer a draw to their opponent, if it's rejected nothing happens, if it's accepted then doing so is the same as a stalemate (for simplicity purpose)

Unless I forgot something important that would work as a definition of chess, even if you wouldn't grant me the right to define it, chess as a word could be defined similarly to this.

Note that chess clocks are absent from this, because all they do is giving an incentive for players to move, lest, nothing stops white to never make a move, because the rules only say it has to eventually make it, they can take years to make it if they wanted.

At least in my country, chess clocks are too pricey, so the norm has been to play most chess tournaments without chess clocks. The surprising thing is that without clocks, people tend to play quick and the games end in a timely fashion. Not only games are finishing faster than if there was a 2 hour clock on there, people seem to be playing faster than in 10 0 games with clocks, and the games resemble chess more than the 10 0 games that end in a time struggle where players are moving their pieces and hitting their clocks like maniacs...

Even if my attempt at defining chess were garbage, I think another similar list could be built by someone else and everyone could agree with them that that's chess (the definition exists and there's a combination of characters that depicts it). I'd actually be interested in arguments by someone to claim something in the list isn't chess.
What do you do without clocks if a player refuse to move and think so the game is never finished?
Do you have some arbiter to force a player to move in this case or to adjudicate the game?

Note that I know about a case when a player simply refused to move instead of resigning in a tournament with clocks.
In this case of course the player lose on time but when there is no clock losing on time is not possible.

User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: what is the best engine for big material handicap?

Post by Ovyron » Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:56 am

Uri Blass wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:54 am
What do you do without clocks if a player refuse to move and think so the game is never finished?
I haven't seen it happen, if people are willing to sign up for a tournament, they're willing to play moves once the game starts. You can't just go there and sit up before the chessboard, you have to register to play, and people going through all the process of registration are the same people that move when it's their turn.

But presumably their opponents would call the tournament director and tell them their opponent hasn't move after a long while, and the they would ask them to make a move even if they don't have clocks.
Uri Blass wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:54 am
Do you have some arbiter to force a player to move in this case or to adjudicate the game?
Yeah, though I've never seen anyone being worried about their opponents not moving because of lack of clocks. And all kinds of people play, even people with mental problems or... below 60 IQ with speech problems... and they all seem to move in a timely fashion without clocks.

Maybe it's our culture, chess is very unpopular around here generally (at least, it's much easier to find tournaments for a random video game than for chess), so when a tourney happens, the people that go there are hungry for chess games and wouldn't hesitate to make their moves.

People interested in chess are very rare, but those that do tend to be very polite, shaking hands, examining the games after they're over, giving advice, etc. There's some implicit interest in keeping opponents in the game so one doesn't want to treat them badly because of their scarcity. I almost wish they trash-talked like the people on Coffee Chess videos, though I I guess I could set the trend by starting doing that...
Uri Blass wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:54 am
Note that I know about a case when a player simply refused to move instead of resigning in a tournament with clocks.
Oh, one of those. Well, people interested in causing havoc in a chess tournament have plenty of more interesting options than refusing to move in a game.

I'll keep my eyes open, because usually, when I think about an unexpected scenario I've never seen, it tends to happen soon. So I hope someone records it and uploads it to youtube, but I think it'd be a person that purposely registered on the tournament to troll them (for their lack of clocks?)
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

carldaman
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:13 am

Re: what is the best engine for big material handicap?

Post by carldaman » Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:23 am

In US scholastic tournaments where sometimes the game is played without a clock, the TD has the discretion to enforce timed play by introducing a clock, if the game drags on too long.

EroSennin
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:26 am

Re: what is the best engine for big material handicap?

