Help with Komodo 1.0 personalities.

[Ovyron]

Great games! I didn't recall Komodo KingHunter being so deranged!

[Damir]

Brandon, do you know where I can find this Komodo 1.0 with personalities?
Can you post a link to it please ?

It's here!:

http://komodochess.com/pub/komodo10-ja.zip

From the page that has links to all free versions:

https://komodochess.com/downloads.htm

Here's Komodo KingHunter Personality:

#Kinghunter personality for Komodo 1.0

# dynamic features
# -------------------------
pmob 48 125
nmob 64 56
bmob 64 65
rmob 25 48
ropen 205 180
rhalf 55 75
qmob 25 35
blockedopen -60 -84
kppdist 0 33
ntabm 30 12
btabm 14 14
rtabm 16 12
qtabm 14 14
ktabm 12 12
luftp -108 -180
ksarea 15 0
ksdefm 13 0
ksattm 13 0
pthreat 79 127
outpost 35 36
minorbehind 38 0
rook7th 60 160


# static features
# -------------------------
pval 850 1150
nval 3200 3800
bval 3200 3800
rval 4900 6400
qval 10100 12100
bpair 333 666
rpair -125 -175
qpair -80 -120
pdoubled -50 -80
predundant 10 10
islands -30 -60
isoh -35 -35
isoo -140 -170
duofended 20 0
pbkwd -35 -45
passed 14 23
ppinc 100 160
ptabm 10 10
nwp 25 25
bwp 20 20
rwp -25 -25
hmb 90 20

Thanks a lot buddy. Really appreciate all your help

[carldaman]

Looking forward to it! You should match it against Komodo KingHunter one day, let's see if it manages to hunt the king, or if all its attempts flat out fail as Positional shows why obsessing with the opponent's king should have its limits

I was very sad when they removed personalities from Komodo, and specially, the reason they did. They don't get us, people that want to see different styles of engines playing, and they only wanted people to test a personality that had higher elo than default... Oh well, it's better than nothing, I guess!

Don't forget, K1 was a non-commercial version of Komodo. Best thing would be to contact the authors and remind them that Elo is not everything, and features do matter. If you and others don't do that, they'll simply claim "there is not enough interest".

[carldaman]

Looking forward to it! You should match it against Komodo KingHunter one day, let's see if it manages to hunt the king, or if all its attempts flat out fail as Positional shows why obsessing with the opponent's king should have its limits

I was very sad when they removed personalities from Komodo, and specially, the reason they did. They don't get us, people that want to see different styles of engines playing, and they only wanted people to test a personality that had higher elo than default... Oh well, it's better than nothing, I guess!

They are literally beating each other up right now.

I have no idea yet who is stronger, but it seems like "Positional" (who will get a real name later) has a slight edge.

This game plays out like a Kasparov vs Karpov battle.

Look at 35.Re5!!

[pgn][Event "Kinghunter vs Positional Match 3 2"]
[Site "BRENDANNORMD8A2"]
[Date "2018.01.05"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Komodo 1.0 Kinghunter"]
[Black "Komodo 1.0 Positional"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B14"]
[WhiteElo "2200"]
[BlackElo "2200"]
[PlyCount "87"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]
[TimeControl "60+1"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nf3 {0.32/13 2} e6 {0.01/12 3} 6.
Nc3 {0.35/13 3} Be7 7. Bd3 {0.45/13 2} Nc6 {0.08/14 2} 8. O-O {0.35/14 2} O-O {
0.00/14 11} 9. c5 {0.30/12 3} b6 {0.10/13 4} 10. Bb5 {0.12/13 2} Bd7 {0.32/13 4
} 11. Bxc6 {-0.14/13 2} Bxc6 {0.34/11 0} 12. Ne5 {-0.03/14 2} Be8 {0.40/12 1}
13. c6 {0.20/12 1} Qc8 {1.19/16 2} 14. Bf4 {-0.36/13 2} Bxc6 {1.29/11 0} 15.
Rc1 {-0.45/13 4} Qe8 {1.34/14 1} 16. Qd3 {-0.34/11 1} a6 {1.46/15 4} 17. Rfe1 {
-0.17/12 2} Nh5 {1.47/15 4} 18. Bd2 {-0.03/13 3} Bb7 {1.44/13 1} 19. Ne2 {
-0.28/12 1} a5 {1.36/13 1} 20. Qb3 {-0.22/13 4} Bd8 {1.47/15 2} 21. h3 {
-0.30/12 1} f6 {1.40/12 3} 22. Nf3 {-0.35/13 1} g5 {1.62/12 1} 23. Nh2 {
-0.42/11 1} Ng7 {1.72/13 3} 24. Ng3 {-0.61/13 3} h5 {1.77/14 1} 25. f4 {
-0.62/12 1} gxf4 {1.79/13 2} 26. Bxf4 {-0.12/10 0} h4 {1.72/14 2} 27. Ngf1 {
-0.12/13 1} a4 {1.66/11 1} 28. Qd1 {-0.03/13 1} Rf7 {1.68/12 1} 29. Ng4 {
0.35/13 1} Kh8 {1.62/13 2} 30. Nh6 {0.35/12 1} Rd7 {1.86/13 1} 31. Nd2 {
0.31/12 1} a3 {1.93/13 1} 32. b3 {0.46/13 1} Be7 {1.75/13 1} 33. Nf3 {0.76/14 2
} Qh5 {1.13/14 1} 34. Qd2 {0.71/12 1} Re8 {0.87/14 3} 35. Re5 {1.26/13 1} fxe5
{2.05/10 0} 36. Nxe5 {-0.21/14 2} Bc8 {1.96/15 5} 37. Rxc8 {-0.30/13 1} Rxc8 {
3.44/14 1} 38. Nxd7 {-0.20/14 1} Qg6 {3.48/14 1} 39. Ne5 {-1.39/14 2} Qe4 {
3.90/13 1} 40. Qd1 {-1.48/14 1} Kh7 {4.34/13 0} 41. Qg4 {-2.84/14 1} Rc2 {
6.17/14 4} 42. Nef7 {-5.56/13 4} Rxa2 {8.48/13 0} 43. Kh2 {-9.79/13 0} Rf2 {
9.86/14 1} 44. Bd6 {adjudication} 0-1[/pgn]

About removing personalities from Komodo because of people making "weak" personalities, yeah that's pretty ridiculous in my view.

