What a fun in those times!

[leavenfish]

I am no programmer, but...

I think sometimes what people have seen as 'style' is little more than how an engine operated with a zone of uncertainty.

That is to say that at one time evaluation functions bumped up against the horizon effect with uncertain results...with the hardware being so powerful these days, this is less of a problem and evaluation functions are likely to be closer between engines...because they see more.

Just my two cents.

[mclane]

The style is often realized with System immanent methods,
E,g, chess genius had an asymmetric search tree with static exchange evaluator,

In ply 1-3-5-7-9 etc, it computed very selective while in ply 2-4-6-8... , I. The opponent plies, it computed more brute force.
As a result of this chess genius often saw threads against himself.
On the other hand it oversaw moves that could end the game .
This lead to a playing style that was very positional and on the other hand slightly boring.

[carldaman]

I am no programmer, but...

I think sometimes what people have seen as 'style' is little more than how an engine operated with a zone of uncertainty.

That is to say that at one time evaluation functions bumped up against the horizon effect with uncertain results...with the hardware being so powerful these days, this is less of a problem and evaluation functions are likely to be closer between engines...because they see more.

Just my two cents.

There's probably some validity to this, based on what is generally observed, but... I have found that one can tweak current Komodo's settings and get plenty of style, while sacrificing relatively little strength.

(For example, I don't really care if the engine is rated 3100-3200 instead of 3300, but now has a very exciting attacking style with plenty of piece/pawn sacs).

Regards,
CL

[BrendanJNorman]

I am no programmer, but...

I think sometimes what people have seen as 'style' is little more than how an engine operated with a zone of uncertainty.

That is to say that at one time evaluation functions bumped up against the horizon effect with uncertain results...with the hardware being so powerful these days, this is less of a problem and evaluation functions are likely to be closer between engines...because they see more.

Just my two cents.

There's probably some validity to this, based on what is generally observed, but... I have found that one can tweak current Komodo's settings and get plenty of style, while sacrificing relatively little strength.

(For example, I don't really care if the engine is rated 3100-3200 instead of 3300, but now has a very exciting attacking style with plenty of piece/pawn sacs).

Regards,
CL

Brian makes an interesting point.

And with regard to your comment Carl, you're essentially "weakening" (making Komodo's evaluation less accurate) Komodo by making it more "stylish".

Nothing wrong with that of course, we both know that "weakening" engines is pretty much all I do!

With that being said...

The same argument can be used across the board (no pun intended) with the same result.

In the games of humans we witness the same phenomenon.

At 1300-1500 level, games are so random and full of mistakes, that they are very exciting for other amateurs to watch. All intentions and plans are more or less clear and tactics not very deep. The outcome is ALWAYS uncertain and the "horizon" very low.

At the IM-Average GM level, we see a closer alignment of move choices, but still retain individual prejudices (all that a "style" is, is the material/positional/psychological prejudices we obey when choosing a move or plan) which give our game a unique character.

I could tell an Alekhine game from a Tal game for example, because of this "fingerprint", despite them both being attackers.

at this level, the "horizon" is much higher than the aforementioned amateurs, but still low enough to "speculate" or have your own unique approach.

At the 2780-2800+ level, these guys have already seen all of the ideas, all of the attacking structures, key games and plans.

They all calculate very deeply with extreme accuracy.

For this reason, the "horizon" is even higher than for the strong IM or average GM. They simply know in advance how a certain plan/idea/direction is going to end and choose accordingly.

This is why as Nakamura "matured" toward the 2800 level his style became less and less flashy. At that level, the styles more or less merge together (for the most part). The "fingerprint" is less distinct.

In computer chess, the top "players" improve at a greater speed than do the human players, so at the very top level the styles will become more and more merged. I think Brian is right.

But I don't think this is a bad thing.

I don't think the programs see more because of just hardware improvements.

The evaluation is also a big deal.

If I could calculate 25 moves ahead, I still doubt I could beat Carlsen.

His positional judgement would only require him to see a few moves ahead and still outplay me handily.

Just as Fritz 7 on my Macbook Pro will lose to Stockfish running from my old Android phone.

Anyway, I digress...

