AlphaZero No Castling Chess

[lkaufman]

I have an even simpler modification, but with a scoring modification in addition. Only Black is not allowed to castle and the Draws are adjudicated as Black wins.

You have an even simpler modification? That is my NBC-Armageddon openings idea. Not yours. I released it in August 2019, with 4 openings-sets. And announced it here on talkchess.

https://www.sp-cc.de/armageddon-openings.htm

From my website:
Level 2: NBC (= No Black Castling): White can castle to both sides, black is not allowed to castle. Line: 1. Na3 Nh6 2. Nb1 Rg8 3. Na3 Rh8 4. Nb1 Ng8 5. Nc3 Na6 6. Nb1 Rb8 7. Na3 Ra8 8. Nb1 Nb8

Level 2 (NBC) testing:

NBC_Armageddon_IM_4moves:
White Wins: 296 (59.2 %), Black Wins: 204 (40.8 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %) White Score: 59.2 %, Black Score: 40.8 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3477 500 (+304,= 0,-196), 60.8 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+196,= 0,-304), 39.2 % (Elo-spreading: 77 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_SuperGM_4moves:
White Wins: 284 (56.8 %), Black Wins: 216 (43.2 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %), White Score: 56.8 %, Black Score: 43.2 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3451 500 (+286,= 0,-214), 57.2 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+214,= 0,-286), 42.8 % (Elo-spreading: 51 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_FEOBOS:
White Wins: 287 (57.4 %), Black Wins: 213 (42.6 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %)m, White Score: 57.4 %, Black Score: 42.6 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3490 500 (+313,= 0,-187), 62.6 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+187,= 0,-313), 37.4 % (Elo-spreading: 90 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_6pawnplies:
White Wins: 277 (55.4 %), Black Wins: 223 (44.6 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %), White Score: 55.4 %, Black Score: 44.6 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3473 500 (+301,= 0,-199), 60.2 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+199,= 0,-301), 39.8 % (Elo-spreading: 73 Elo)

Ah, sorry, I didn't know. So, I re-discovered this morning meddling about handicaps your proposal. Seeing your results, it seems a viable proposal, if Kramnik thinks no castling at all is a viable proposal. I am not sure how many top GMs share Kramnik's view.

Thanks for opening suites too! These are from normal human and computer games? I guess the openings will be somewhat different if one side doesn't castle, maybe I will build with Lc0 and Komodo some short opening suites which are played for this variant.

I was involved with this idea too at the time, along with variants of it such as Black can only castle long, or white can only castle short while Black can only castle long. The pure version you tested seems to favor White too much even with Black winning draws. A more aesthetic version that might be more balanced (perhaps a bit in Black's favor between engines) would be that White can castle normally, but neither player can castle on the same side as his opponent has done. But this requires new programming, not so trivial to test. My subjective opinion as a GM is that the pure version you tested would be seen as too favorable for White (even with the Armageddon rule) for human play.

I built an opening suite with Komodo on 4 threads and Variety option, almost 500 different 5-movers (the unique starting position is set to no Black castling):
http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=235 ... 1942827279

The pure No Black Castling seems balanced with that Armageddon scoring in Komodo self-matches at different time controls from this suite, for example:

60+0.6
White wins: 101/200
Draws: 94/200
Black Wins: 5/200


240+2.4
White wins: 20/40
Draws: 18/40
Black Wins: 2/40

But if you feel that it is too much an advantage for White, maybe I am missing something with these engine matches (Lc0 also sees it as pretty balanced).

Wow, that's a surprise, rather different result from what S. Pohl got, but he used "normal" openings so I think your result is more likely correct. I don't think you are "missing something", it's just that humans much prefer to attack than to try to hold a bad position, and so nearly every GM would rather play White in this scenario, and most likely White would score well over 50%. Engines can't replicate human behavior perfectly yet, and so such simulations are only a rough guide to what would happen with human play. But your result is quite significant, it may mean that this variant is ideal for correspondence or engine vs engine matches, and perhaps even with human OTB play White's advantage would be within acceptable bounds given that the players always play two game sets. But then tie scores become likely again!
Well, one point you may have missed is that if the engines were aware that draws counted as Black wins and modified to play accordingly, White would surely have won at least a few of the drawn games, so I would say that the result does show some White advantage, but perhaps not too much. Humans would avoid anything looking even somewhat drawish as White, preferring an unclear attack to a small endgame plus.

