New engine releases & news 2021

[Guenther]

New Engine:
AXWChessBot 0.0.8 by Jan Niklas Richter released yesterday

This version is stable now and uci support is sufficient for being tested.
My rating estimation is around 1300 at CCRL-scale for it.

https://github.com/ArcticXWolf/AXWChessbot

[Modern Times]

Hi Norman,

thanks for the new version, including source code
I tested 8.0 privately under CEGT conditions. Does it make sense to re-test, i.e. is 8.1 stronger/different/weaker than 8.0?
Or can I use the games from 8.0 for our list?
I have no problem to re-test if you think it's better.

Thanks

Hi Wolf
There were minor code optimizations, so it may be a tiny bit faster...
of course such a small improvement would only really manifest itself in ultra-fast TCs.

I believe you will find little (if any) elo improvement in 8.1.
In normal play (at CEGT TCs) it should perform and test exactly like 8.0.

If 8.1 is so similar to 8, why are Ed's SIM test results so very different ?

http://rebel13.nl/dump/fire.html

[Madeleine Birchfield]

Hi Norman,

thanks for the new version, including source code
I tested 8.0 privately under CEGT conditions. Does it make sense to re-test, i.e. is 8.1 stronger/different/weaker than 8.0?
Or can I use the games from 8.0 for our list?
I have no problem to re-test if you think it's better.

Thanks

Hi Wolf
There were minor code optimizations, so it may be a tiny bit faster...
of course such a small improvement would only really manifest itself in ultra-fast TCs.

I believe you will find little (if any) elo improvement in 8.1.
In normal play (at CEGT TCs) it should perform and test exactly like 8.0.

If 8.1 is so similar to 8, why are Ed's SIM test results so very different ?

http://rebel13.nl/dump/fire.html

See http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 00#p890351

Turns out Fire 8.1 uses a lot of Houdini 6's code.

[ThomasMiller]

Hi Norman,

thanks for the new version, including source code
I tested 8.0 privately under CEGT conditions. Does it make sense to re-test, i.e. is 8.1 stronger/different/weaker than 8.0?
Or can I use the games from 8.0 for our list?
I have no problem to re-test if you think it's better.

Thanks

Hi Wolf
There were minor code optimizations, so it may be a tiny bit faster...
of course such a small improvement would only really manifest itself in ultra-fast TCs.

I believe you will find little (if any) elo improvement in 8.1.
In normal play (at CEGT TCs) it should perform and test exactly like 8.0.

If 8.1 is so similar to 8, why are Ed's SIM test results so very different ?

http://rebel13.nl/dump/fire.html

I had the same results with Fire 8: low similarity (30-35%) with all the engines. I guess it was doing some pruning at the root.

[Modern Times]

I don't understand why Norm would suggest to CEGT to combine 8 and 8.1 results when the evaluation per Ed's SIM tests are very very different.
OK I'm not convinced myself on SIM tests such as those but many people more expert than me are.

[Rebel]

Hi Norman,

thanks for the new version, including source code
I tested 8.0 privately under CEGT conditions. Does it make sense to re-test, i.e. is 8.1 stronger/different/weaker than 8.0?
Or can I use the games from 8.0 for our list?
I have no problem to re-test if you think it's better.

Thanks

Hi Wolf
There were minor code optimizations, so it may be a tiny bit faster...
of course such a small improvement would only really manifest itself in ultra-fast TCs.

I believe you will find little (if any) elo improvement in 8.1.
In normal play (at CEGT TCs) it should perform and test exactly like 8.0.

If 8.1 is so similar to 8, why are Ed's SIM test results so very different ?

http://rebel13.nl/dump/fire.html

It's easy to manipulate the SIM-depth=1 test, of course Norm had to take it out in 8.1

[voffka]

See http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 00#p890351
Turns out Fire 8.1 uses a lot of Houdini 6's code.

this saga just keeps getting more and more complicated.

[Damir]

Hi Norman,

thanks for the new version, including source code
I tested 8.0 privately under CEGT conditions. Does it make sense to re-test, i.e. is 8.1 stronger/different/weaker than 8.0?
Or can I use the games from 8.0 for our list?
I have no problem to re-test if you think it's better.

Thanks

Hi Wolf
There were minor code optimizations, so it may be a tiny bit faster...
of course such a small improvement would only really manifest itself in ultra-fast TCs.

I believe you will find little (if any) elo improvement in 8.1.
In normal play (at CEGT TCs) it should perform and test exactly like 8.0.

If 8.1 is so similar to 8, why are Ed's SIM test results so very different ?

http://rebel13.nl/dump/fire.html

See http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 00#p890351

Turns out Fire 8.1 uses a lot of Houdini 6's code.

So what if it is using.. When Houdart created Houdini he took and copied a lot of stuff from Robbolito which btw was under a GPL. Author of Robollito was Norman Schmidt, just in case you did not know.

[Modern Times]

See http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 00#p890351
Turns out Fire 8.1 uses a lot of Houdini 6's code.

this saga just keeps getting more and more complicated.

The complication is that Ed says it is easy for authors to manipulate the SIM-depth=1 test.

[Madeleine Birchfield]

So what if it is using.. When Houdart created Houdini he took and copied a lot of stuff from Robbolito which btw was under a GPL. Author of Robollito was Norman Schmidt, just in case you did not know.

Houdini 6 has a different codebase than Houdini 1-4, as discussed multiple times in the past few uears on Talkchess and elsewhere. Vast chunks of Houdini 6's codebase copied from both Stockfish 8 and Komodo, with very little of it actually coming from the original Houdini 1-4 codebase.

http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=73433