I, like a few of the fellas here, am specifically fond of this "weakness" which style basically is, and prefer a 2700-2800 engine like Prodeo/Frenzee/Ktulu/Gandalf/Junior 7/Rodent/Wasp and others, than the powerhouses approaching 3500 ELO.

I save those just for opening analysis or "truth seeking".

Besides, If I run Stockfish 8 against Ktulu (for example), it will stomp Ktulu into the ground with no effort, but the game will be a typical "stockfish win".

Everything is okay until Ktulu spots what SF's deep intention was and starts doing dumb stuff to avoid it. There is then a tactical explosion and the game is over.

It probably wouldnt be as beautiful as this win by Rodent II Henny (which was designed to be weak enough for ME to train against!).

[pgn][Event "Sicilian Masters Blitz Challenge"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.01.08"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Rodent II 0.8.7 Henny"]
[Black "Ktulu 7.1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B81"]
[WhiteElo "2160"]
[BlackElo "2364"]
[PlyCount "61"]
[EventDate "2017.01.07"]
[Source "Norman"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. g4 h6 8. f4
Nc6 9. Be2 e5 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. fxe5 Nxg4 12. Bxg4 Qh4+ 13. Bf2 Qxg4 14. exd6
Qg2 15. Rg1 Qxh2 16. Rg3 Bd7 17. Qd4 h5 18. O-O-O h4 19. Rxg7 Bxg7 20. Qxg7
Qf4+ 21. Kb1 Rf8 22. Be3 Qg4 23. Qf6 Qe6 24. Qxh4 f6 25. Bd4 O-O-O 26. Bb6 Rde8
27. Qf2 Qe5 28. Bc7 Bg4 29. d7+ Kxc7 30. dxe8=N+ Qxe8 31. Qg3+ 1-0[/pgn]

For me, this is what computer chess is all about.

Not so much edging closer and closer to 32 man tablebases, but creating chess games that make us fans smile.

If I have to sacrifice some strength to get this style, so be it.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

I am no programmer, but...

I think sometimes what people have seen as 'style' is little more than how an engine operated with a zone of uncertainty.

That is to say that at one time evaluation functions bumped up against the horizon effect with uncertain results...with the hardware being so powerful these days, this is less of a problem and evaluation functions are likely to be closer between engines...because they see more.

Just my two cents.

There's probably some validity to this, based on what is generally observed, but... I have found that one can tweak current Komodo's settings and get plenty of style, while sacrificing relatively little strength.

(For example, I don't really care if the engine is rated 3100-3200 instead of 3300, but now has a very exciting attacking style with plenty of piece/pawn sacs).

Regards,
CL

Brian makes an interesting point.

And with regard to your comment Carl, you're essentially "weakening" (making Komodo's evaluation less accurate) Komodo by making it more "stylish".

Nothing wrong with that of course, we both know that "weakening" engines is pretty much all I do!

With that being said...

The same argument can be used across the board (no pun intended) with the same result.

In the games of humans we witness the same phenomenon.

At 1300-1500 level, games are so random and full of mistakes, that they are very exciting for other amateurs to watch. All intentions and plans are more or less clear and tactics not very deep. The outcome is ALWAYS uncertain and the "horizon" very low.

At the IM-Average GM level, we see a closer alignment of move choices, but still retain individual prejudices (all that a "style" is, is the material/positional/psychological prejudices we obey when choosing a move or plan) which give our game a unique character.

I could tell an Alekhine game from a Tal game for example, because of this "fingerprint", despite them both being attackers.

at this level, the "horizon" is much higher than the aforementioned amateurs, but still low enough to "speculate" or have your own unique approach.

At the 2780-2800+ level, these guys have already seen all of the ideas, all of the attacking structures, key games and plans.

They all calculate very deeply with extreme accuracy.

For this reason, the "horizon" is even higher than for the strong IM or average GM. They simply know in advance how a certain plan/idea/direction is going to end and choose accordingly.

This is why as Nakamura "matured" toward the 2800 level his style became less and less flashy. At that level, the styles more or less merge together (for the most part). The "fingerprint" is less distinct.

In computer chess, the top "players" improve at a greater speed than do the human players, so at the very top level the styles will become more and more merged. I think Brian is right.

But I don't think this is a bad thing.

I don't think the programs see more because of just hardware improvements.

The evaluation is also a big deal.

If I could calculate 25 moves ahead, I still doubt I could beat Carlsen.