Post by EroSennin » Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:31 am

Ovyron wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:18 am
I'll not dispute that, I've been saying for years that Crazyhouse is a superior game to chess, and that people should consider dropping chess and moving into a more fun variant, instead of trying to fix chess drawing rules to artificially decrease draws, research what most people would be willing to play (though, it turns out if you put some big prize money, people would play anything), so if it turned out playing from a chess puzzle would be best, I'd support that. But I'd be against still calling it chess, which is easy to define whenever you invite someone to play chess and they're shocked when something is different from what they expect.
Crazyhouse is a win for white by force. It would be boring to see white winning all the time in top tournaments.

User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: what is the best engine for big material handicap?

Post by Ovyron » Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:59 am

Have you checked top human play of Crazyhouse games? Aren't they full of mistakes by both sides and who's winning changes constantly as they blunder?

Even top engine play is like that after deeper scrutiny.

If the strongest human player as white can't beat an engine at crazyhouse, then it's irrelevant that the opening position is a mate in something.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

User avatar
Nordlandia
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:38 pm
Location: Sortland, Norway

Re: what is the best engine for big material handicap?

Post by Nordlandia » Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:20 pm

Current hardware limits long analysis of crazyhouse because of the horizon effects. Crazyhouse is magnitudes bigger than chess and the game tree is virtually infinite. Draws are rare and endgames are unheard of, so tablebases for crazyhouse is impossible for the next 50 years if not century.

lkaufman
Posts: 3678
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Contact:

Re: what is the best engine for big material handicap?

Post by lkaufman » Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:41 pm

Ovyron wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:59 am
Have you checked top human play of Crazyhouse games? Aren't they full of mistakes by both sides and who's winning changes constantly as they blunder?

Even top engine play is like that after deeper scrutiny.

If the strongest human player as white can't beat an engine at crazyhouse, then it's irrelevant that the opening position is a mate in something.
I've hardly ever played Crazyhouse, although I am at age 71 still ranked number 2 in the world among non-Japanese (by birth or nationality) shogi players, and Crazyhouse is the chess equivalent of shogi, so I have some interest in it. My question is what is the winning percentage for White in top human non-blitz games? If it is around 60% or less, I would say that is acceptable. If it is much more than that, the only way to run a serious tournament is to have every pairing consist of two games, to equalize the color imbalance. If it is too one-sided, we could always prohibit the best opening move or moves for White so as to leave chances fairly equal.
Komodo rules!

User avatar
Nordlandia
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:38 pm
Location: Sortland, Norway

Re: what is the best engine for big material handicap?

Post by Nordlandia » Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:56 pm

Lichess stats suggest average 55% edge for white in the initial setup. Comparable to home field advantage in football.

2500 elo score 58% with e4.

lkaufman
Posts: 3678
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Contact:

Re: what is the best engine for big material handicap?

Post by lkaufman » Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:15 pm

Nordlandia wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:56 pm
Lichess stats suggest average 55% edge for white in the initial setup. Comparable to home field advantage in football.

2500 elo score 58% with e4.
I suppose those stats mix blitz with nonblitz games. Any idea of what percentage of those games are blitz games, or of what the 2500 stats would be without the blitz games? Presumably the longer the TC, the more likely it is that White's advantage will decide the game.
Komodo rules!

todd
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:09 pm

Re: what is the best engine for big material handicap?

Post by todd » Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:57 am

It may be difficult to obtain a large enough sample of slower time control crazyhouse games involving strong players.

Unfortunately among strong players, time controls are probably slightly faster on average than in chess (more 1 0 than in chess and less 3 0). And just as in chess, strong players rarely play slow games online.

I think it's a shame - even 20 years ago I thought that crazyhouse deserved a chance to be played at slow time controls and tried to encourage some other strong players to play me at slow time controls, without much success.

Back then, there were no strong crazyhouse computers. There were computers that were better than most humans, but plenty of humans would beat them at slow time controls. They were tough at bullet time controls, though. So it was possible to play long time controls without concern about cheating.

Some of the tactics in crazyhouse are very deep and beautiful and require a lot of calculation to verify - something that can't be done at blitz/bullet time controls.

Post Reply