Ah, forgot to specify:
I used
Contempt = 25
White Contempt = True

Does that make sense to you? I am not sure how Black behaves in this case, maybe you can tell me. My goal was that White would chase Wins, Black would chase Draws and Wins.

Actually, after I posted, I thought of the very same idea! Yes, you did it right, but 25 is way too small a value for this situation. I was thinking of using 75 or 100, go with 75 if you want to be conservative. That would roughly simulate how I would think about the situation as a human.

[Laskos]

I have an even simpler modification, but with a scoring modification in addition. Only Black is not allowed to castle and the Draws are adjudicated as Black wins.

You have an even simpler modification? That is my NBC-Armageddon openings idea. Not yours. I released it in August 2019, with 4 openings-sets. And announced it here on talkchess.

https://www.sp-cc.de/armageddon-openings.htm

From my website:
Level 2: NBC (= No Black Castling): White can castle to both sides, black is not allowed to castle. Line: 1. Na3 Nh6 2. Nb1 Rg8 3. Na3 Rh8 4. Nb1 Ng8 5. Nc3 Na6 6. Nb1 Rb8 7. Na3 Ra8 8. Nb1 Nb8

Level 2 (NBC) testing:

NBC_Armageddon_IM_4moves:
White Wins: 296 (59.2 %), Black Wins: 204 (40.8 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %) White Score: 59.2 %, Black Score: 40.8 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3477 500 (+304,= 0,-196), 60.8 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+196,= 0,-304), 39.2 % (Elo-spreading: 77 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_SuperGM_4moves:
White Wins: 284 (56.8 %), Black Wins: 216 (43.2 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %), White Score: 56.8 %, Black Score: 43.2 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3451 500 (+286,= 0,-214), 57.2 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+214,= 0,-286), 42.8 % (Elo-spreading: 51 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_FEOBOS:
White Wins: 287 (57.4 %), Black Wins: 213 (42.6 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %)m, White Score: 57.4 %, Black Score: 42.6 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3490 500 (+313,= 0,-187), 62.6 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+187,= 0,-313), 37.4 % (Elo-spreading: 90 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_6pawnplies:
White Wins: 277 (55.4 %), Black Wins: 223 (44.6 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %), White Score: 55.4 %, Black Score: 44.6 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3473 500 (+301,= 0,-199), 60.2 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+199,= 0,-301), 39.8 % (Elo-spreading: 73 Elo)

Ah, sorry, I didn't know. So, I re-discovered this morning meddling about handicaps your proposal. Seeing your results, it seems a viable proposal, if Kramnik thinks no castling at all is a viable proposal. I am not sure how many top GMs share Kramnik's view.

Thanks for opening suites too! These are from normal human and computer games? I guess the openings will be somewhat different if one side doesn't castle, maybe I will build with Lc0 and Komodo some short opening suites which are played for this variant.

I was involved with this idea too at the time, along with variants of it such as Black can only castle long, or white can only castle short while Black can only castle long. The pure version you tested seems to favor White too much even with Black winning draws. A more aesthetic version that might be more balanced (perhaps a bit in Black's favor between engines) would be that White can castle normally, but neither player can castle on the same side as his opponent has done. But this requires new programming, not so trivial to test. My subjective opinion as a GM is that the pure version you tested would be seen as too favorable for White (even with the Armageddon rule) for human play.

I built an opening suite with Komodo on 4 threads and Variety option, almost 500 different 5-movers (the unique starting position is set to no Black castling):
http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=235 ... 1942827279

The pure No Black Castling seems balanced with that Armageddon scoring in Komodo self-matches at different time controls from this suite, for example:

60+0.6
White wins: 101/200
Draws: 94/200
Black Wins: 5/200


240+2.4
White wins: 20/40
Draws: 18/40
Black Wins: 2/40

But if you feel that it is too much an advantage for White, maybe I am missing something with these engine matches (Lc0 also sees it as pretty balanced).