His positional judgement would only require him to see a few moves ahead and still outplay me handily.

Just as Fritz 7 on my Macbook Pro will lose to Stockfish running from my old Android phone.

Anyway, I digress...

I, like a few of the fellas here, am specifically fond of this "weakness" which style basically is, and prefer a 2700-2800 engine like Prodeo/Frenzee/Ktulu/Gandalf/Junior 7/Rodent/Wasp and others, than the powerhouses approaching 3500 ELO.

I save those just for opening analysis or "truth seeking".

Besides, If I run Stockfish 8 against Ktulu (for example), it will stomp Ktulu into the ground with no effort, but the game will be a typical "stockfish win".

Everything is okay until Ktulu spots what SF's deep intention was and starts doing dumb stuff to avoid it. There is then a tactical explosion and the game is over.

It probably wouldnt be as beautiful as this win by Rodent II Henny (which was designed to be weak enough for ME to train against!).

[pgn][Event "Sicilian Masters Blitz Challenge"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.01.08"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Rodent II 0.8.7 Henny"]
[Black "Ktulu 7.1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B81"]
[WhiteElo "2160"]
[BlackElo "2364"]
[PlyCount "61"]
[EventDate "2017.01.07"]
[Source "Norman"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. g4 h6 8. f4
Nc6 9. Be2 e5 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. fxe5 Nxg4 12. Bxg4 Qh4+ 13. Bf2 Qxg4 14. exd6
Qg2 15. Rg1 Qxh2 16. Rg3 Bd7 17. Qd4 h5 18. O-O-O h4 19. Rxg7 Bxg7 20. Qxg7
Qf4+ 21. Kb1 Rf8 22. Be3 Qg4 23. Qf6 Qe6 24. Qxh4 f6 25. Bd4 O-O-O 26. Bb6 Rde8
27. Qf2 Qe5 28. Bc7 Bg4 29. d7+ Kxc7 30. dxe8=N+ Qxe8 31. Qg3+ 1-0[/pgn]

For me, this is what computer chess is all about.

Not so much edging closer and closer to 32 man tablebases, but creating chess games that make us fans smile.

If I have to sacrifice some strength to get this style, so be it.

I do not find games matching engines couple of hundreds elo apart interesting at all: it is like a soccer game between Barcelona and a local town club, the mant goals from the stronger side do not make the game more interesting.

I do not agree that it is more important for an engine to have an intriguing playing style than to play stronger. We have witnesses many engines with intriguing playing style, while we still have not witnessed the strongest engine. Of course, new things are much more interesting.

It is not true that engines progress faster than humans. Weak engines, like Komodo, SF, Houdini, etc., average some 50 elo progress per year, but that is only they are weak and have a lot to improve. Top GMs do not have that much room for improvement, as they are much closer to perfect positional play than top engines are.

It is also not true that top engine styles are going to merge more and more as the game advances. I can claim with a very large degree of confidence that Junior and Fritz from 15 years ago are closer in playing style than SF and Komodo of today, and it is very difficult to refute that.

Truth is, search space is at least 5 times larger than what most people actually suppose, and eval parametrising could be made much more detailed and accurate, so expecting quick convergence of playing styles sooner than 30-50 years from now is simply very much off-target.

[BrendanJNorman]

I am no programmer, but...

I think sometimes what people have seen as 'style' is little more than how an engine operated with a zone of uncertainty.

That is to say that at one time evaluation functions bumped up against the horizon effect with uncertain results...with the hardware being so powerful these days, this is less of a problem and evaluation functions are likely to be closer between engines...because they see more.

Just my two cents.

There's probably some validity to this, based on what is generally observed, but... I have found that one can tweak current Komodo's settings and get plenty of style, while sacrificing relatively little strength.

(For example, I don't really care if the engine is rated 3100-3200 instead of 3300, but now has a very exciting attacking style with plenty of piece/pawn sacs).

Regards,
CL

Brian makes an interesting point.

And with regard to your comment Carl, you're essentially "weakening" (making Komodo's evaluation less accurate) Komodo by making it more "stylish".

Nothing wrong with that of course, we both know that "weakening" engines is pretty much all I do!

With that being said...

The same argument can be used across the board (no pun intended) with the same result.

