Page 6 of 17

Re: Human versus Machine

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:44 pm
by Milos
Guenther wrote:Well, you are in the wrong thread and LKs post has nothing to do with what you replied, obviously driven by some agenda.

He simply answered to a question of LT, but the orginal quote somehow slipped away:
If engine A draws a match of 20 games against engine B with both engines not pondering, what would be the score, how many elos will engine A that ponders gain in the same match against engine B that does not ponder?
How much dependent this will be on time control?
His answer has nothing to do with ponder at all. He doesn't mention ponder in it, and to estimate Elo in case of ponder engine against non-ponder one needs to know ponder-hit ratio which depends on the absolute strength of the engines.

On the other hand LT replies to LK's post with:
That ballpark would make for 5 full points in 100 games, just the difference between Komodo or Houdini winning TCEC.
which means it is you who obviously got it wrong.

Re: Human versus Machine

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:33 pm
by Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Milos wrote:
Guenther wrote:Well, you are in the wrong thread and LKs post has nothing to do with what you replied, obviously driven by some agenda.

He simply answered to a question of LT, but the orginal quote somehow slipped away:
If engine A draws a match of 20 games against engine B with both engines not pondering, what would be the score, how many elos will engine A that ponders gain in the same match against engine B that does not ponder?
How much dependent this will be on time control?
His answer has nothing to do with ponder at all. He doesn't mention ponder in it, and to estimate Elo in case of ponder engine against non-ponder one needs to know ponder-hit ratio which depends on the absolute strength of the engines.

On the other hand LT replies to LK's post with:
That ballpark would make for 5 full points in 100 games, just the difference between Komodo or Houdini winning TCEC.
which means it is you who obviously got it wrong.
I guess MS and GS did not understand LK and LT, or vice-versa.

My question was actually very simple: in case I have 5 minutes for the game, and the machine 2 minutes, just as an example, and the machine ponders, how much strength it would gain in comparison to the case, when it will not ponder?
Could this be translated into time increment?

Re: Human versus Machine

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:11 am
by lkaufman
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Milos wrote:
Guenther wrote:Well, you are in the wrong thread and LKs post has nothing to do with what you replied, obviously driven by some agenda.

He simply answered to a question of LT, but the orginal quote somehow slipped away:
If engine A draws a match of 20 games against engine B with both engines not pondering, what would be the score, how many elos will engine A that ponders gain in the same match against engine B that does not ponder?
How much dependent this will be on time control?
His answer has nothing to do with ponder at all. He doesn't mention ponder in it, and to estimate Elo in case of ponder engine against non-ponder one needs to know ponder-hit ratio which depends on the absolute strength of the engines.

On the other hand LT replies to LK's post with:
That ballpark would make for 5 full points in 100 games, just the difference between Komodo or Houdini winning TCEC.
which means it is you who obviously got it wrong.
I guess MS and GS did not understand LK and LT, or vice-versa.

My question was actually very simple: in case I have 5 minutes for the game, and the machine 2 minutes, just as an example, and the machine ponders, how much strength it would gain in comparison to the case, when it will not ponder?
Could this be translated into time increment?
I suppose ponder hits are much lower against a human than against another computer. Maybe in your example 2 min with ponder might be about as strong as 3.5 or so minutes without ponder, which would in turn be about like 2 min plus 3 sec increment without ponder. Note that the greater the time odds, the more ponder adds to elo. With equal time it might be 20 elo or so in fast games, but at say one hour to one minute odds it might be more than a hundred elo. That's why when we played GM Erenburg with 90 to 3 min time odds we also turned off ponder, as with ponder the odds would have been much less.

Re: Human versus Machine

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:40 pm
by Lyudmil Tsvetkov
lkaufman wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Milos wrote:
Guenther wrote:Well, you are in the wrong thread and LKs post has nothing to do with what you replied, obviously driven by some agenda.

He simply answered to a question of LT, but the orginal quote somehow slipped away:
If engine A draws a match of 20 games against engine B with both engines not pondering, what would be the score, how many elos will engine A that ponders gain in the same match against engine B that does not ponder?
How much dependent this will be on time control?
His answer has nothing to do with ponder at all. He doesn't mention ponder in it, and to estimate Elo in case of ponder engine against non-ponder one needs to know ponder-hit ratio which depends on the absolute strength of the engines.

On the other hand LT replies to LK's post with:
That ballpark would make for 5 full points in 100 games, just the difference between Komodo or Houdini winning TCEC.
which means it is you who obviously got it wrong.
I guess MS and GS did not understand LK and LT, or vice-versa.

My question was actually very simple: in case I have 5 minutes for the game, and the machine 2 minutes, just as an example, and the machine ponders, how much strength it would gain in comparison to the case, when it will not ponder?
Could this be translated into time increment?
I suppose ponder hits are much lower against a human than against another computer. Maybe in your example 2 min with ponder might be about as strong as 3.5 or so minutes without ponder, which would in turn be about like 2 min plus 3 sec increment without ponder. Note that the greater the time odds, the more ponder adds to elo. With equal time it might be 20 elo or so in fast games, but at say one hour to one minute odds it might be more than a hundred elo. That's why when we played GM Erenburg with 90 to 3 min time odds we also turned off ponder, as with ponder the odds would have been much less.
Without having done any tests, I have pretty much the same intuitive understanding.

Stockfish and Fischer

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:32 am
by Lyudmil Tsvetkov
I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.

After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078N ... _rd_i=4406

While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.

Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.

So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.

Re: Stockfish and Fischer

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:07 pm
by pilgrimdan
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.

After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078N ... _rd_i=4406

While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.

Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.

So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.
sounds interesting Lyudmil ... may buy and take a look ...

Re: Stockfish and Fischer

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:18 am
by Lyudmil Tsvetkov
pilgrimdan wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.

After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078N ... _rd_i=4406

While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.

Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.

So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.
sounds interesting Lyudmil ... may buy and take a look ...
[d]r4rk1/2q1bpp1/pn3n1p/1pp1pP2/6P1/1BP4P/PP1N1P2/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 17

One of the positions from the positional suite my SF does not see(I don't know about the latest version on big hardware).
17. h4 wins
Does any engine see this easily wins?
Why would SF fail to see that?

It's not you Dan, I guess SF developers need the book. :D

Re: Stockfish and Fischer

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:37 am
by Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Oops, this is Fischer-Benko, New York 1965

Re: Stockfish and Fischer

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:50 am
by Lyudmil Tsvetkov
One more SF will probably never get:
[d]r3r1k1/pp1q1p2/2p2npb/PPPp1bnp/3PpN2/2N1P1PP/1R1B1PBK/3Q1R2 b - - 0 19

Andrew already has posted this.

SF has to find 19...Bg4. When?

This is from Nikolic-Fischer, Vinkovci 1968

Re: Stockfish and Fischer

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:47 pm
by beram
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
pilgrimdan wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.

After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078N ... _rd_i=4406

While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.

Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.

So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.
sounds interesting Lyudmil ... may buy and take a look ...
[d]r4rk1/2q1bpp1/pn3n1p/1pp1pP2/6P1/1BP4P/PP1N1P2/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 17

One of the positions from the positional suite my SF does not see(I don't know about the latest version on big hardware).
17. h4 wins
Does any engine see this easily wins?
Why would SF fail to see that?

It's not you Dan, I guess SF developers need the book. :D
The move h4! doesn't win Lyudmil