Wow, that's a surprise, rather different result from what S. Pohl got, but he used "normal" openings so I think your result is more likely correct. I don't think you are "missing something", it's just that humans much prefer to attack than to try to hold a bad position, and so nearly every GM would rather play White in this scenario, and most likely White would score well over 50%. Engines can't replicate human behavior perfectly yet, and so such simulations are only a rough guide to what would happen with human play. But your result is quite significant, it may mean that this variant is ideal for correspondence or engine vs engine matches, and perhaps even with human OTB play White's advantage would be within acceptable bounds given that the players always play two game sets. But then tie scores become likely again!
Well, one point you may have missed is that if the engines were aware that draws counted as Black wins and modified to play accordingly, White would surely have won at least a few of the drawn games, so I would say that the result does show some White advantage, but perhaps not too much. Humans would avoid anything looking even somewhat drawish as White, preferring an unclear attack to a small endgame plus.

Ah, forgot to specify:
I used
Contempt = 25
White Contempt = True

Does that make sense to you? I am not sure how Black behaves in this case, maybe you can tell me. My goal was that White would chase Wins, Black would chase Draws and Wins.

Actually, after I posted, I thought of the very same idea! Yes, you did it right, but 25 is way too small a value for this situation. I was thinking of using 75 or 100, go with 75 if you want to be conservative. That would roughly simulate how I would think about the situation as a human.

Ok, so it works as I hoped. In several hours I will have the result in 200 games at 60 + 0.6 with 75.

[Laskos]

I have an even simpler modification, but with a scoring modification in addition. Only Black is not allowed to castle and the Draws are adjudicated as Black wins.

You have an even simpler modification? That is my NBC-Armageddon openings idea. Not yours. I released it in August 2019, with 4 openings-sets. And announced it here on talkchess.

https://www.sp-cc.de/armageddon-openings.htm

From my website:
Level 2: NBC (= No Black Castling): White can castle to both sides, black is not allowed to castle. Line: 1. Na3 Nh6 2. Nb1 Rg8 3. Na3 Rh8 4. Nb1 Ng8 5. Nc3 Na6 6. Nb1 Rb8 7. Na3 Ra8 8. Nb1 Nb8

Level 2 (NBC) testing:

NBC_Armageddon_IM_4moves:
White Wins: 296 (59.2 %), Black Wins: 204 (40.8 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %) White Score: 59.2 %, Black Score: 40.8 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3477 500 (+304,= 0,-196), 60.8 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+196,= 0,-304), 39.2 % (Elo-spreading: 77 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_SuperGM_4moves:
White Wins: 284 (56.8 %), Black Wins: 216 (43.2 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %), White Score: 56.8 %, Black Score: 43.2 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3451 500 (+286,= 0,-214), 57.2 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+214,= 0,-286), 42.8 % (Elo-spreading: 51 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_FEOBOS:
White Wins: 287 (57.4 %), Black Wins: 213 (42.6 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %)m, White Score: 57.4 %, Black Score: 42.6 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3490 500 (+313,= 0,-187), 62.6 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+187,= 0,-313), 37.4 % (Elo-spreading: 90 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_6pawnplies:
White Wins: 277 (55.4 %), Black Wins: 223 (44.6 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %), White Score: 55.4 %, Black Score: 44.6 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3473 500 (+301,= 0,-199), 60.2 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+199,= 0,-301), 39.8 % (Elo-spreading: 73 Elo)

Ah, sorry, I didn't know. So, I re-discovered this morning meddling about handicaps your proposal. Seeing your results, it seems a viable proposal, if Kramnik thinks no castling at all is a viable proposal. I am not sure how many top GMs share Kramnik's view.

Thanks for opening suites too! These are from normal human and computer games? I guess the openings will be somewhat different if one side doesn't castle, maybe I will build with Lc0 and Komodo some short opening suites which are played for this variant.

I was involved with this idea too at the time, along with variants of it such as Black can only castle long, or white can only castle short while Black can only castle long. The pure version you tested seems to favor White too much even with Black winning draws. A more aesthetic version that might be more balanced (perhaps a bit in Black's favor between engines) would be that White can castle normally, but neither player can castle on the same side as his opponent has done. But this requires new programming, not so trivial to test. My subjective opinion as a GM is that the pure version you tested would be seen as too favorable for White (even with the Armageddon rule) for human play.

