Eraserheads wrote:Here are some more engines. These I played for a good many years during the height of my computer chess frenzy.
Bright 0.4a in my opinion is the engine that is able to turn ordinary positions into unique, chaotic and messy situations at a relatively frequent rate. Think Morozevich or a prime Speelman.
I've heard some good things about Glass also.
Glaurung 1.2.1 was also known to have played aggressively.
Chess Tiger 14.0, when playing against 2200-2600 rated engines, exhibit the playing style of the young Karpov - positional, tactically surefooted and a knack to go into the endgame.
Shredder 5 (Millenium Chess edition), world champion in 2000 / 2001, exhibits a smart, active style with a knack for sacrificing a single pawn in almost every game for some positional advantage with human-like willingness. I believe this trait was completely misunderstood by early programs, and thus Shredder was able to overwhelm its opponents in its heyday.
Fritz 6 of course exhibits a very pure, early computer-like style which is still interesting to watch nowadays (if it plays vs humans). pure Spider tactics. Very tough to play against, it would wear you down by making you calculate the tactical consequences in every move.
Virtual Chess 2 plays like a steamroller especially in blitz against humans. Its moves are tactical but more simple, and difficult to outplay. Fritz 6 was tactically fancier. Virtual Chess 2 was more direct, brutal and clear.
Junior 6.0 is another steamroller, but with a willingness to move its h-pawn or a-pawn forward in almost every game, and it plays so differently compared to Junior 7. Junior 6 was the more positionally-inclined Fritz 6. I could say its style goes like this: It like to put its opponents in a vice grip and then when it does, rarely do its opponents get away.
Rybka 3 - A level above all these engines I mentioned... think a boxer with a haymaker punch ready at all times. It plays aggressively for its strength, and most of the time it nets the win using a tacticall Hammer at the end. Very interesting to watch.
Now of course with the increase in playing strength of the field, I notice these engines tend to lose their 'playing style'. I think in order for them to exhibit their special character, you have to allow them to play vs similar era / similar strength opponents.
Good additions and great point at the end. I would only add that they really shine against weaker opposition, too. Similar to Brendan, I like using weaker "cannon fodder" opponents facing off against interesting engines. You can get a lot of brilliancies that way.
CL
Been reading my blog, mate?
Exactly, an engine with an amazing style like Junior 7 or Hiarcs 8 Bareev (two opposing sides of the style spectrum) just looks ridiculous against almost any modern engine.
Put em against WChess 1.6, ZChess 2.0, Phalanx, AnMon and you'll see the real beauty in their play.
By the way fellas... Due to the mentions of Amyan in this thread, I did a test and YES indeed, it plays like Karpov!
Very nice engine as well.
Yes, excellent blog, Brendan. Keep up the good work!
It is great to see others with a preference of style over strength.
Thank you!
Yes exactly. Seeing all of the talk over squeezing tiny ELO point gains out of engines at the top these days bores me to tears.
Even Toga Chekov is strong enough for 99.9% of non-GM's to use for analysis these days and has a logical, human-Grandmaster like style.
These engines we use are like asking a very decent Grandmaster "Hey, what would you do here?" and I love this.
No need for 3300 ELO level analysis when you aren't strong enough to comprehend the ideas coming 30 ply down the line.
Even Magnus and co often have to dig deeper to understand what the hell is the point behind an engine's suggestion!
Eraserheads wrote:Here are some more engines. These I played for a good many years during the height of my computer chess frenzy.
Bright 0.4a in my opinion is the engine that is able to turn ordinary positions into unique, chaotic and messy situations at a relatively frequent rate. Think Morozevich or a prime Speelman.
I've heard some good things about Glass also.
Glaurung 1.2.1 was also known to have played aggressively.
Chess Tiger 14.0, when playing against 2200-2600 rated engines, exhibit the playing style of the young Karpov - positional, tactically surefooted and a knack to go into the endgame.
Shredder 5 (Millenium Chess edition), world champion in 2000 / 2001, exhibits a smart, active style with a knack for sacrificing a single pawn in almost every game for some positional advantage with human-like willingness. I believe this trait was completely misunderstood by early programs, and thus Shredder was able to overwhelm its opponents in its heyday.
Fritz 6 of course exhibits a very pure, early computer-like style which is still interesting to watch nowadays (if it plays vs humans). pure Spider tactics. Very tough to play against, it would wear you down by making you calculate the tactical consequences in every move.
Virtual Chess 2 plays like a steamroller especially in blitz against humans. Its moves are tactical but more simple, and difficult to outplay. Fritz 6 was tactically fancier. Virtual Chess 2 was more direct, brutal and clear.