I receive emails every day from people asking for the settings to various personalities I've mentioned on my site, so the market for "interesting STYLED" engines, whether for use a training partner or analysis, is also pretty huge.

We aren't the only ones!

I think besides the training features, rated personalities were the main reason for the ChessMaster franchise's great success.

It was the reason I fell in love with computer chess starting with an old copy of CM3000 back in 1997.

With good marketing and a nice GUI, anybody would model that success today since the chess market has exploded since CM days.

Brendan, perhaps you may want to redirect some of those 'emailers' to the engine programmers who, other than Pawel or Ed and maybe a few others, have forgotten how important and interesting these features can be. Until then, they'll always give the ready-made excuse that "there just isn't enough interest".

[matejst]

Dear Carl,

I too hope that programmers read a bit more this subforum of Talkchess, because there's been years users have been begging for features. I remember Fernando asking for a GUI, there have been threats about learning functions, etc. But, unfortunately, the main objective remains Elo.

Only a few commercial programmers and companies have done the effort to offer more functionalities. I understand that for most, chess programming is a hobby, but a common project like the Stockfish project is ultimately a failure, because it was the first place to try different options: a more human eval, a learning function, a small, human repertoire.

Ed did all of that -- yes, of course, it was for money back then, but you had the rightful impression that you were not wasting your money.

[carldaman]

Dear Carl,

I too hope that programmers read a bit more this subforum of Talkchess, because there's been years users have been begging for features. I remember Fernando asking for a GUI, there have been threats about learning functions, etc. But, unfortunately, the main objective remains Elo.

Only a few commercial programmers and companies have done the effort to offer more functionalities. I understand that for most, chess programming is a hobby, but a common project like the Stockfish project is ultimately a failure, because it was the first place to try different options: a more human eval, a learning function, a small, human repertoire.

Ed did all of that -- yes, of course, it was for money back then, but you had the rightful impression that you were not wasting your money.

That's correct. Anyway, we can't normally expect authors of free engines to respond to such requests. I also don't don't think it's enough to direct requests at commercial authors in this forum. They must be contacted directly, or else they can claim that they never read these particular threads, so they thought there wasn't sufficient interest.

[Ovyron]

That's correct. Anyway, we can't normally expect authors of free engines to respond to such requests.

What we need is one of "us" to learn programming and implement these options in Stockfish.

There's no reason for all open source engines to lack Personalities, Learning, and all the features that open GUIs also miss, other than there hasn't been anyone around willing to implement those in them.

[leavenfish]

Until then, they'll always give the ready-made excuse that "there just isn't enough interest".

One could opine: why is there enough interest in an commercial engine (really that's all it is, not a nice GUI with features)...when there are free engines that are every bit as good at 'chasing elo'.

Yet, I guess there is. I'm one...for now anyway.

When engines get as strong as they are now...is it wrong to 'want more'...and I don't mean elo?

To me that would be features...more than you currently see.

In any case...to those who might go 'ga-ga' over 35. Re5....Man-up and admit, it is just a big stupid move! It's bad. Period. All too often what some refer to as 'style'...is just poor chess.

[matejst]

And now I am replying to myself. It's my age, probably.

I mostly analyze openings and simple positions -- openings because I would like to rebuild my repertoire, and simple positions, because while I could overcalculate an opponent OTB in the years when I was playing, I lost or drew a lot of simple positions where I had a better development, initiative, or a better pawn structure. In less words, I still want to learn.

And I find that what works for engines to gain Elo -- speed and depth -- means nothing for learning chess. SF eval in the openings most of the time doesn't make sense. When you use Wasp, or the Baron, or Komodo (I like especially K5), they easily find book moves, they don't put knights in front of the c pawn in the QGD, and while they have weaknesses (especially in the KID and in some closed positions), you know when they are reliable. Komodo aside, you cannot use any of the top engines nor in the openings, nor in simple positions without TBs. And when you read that about removing evaluation terms to gain speed... you understand why they are useless.

A lot of knowledge has been accumulated in the last century, and with the exception of the work of Larry Kaufman, there's no real effort to code this knowledge. The way engine Elo works -- and it's very different from human Elo -- where +2 or 3 plies means +100 Elo -- I have no doubt that an engine with another paradigm could reach 4000 "engine's" Elo by crushing the mere bean counter the top engines have become.

That's why all these surrogate for knowledge and evaluation have been developed: tablebases, since most engines don't have a clue about endings, bigger and bigger opening books because they can't grasp principles in openings. It's easy to understand Carlsen: engines and engines competitions have become a world apart, and you can't use them for anything else most of the time.

[matejst]

Anyway, we can't normally expect authors of free engines to respond to such requests.

I am well aware of this, of course. That's the reason why I stick with the engines and authors who have done the effort to implement some of the features I like. Fortunately, there are more than just a few: Ed Schroeder, Miguel Ballicora, Richard Pijl, Pawel Koziol... and some others that I haven't discovered yet. I hope that John Stanback will make a Wasp version with the tweaking possibilities Zarkov had.