I built an opening suite with Komodo on 4 threads and Variety option, almost 500 different 5-movers (the unique starting position is set to no Black castling):
http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=235 ... 1942827279

The pure No Black Castling seems balanced with that Armageddon scoring in Komodo self-matches at different time controls from this suite, for example:

60+0.6
White wins: 101/200
Draws: 94/200
Black Wins: 5/200


240+2.4
White wins: 20/40
Draws: 18/40
Black Wins: 2/40

But if you feel that it is too much an advantage for White, maybe I am missing something with these engine matches (Lc0 also sees it as pretty balanced).

Wow, that's a surprise, rather different result from what S. Pohl got, but he used "normal" openings so I think your result is more likely correct. I don't think you are "missing something", it's just that humans much prefer to attack than to try to hold a bad position, and so nearly every GM would rather play White in this scenario, and most likely White would score well over 50%. Engines can't replicate human behavior perfectly yet, and so such simulations are only a rough guide to what would happen with human play. But your result is quite significant, it may mean that this variant is ideal for correspondence or engine vs engine matches, and perhaps even with human OTB play White's advantage would be within acceptable bounds given that the players always play two game sets. But then tie scores become likely again!
Well, one point you may have missed is that if the engines were aware that draws counted as Black wins and modified to play accordingly, White would surely have won at least a few of the drawn games, so I would say that the result does show some White advantage, but perhaps not too much. Humans would avoid anything looking even somewhat drawish as White, preferring an unclear attack to a small endgame plus.

Ah, forgot to specify:
I used
Contempt = 25
White Contempt = True

Does that make sense to you? I am not sure how Black behaves in this case, maybe you can tell me. My goal was that White would chase Wins, Black would chase Draws and Wins.

Actually, after I posted, I thought of the very same idea! Yes, you did it right, but 25 is way too small a value for this situation. I was thinking of using 75 or 100, go with 75 if you want to be conservative. That would roughly simulate how I would think about the situation as a human.

Ok, so it works as I hoped. In several hours I will have the result in 200 games at 60 + 0.6 with 75.

I am on the phone and TeamViewer now, but the result with

Contempt = 75
White Contempt = True

is almost identical:

60+0.6
White wins: 99/200
Draws: 94/200
Black Wins: 7/200

The openings were built with the White Contempt = 50 (and no Black castling), so I would not worry too much about them. An interesting result, I guess a much larger White Contempt would even harm the White. So, Komodo seems to consider this a very simple and balanced Armageddon variant.

[lkaufman]

I have an even simpler modification, but with a scoring modification in addition. Only Black is not allowed to castle and the Draws are adjudicated as Black wins.

You have an even simpler modification? That is my NBC-Armageddon openings idea. Not yours. I released it in August 2019, with 4 openings-sets. And announced it here on talkchess.

https://www.sp-cc.de/armageddon-openings.htm

From my website:
Level 2: NBC (= No Black Castling): White can castle to both sides, black is not allowed to castle. Line: 1. Na3 Nh6 2. Nb1 Rg8 3. Na3 Rh8 4. Nb1 Ng8 5. Nc3 Na6 6. Nb1 Rb8 7. Na3 Ra8 8. Nb1 Nb8

Level 2 (NBC) testing:

NBC_Armageddon_IM_4moves:
White Wins: 296 (59.2 %), Black Wins: 204 (40.8 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %) White Score: 59.2 %, Black Score: 40.8 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3477 500 (+304,= 0,-196), 60.8 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+196,= 0,-304), 39.2 % (Elo-spreading: 77 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_SuperGM_4moves:
White Wins: 284 (56.8 %), Black Wins: 216 (43.2 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %), White Score: 56.8 %, Black Score: 43.2 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3451 500 (+286,= 0,-214), 57.2 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+214,= 0,-286), 42.8 % (Elo-spreading: 51 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_FEOBOS:
White Wins: 287 (57.4 %), Black Wins: 213 (42.6 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %)m, White Score: 57.4 %, Black Score: 42.6 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3490 500 (+313,= 0,-187), 62.6 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+187,= 0,-313), 37.4 % (Elo-spreading: 90 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_6pawnplies:
White Wins: 277 (55.4 %), Black Wins: 223 (44.6 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %), White Score: 55.4 %, Black Score: 44.6 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3473 500 (+301,= 0,-199), 60.2 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+199,= 0,-301), 39.8 % (Elo-spreading: 73 Elo)

Ah, sorry, I didn't know. So, I re-discovered this morning meddling about handicaps your proposal. Seeing your results, it seems a viable proposal, if Kramnik thinks no castling at all is a viable proposal. I am not sure how many top GMs share Kramnik's view.