Junior 6.0 is another steamroller, but with a willingness to move its h-pawn or a-pawn forward in almost every game, and it plays so differently compared to Junior 7. Junior 6 was the more positionally-inclined Fritz 6. I could say its style goes like this: It like to put its opponents in a vice grip and then when it does, rarely do its opponents get away.
Rybka 3 - A level above all these engines I mentioned... think a boxer with a haymaker punch ready at all times. It plays aggressively for its strength, and most of the time it nets the win using a tacticall Hammer at the end. Very interesting to watch.
Now of course with the increase in playing strength of the field, I notice these engines tend to lose their 'playing style'. I think in order for them to exhibit their special character, you have to allow them to play vs similar era / similar strength opponents.
Good additions and great point at the end. I would only add that they really shine against weaker opposition, too. Similar to Brendan, I like using weaker "cannon fodder" opponents facing off against interesting engines. You can get a lot of brilliancies that way.
CL
Been reading my blog, mate?
Exactly, an engine with an amazing style like Junior 7 or Hiarcs 8 Bareev (two opposing sides of the style spectrum) just looks ridiculous against almost any modern engine.
Put em against WChess 1.6, ZChess 2.0, Phalanx, AnMon and you'll see the real beauty in their play.
By the way fellas... Due to the mentions of Amyan in this thread, I did a test and YES indeed, it plays like Karpov!
Very nice engine as well.
Yes, excellent blog, Brendan. Keep up the good work!
It is great to see others with a preference of style over strength.
Thank you!
Yes exactly. Seeing all of the talk over squeezing tiny ELO point gains out of engines at the top these days bores me to tears.
Even Toga Chekov is strong enough for 99.9% of non-GM's to use for analysis these days and has a logical, human-Grandmaster like style.
These engines we use are like asking a very decent Grandmaster "Hey, what would you do here?" and I love this.
No need for 3300 ELO level analysis when you aren't strong enough to comprehend the ideas coming 30 ply down the line.
Even Magnus and co often have to dig deeper to understand what the hell is the point behind an engine's suggestion!
The biggest problem with pure strength for strength's (or Elo's) sake, is that, despite giving something us relatively close to the ultimate 'truth', these same engines may fail to deliver creative ideas that work well against very imperfect players. The built-in assumption on the typical top engines' part is that the opponent can also see 'everything', and that kills off most speculative attempts since they are viewed as mostly unsound. This can make many of the top engines less than ideal study and training partners. Most people may disagree, but that's how I see it.
Now, for more on this topic, please check out these posts I made in Feb 2013.
Just trying to compile a list of the engines that play in the most beautiful, positional, aggressive, human-like etc styles.
You guys are the experts...let me know if I've missed any.
Zappa Mexico Dissident Aggressor
Komodo Kinghunter
Deep Fritz 10
Frenzee (Capablanca-like play in my opinion)
Hiarcs 8 Bareev
Deep Junior 7
Prodeo (numerous great personalities)
WChess 1.6
Zarkov
Wasp (a new fav)
Toga 3.1.2 Checkov
Nimzo
Tao 5.6
Thinker (a few versions I love)
ZChess 2.00
Rybka Winfinder 2.2
King 3.23 Tribute
Vitruvius 0.84b
Ktulu 5.1
Phalanx
Critter 0.70
Rhetoric (material at 50)
Hiarcs 2007 Paderborn
Shredder 7.04
Gandalf 4.32
Gambit Tiger 2.0
Rodent II Henny/Remy
DisasterArea Cognac
Gambit Fruit Cognac
Twisted Logic Cognac
Nejmet
Maverick 1.0 (nice aggression in several types of position)
Little Goliath Evolution
Clearly I'm a guy who cares more for style than strength.
There are also a handful of personalities I am working on but still testing.
Have I missed any great current or historial engines in my list (which is in random order I should mention)?
I always enjoyed Gromit/Anaconda
“He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, pathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious”
I would also include gothmog 10b10 in this list as well very aggressive not the strongest of the engines listed maybe around 2300 ELO ccrl doesn't have it listed but that's my estimated guess.
i moved manually for zappa, tal only had 10 minutes for the game. CST had its official opening book while zappa had to improvise -- i made the move 3.d4, planning to force a scotch gambit. zappa took over immediately though, & did it its own way. suppose this is nothing much for those used to these engines, but i forget about them until every couple years or so.
some very bad blunders by CST but nevertheless fun stuff.