Curiosity Engine ??? (For Now It's Number 1 )

[IWB]

Maybe this helps:


Played with 4pc SYZYGY bases.
Pondering Kg2, which is played in 0s out of the Tablebases and SF151031 is gone. CPU usage 0%.
I suspect some UCI problem as the GUI is crashed as well (which doesnt happen (that often) with the latest other engines I tested).

Regards
Ingo

[Damir]

Hi Ingo

Maybe it is the engine name that the GUI can not handle....

[Ozymandias]

I don't know if it happens in the chess sub group of Ponder OFF games … but as nearly no one tests real chess - shit might happen …

Ponder ON=real chess
Ponder OFF=unreal chess?

[IWB]

I don't know if it happens in the chess sub group of Ponder OFF games … but as nearly no one tests real chess - shit might happen …

Ponder ON=real chess
Ponder OFF=unreal chess?

I don't mind the name. I am open for suggestions to distinguish the to types of the game.

Ingo

[BBauer]

Ponder ON=real chess
Ponder OFF=unreal chess?

Real chess is usually played with ponder on.
Good plyers have the game in their mind and still think when it's not their turn.
Kind regards
Bernhard

[Aser Huerga]

I don't know if it happens in the chess sub group of Ponder OFF games … but as nearly no one tests real chess - shit might happen …

Ponder ON=real chess
Ponder OFF=unreal chess?

I don't mind the name. I am open for suggestions to distinguish the to types of the game.

Ingo

Ponder ON=since engines has no psychological capabilities, no foresight, ponder on only introduces some degree of random bias. It has no sense to emulate human conditions, engines aren't humans.
Ponder OFF=a more precise and reproductible way of testing engines

Is my honest opinion.
This not mean Ingo work are invalid, but I think it would be more precise with ponder off, even with the same number of games (ponder off allow to play twice number of games for the same period of time, hence more accurate results).

[Ozymandias]

Ponder ON=since engines has no psychological capabilities, no foresight, ponder on only introduces some degree of random bias. It has no sense to emulate human conditions, engines aren't humans.
Ponder OFF=a more precise and reproductible way of testing engines

Is my honest opinion.
This not mean Ingo work are invalid, but I think it would be more precise with ponder off, even with the same number of games (ponder off allow to play twice number of games for the same period of time, hence more accurate results).

I was hoping for some kind of insight, into Ponder ON testing. What you say is basically what I thought, but maybe extensive testing has revealed, that some engines benefit more than others, because they guess the move played more often. It'd be interesting to see those stats.

[IWB]

Just some gut feeling watching the games:

The opponents answer has to come imediatley (which means the opponent has to use TBs as well) and the number of pieces has to be very low, probaly within the number of pieces used for the Tbs (in my case 4 or below).
And worst: Even then it is not always crashing

Bye
Ingo

[syzygy]

Just some gut feeling watching the games:

The opponents answer has to come imediatley (which means the opponent has to use TBs as well) and the number of pieces has to be very low, probaly within the number of pieces used for the Tbs (in my case 4 or below).
And worst: Even then it is not always crashing

PERHAPS Stockfish crashes if it reaches maximum depth while pondering (i.e. maximum number of iterations). I did not test this.

[IWB]

PERHAPS Stockfish crashes if it reaches maximum depth while pondering (i.e. maximum number of iterations). I did not test this.

Don't know, 127 plys in the below case, but only 70 in the example before, but there it was only 3 pieces ... I don't know

But it is not the related to a low number of pieces on the board:



Bye
Ingo