Thanks for opening suites too! These are from normal human and computer games? I guess the openings will be somewhat different if one side doesn't castle, maybe I will build with Lc0 and Komodo some short opening suites which are played for this variant.

I was involved with this idea too at the time, along with variants of it such as Black can only castle long, or white can only castle short while Black can only castle long. The pure version you tested seems to favor White too much even with Black winning draws. A more aesthetic version that might be more balanced (perhaps a bit in Black's favor between engines) would be that White can castle normally, but neither player can castle on the same side as his opponent has done. But this requires new programming, not so trivial to test. My subjective opinion as a GM is that the pure version you tested would be seen as too favorable for White (even with the Armageddon rule) for human play.

I built an opening suite with Komodo on 4 threads and Variety option, almost 500 different 5-movers (the unique starting position is set to no Black castling):
http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=235 ... 1942827279

The pure No Black Castling seems balanced with that Armageddon scoring in Komodo self-matches at different time controls from this suite, for example:

60+0.6
White wins: 101/200
Draws: 94/200
Black Wins: 5/200


240+2.4
White wins: 20/40
Draws: 18/40
Black Wins: 2/40

But if you feel that it is too much an advantage for White, maybe I am missing something with these engine matches (Lc0 also sees it as pretty balanced).

Wow, that's a surprise, rather different result from what S. Pohl got, but he used "normal" openings so I think your result is more likely correct. I don't think you are "missing something", it's just that humans much prefer to attack than to try to hold a bad position, and so nearly every GM would rather play White in this scenario, and most likely White would score well over 50%. Engines can't replicate human behavior perfectly yet, and so such simulations are only a rough guide to what would happen with human play. But your result is quite significant, it may mean that this variant is ideal for correspondence or engine vs engine matches, and perhaps even with human OTB play White's advantage would be within acceptable bounds given that the players always play two game sets. But then tie scores become likely again!
Well, one point you may have missed is that if the engines were aware that draws counted as Black wins and modified to play accordingly, White would surely have won at least a few of the drawn games, so I would say that the result does show some White advantage, but perhaps not too much. Humans would avoid anything looking even somewhat drawish as White, preferring an unclear attack to a small endgame plus.

Ah, forgot to specify:
I used
Contempt = 25
White Contempt = True

Does that make sense to you? I am not sure how Black behaves in this case, maybe you can tell me. My goal was that White would chase Wins, Black would chase Draws and Wins.

Actually, after I posted, I thought of the very same idea! Yes, you did it right, but 25 is way too small a value for this situation. I was thinking of using 75 or 100, go with 75 if you want to be conservative. That would roughly simulate how I would think about the situation as a human.

Ok, so it works as I hoped. In several hours I will have the result in 200 games at 60 + 0.6 with 75.

I am on the phone and TeamViewer now, but the result with

Contempt = 75
White Contempt = True

is almost identical:

60+0.6
White wins: 99/200
Draws: 94/200
Black Wins: 7/200

The openings were built with the White Contempt = 50 (and no Black castling), so I would not worry too much about them. An interesting result, I guess a much larger White Contempt would even harm the White. So, Komodo seems to consider this a very simple and balanced Armageddon variant.

OK, so far quite remarkable that this ultra-simple rule could be so balanced. I downloaded your nbc book and will run my own tests on it; the big question is whether it will tilt too much one way with more time (although your forty games at 240 +2.4" said no). I can also test it on Komodo MCTS and on Stockfish (since Stockfish also has similar contempt settings); I guess there's less point to checking it out on Lc0 without a way to make it go for wins as White and draws as Black. I checked out the initial position with several engines. Komodo gives it a bit over +1, and SF about +1.3, both of which are well above what I consider the win/draw threshold on those engines (roughly 0.7 on K and 1.0 on SF). However the nn engines showed about 71% win prob. (72.5% for two top Lc0 networks, 69% for Fat Fritz), which is right about where the win/draw line should fall. I still think that in human play White will score well over 50%, but that is due to psychological reasons rather than objective ones; it's simply more fun to look for wins than to try to avoid them, and being unhappy is not conducive to best results. But we can't model this, so I think the best we can do is to hope that White scores a bit under 50% in engine play with more time, so that the human bias for pleasant positions won't give White too big a score in human play.

[Laskos]

I am on the phone and TeamViewer now, but the result with

Contempt = 75
White Contempt = True

is almost identical:

60+0.6
White wins: 99/200
Draws: 94/200
Black Wins: 7/200

The openings were built with the White Contempt = 50 (and no Black castling), so I would not worry too much about them. An interesting result, I guess a much larger White Contempt would even harm the White. So, Komodo seems to consider this a very simple and balanced Armageddon variant.

OK, so far quite remarkable that this ultra-simple rule could be so balanced. I downloaded your nbc book and will run my own tests on it; the big question is whether it will tilt too much one way with more time (although your forty games at 240 +2.4" said no). I can also test it on Komodo MCTS and on Stockfish (since Stockfish also has similar contempt settings); I guess there's less point to checking it out on Lc0 without a way to make it go for wins as White and draws as Black. I checked out the initial position with several engines. Komodo gives it a bit over +1, and SF about +1.3, both of which are well above what I consider the win/draw threshold on those engines (roughly 0.7 on K and 1.0 on SF). However the nn engines showed about 71% win prob. (72.5% for two top Lc0 networks, 69% for Fat Fritz), which is right about where the win/draw line should fall. I still think that in human play White will score well over 50%, but that is due to psychological reasons rather than objective ones; it's simply more fun to look for wins than to try to avoid them, and being unhappy is not conducive to best results. But we can't model this, so I think the best we can do is to hope that White scores a bit under 50% in engine play with more time, so that the human bias for pleasant positions won't give White too big a score in human play.

I tested at longer TC in 100 games overnight, it came completely even with 0 Black wins.

240+2.4
White wins: 50/100
Draws: 50/100
Black Wins: 0/100

One issue would be that these are self-plays of identical Komodos. But I think the performances being so stable with TC, even if strong humans would do better as White, the White performance would hover in human games at say 60% irrespective of time control and even strength (well, strong and very strong humans anyway).

I am now testing the resolving power of this simple variant pitting Komodo at 60+0.6 versus Komodo at 40+0.4, and comparing the result to standard chess result. Also, the White performance will be again interesting to see with these unequal opponents. Probably 400 games. Now I am controlling my PC remotely on the phone, so troubles copying and pasting here might occur.

[Laskos]

I am on the phone and TeamViewer now, but the result with

Contempt = 75
White Contempt = True

is almost identical:

60+0.6
White wins: 99/200
Draws: 94/200
Black Wins: 7/200

The openings were built with the White Contempt = 50 (and no Black castling), so I would not worry too much about them. An interesting result, I guess a much larger White Contempt would even harm the White. So, Komodo seems to consider this a very simple and balanced Armageddon variant.

OK, so far quite remarkable that this ultra-simple rule could be so balanced. I downloaded your nbc book and will run my own tests on it; the big question is whether it will tilt too much one way with more time (although your forty games at 240 +2.4" said no). I can also test it on Komodo MCTS and on Stockfish (since Stockfish also has similar contempt settings); I guess there's less point to checking it out on Lc0 without a way to make it go for wins as White and draws as Black. I checked out the initial position with several engines. Komodo gives it a bit over +1, and SF about +1.3, both of which are well above what I consider the win/draw threshold on those engines (roughly 0.7 on K and 1.0 on SF). However the nn engines showed about 71% win prob. (72.5% for two top Lc0 networks, 69% for Fat Fritz), which is right about where the win/draw line should fall. I still think that in human play White will score well over 50%, but that is due to psychological reasons rather than objective ones; it's simply more fun to look for wins than to try to avoid them, and being unhappy is not conducive to best results. But we can't model this, so I think the best we can do is to hope that White scores a bit under 50% in engine play with more time, so that the human bias for pleasant positions won't give White too big a score in human play.

I tested at longer TC in 100 games overnight, it came completely even with 0 Black wins.

240+2.4
White wins: 50/100
Draws: 50/100
Black Wins: 0/100

One issue would be that these are self-plays of identical Komodos. But I think the performances being so stable with TC, even if strong humans would do better as White, the White performance would hover in human games at say 60% irrespective of time control and even strength (well, strong and very strong humans anyway).

I am now testing the resolving power of this simple variant pitting Komodo at 60+0.6 versus Komodo at 40+0.4, and comparing the result to standard chess result. Also, the White performance will be again interesting to see with these unequal opponents. Probably 400 games. Now I am controlling my PC remotely on the phone, so troubles copying and pasting here might occur.

NBC result (White Contempt = 75) Komodo 60+0.6 versus Komodo 40+0.4:

+69 Elo points

White wins: 199/400
Draws: 176/400
Black Wins: 25/400

Now I will check the standard chess for these conditions. The variant looks promising again.

[Laskos]

I am on the phone and TeamViewer now, but the result with

Contempt = 75
White Contempt = True

is almost identical:

60+0.6
White wins: 99/200
Draws: 94/200
Black Wins: 7/200

The openings were built with the White Contempt = 50 (and no Black castling), so I would not worry too much about them. An interesting result, I guess a much larger White Contempt would even harm the White. So, Komodo seems to consider this a very simple and balanced Armageddon variant.

OK, so far quite remarkable that this ultra-simple rule could be so balanced. I downloaded your nbc book and will run my own tests on it; the big question is whether it will tilt too much one way with more time (although your forty games at 240 +2.4" said no). I can also test it on Komodo MCTS and on Stockfish (since Stockfish also has similar contempt settings); I guess there's less point to checking it out on Lc0 without a way to make it go for wins as White and draws as Black. I checked out the initial position with several engines. Komodo gives it a bit over +1, and SF about +1.3, both of which are well above what I consider the win/draw threshold on those engines (roughly 0.7 on K and 1.0 on SF). However the nn engines showed about 71% win prob. (72.5% for two top Lc0 networks, 69% for Fat Fritz), which is right about where the win/draw line should fall. I still think that in human play White will score well over 50%, but that is due to psychological reasons rather than objective ones; it's simply more fun to look for wins than to try to avoid them, and being unhappy is not conducive to best results. But we can't model this, so I think the best we can do is to hope that White scores a bit under 50% in engine play with more time, so that the human bias for pleasant positions won't give White too big a score in human play.

I tested at longer TC in 100 games overnight, it came completely even with 0 Black wins.

240+2.4
White wins: 50/100
Draws: 50/100
Black Wins: 0/100

One issue would be that these are self-plays of identical Komodos. But I think the performances being so stable with TC, even if strong humans would do better as White, the White performance would hover in human games at say 60% irrespective of time control and even strength (well, strong and very strong humans anyway).

I am now testing the resolving power of this simple variant pitting Komodo at 60+0.6 versus Komodo at 40+0.4, and comparing the result to standard chess result. Also, the White performance will be again interesting to see with these unequal opponents. Probably 400 games. Now I am controlling my PC remotely on the phone, so troubles copying and pasting here might occur.

NBC result (White Contempt = 75) Komodo 60+0.6 versus Komodo 40+0.4:

+69 Elo points

White wins: 199/400
Draws: 176/400
Black Wins: 25/400

Now I will check the standard chess for these conditions. The variant looks promising again.

In Standard Chess this difference is +52 Elo points in 400 games, significantly smaller than +69 of the NBC Chess. If one plays paired games, the correct pentanomial error margins are similar in NBC and Standard Chess. So, NBC has a better resolving power than the Standard Chess. And one can use unpaired games too, where NBC is pretty balanced at any time control White win / Draw + Black Win.

Frankly, NBC might be a better game than Chess, still being very similar to Chess, only No Black Castling. The sides are assymetric, with Black almost always defending and White attacking, between similar in strength strong players. Draw rate hovers below some probably 45% in human games. The best use of NBC is in paired games, maybe that's a defect.

[pohl4711]

In Standard Chess this difference is +52 Elo points in 400 games, significantly smaller than +69 of the NBC Chess. If one plays paired games, the correct pentanomial error margins are similar in NBC and Standard Chess. So, NBC has a better resolving power than the Standard Chess. And one can use unpaired games too, where NBC is pretty balanced at any time control White win / Draw + Black Win.

Frankly, NBC might be a better game than Chess, still being very similar to Chess, only No Black Castling. The sides are assymetric, with Black almost always defending and White attacking, between similar in strength strong players. Draw rate hovers below some probably 45% in human games. The best use of NBC is in paired games, maybe that's a defect.

No need for that, anymore.
I released my Blackmageddon openings. Doubled (!) Elo-spreadings compared to a classical openings-set. 0% draws. All castlings allowed (so not a sub set of chess), only human opening-moves (Megabase) used (+Blackmageddon-line), so no virtual openings... Mission accomplished.

https://www.sp-cc.de/blackmageddon-openings.htm

[Laskos]

In Standard Chess this difference is +52 Elo points in 400 games, significantly smaller than +69 of the NBC Chess. If one plays paired games, the correct pentanomial error margins are similar in NBC and Standard Chess. So, NBC has a better resolving power than the Standard Chess. And one can use unpaired games too, where NBC is pretty balanced at any time control White win / Draw + Black Win.

Frankly, NBC might be a better game than Chess, still being very similar to Chess, only No Black Castling. The sides are assymetric, with Black almost always defending and White attacking, between similar in strength strong players. Draw rate hovers below some probably 45% in human games. The best use of NBC is in paired games, maybe that's a defect.

No need for that, anymore.
I released my Blackmageddon openings. Doubled (!) Elo-spreadings compared to a classical openings-set. 0% draws. All castlings allowed (so not a sub set of chess), only human opening-moves (Megabase) used (+Blackmageddon-line), so no virtual openings... Mission accomplished.

https://www.sp-cc.de/blackmageddon-openings.htm

Well, the NBC doesn't have draws too, I called the old Draws as Draws, but they are counted as Black wins. Counting this way, the Elo difference spreads indeed by a factor of about two compared to 52 Elo points I get in Standard Chess:

60s + 0.6s versus 40s + 0.4s

Code: Select all

   # PLAYER         : RATING  ERROR    POINTS  PLAYED     (%)   CFS(next)
   1 Komodo13_0    :  56.65  18.48     263.0     400    65.8     100    
   2 Komodo13      : -56.65  18.48     137.0     400    34.3     ---    

White advantage = -1.93 +/- 17.53
Draw rate (equal opponents) = 0.00 % +/- 0.00

And the White advantage is insignificant. One has also to check for error margins when deriving the resolving power, but NBC is very fine by performing pentanomial variance.

[pohl4711]

Of course. In Armageddon, the draw-rate is 0%, too. But NBC is a subset of chess. Black not to castle is very "unnatural".
In Blackmageddon, all castlings are allowed. So, it is quite normal chess. With white having one pawn less. Followed by 5 human opening-moves out of the Megabase. That is the reason, because a material advantage is so much better, than an advantage in castling-rights. The problem of Armageddon with one pawn more for white (I did that,too, called PawnPlus-Armageddon) is, that the advantage for white (first to move and one pawn ahead) is too big. So, I had the idea, to give black the material advantage instead (=Blackmageddon). So white has still the advantage of first to move and black has the advantage of the pawn more. That gives black a measureable advantage in each game, but it is smaller, than in PawnPlus-Armageddon. That makes the whitescore/blackscore-balance better and more stable.
And that is, why I believe, Blackmageddon is the best way to implement the Armageddon-concept in computerchess.

Here an example (opening 2 of Blackmageddon 500 file). All 4 castlings are still possible. So, playing this line will give a normal game of chess.

[pgn] [Event "Lugano ol (Men) fin-A"] [Site "Lugano"] [Date "1968.11.02"] [Round "9"] [White "Uhlmann, Wolfgang"] [Black "Bobotsov, Milko G"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "D53"] [WhiteElo "2530"] [BlackElo "2455"] [Annotator "game 178, depth=26 val=-60 filter=[-60/-59] s"] [PlyCount "18"] [EventDate "1968.10.17"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "1999.07.01"] 1. a4 Nc6 2. a5 Nxa5 3. Na3 Nc6 4. Nb1 Nb8 5. d4 Nf6 6. c4 e6 7. Nf3 d5 8. Nc3 Be7 9. Bg5 h6 1/2-1/2 [/pgn]