In the games of humans we witness the same phenomenon.

At 1300-1500 level, games are so random and full of mistakes, that they are very exciting for other amateurs to watch. All intentions and plans are more or less clear and tactics not very deep. The outcome is ALWAYS uncertain and the "horizon" very low.

At the IM-Average GM level, we see a closer alignment of move choices, but still retain individual prejudices (all that a "style" is, is the material/positional/psychological prejudices we obey when choosing a move or plan) which give our game a unique character.

I could tell an Alekhine game from a Tal game for example, because of this "fingerprint", despite them both being attackers.

at this level, the "horizon" is much higher than the aforementioned amateurs, but still low enough to "speculate" or have your own unique approach.

At the 2780-2800+ level, these guys have already seen all of the ideas, all of the attacking structures, key games and plans.

They all calculate very deeply with extreme accuracy.

For this reason, the "horizon" is even higher than for the strong IM or average GM. They simply know in advance how a certain plan/idea/direction is going to end and choose accordingly.

This is why as Nakamura "matured" toward the 2800 level his style became less and less flashy. At that level, the styles more or less merge together (for the most part). The "fingerprint" is less distinct.

In computer chess, the top "players" improve at a greater speed than do the human players, so at the very top level the styles will become more and more merged. I think Brian is right.

But I don't think this is a bad thing.

I don't think the programs see more because of just hardware improvements.

The evaluation is also a big deal.

If I could calculate 25 moves ahead, I still doubt I could beat Carlsen.

His positional judgement would only require him to see a few moves ahead and still outplay me handily.

Just as Fritz 7 on my Macbook Pro will lose to Stockfish running from my old Android phone.

Anyway, I digress...

I, like a few of the fellas here, am specifically fond of this "weakness" which style basically is, and prefer a 2700-2800 engine like Prodeo/Frenzee/Ktulu/Gandalf/Junior 7/Rodent/Wasp and others, than the powerhouses approaching 3500 ELO.

I save those just for opening analysis or "truth seeking".

Besides, If I run Stockfish 8 against Ktulu (for example), it will stomp Ktulu into the ground with no effort, but the game will be a typical "stockfish win".

Everything is okay until Ktulu spots what SF's deep intention was and starts doing dumb stuff to avoid it. There is then a tactical explosion and the game is over.

It probably wouldnt be as beautiful as this win by Rodent II Henny (which was designed to be weak enough for ME to train against!).

[pgn][Event "Sicilian Masters Blitz Challenge"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.01.08"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Rodent II 0.8.7 Henny"]
[Black "Ktulu 7.1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B81"]
[WhiteElo "2160"]
[BlackElo "2364"]
[PlyCount "61"]
[EventDate "2017.01.07"]
[Source "Norman"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. g4 h6 8. f4
Nc6 9. Be2 e5 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. fxe5 Nxg4 12. Bxg4 Qh4+ 13. Bf2 Qxg4 14. exd6
Qg2 15. Rg1 Qxh2 16. Rg3 Bd7 17. Qd4 h5 18. O-O-O h4 19. Rxg7 Bxg7 20. Qxg7
Qf4+ 21. Kb1 Rf8 22. Be3 Qg4 23. Qf6 Qe6 24. Qxh4 f6 25. Bd4 O-O-O 26. Bb6 Rde8
27. Qf2 Qe5 28. Bc7 Bg4 29. d7+ Kxc7 30. dxe8=N+ Qxe8 31. Qg3+ 1-0[/pgn]

For me, this is what computer chess is all about.

Not so much edging closer and closer to 32 man tablebases, but creating chess games that make us fans smile.

If I have to sacrifice some strength to get this style, so be it.

I do not find games matching engines couple of hundreds elo apart interesting at all: it is like a soccer game between Barcelona and a local town club, the mant goals from the stronger side do not make the game more interesting.

I do not agree that it is more important for an engine to have an intriguing playing style than to play stronger. We have witnesses many engines with intriguing playing style, while we still have not witnessed the strongest engine. Of course, new things are much more interesting.

It is not true that engines progress faster than humans. Weak engines, like Komodo, SF, Houdini, etc., average some 50 elo progress per year, but that is only they are weak and have a lot to improve. Top GMs do not have that much room for improvement, as they are much closer to perfect positional play than top engines are.

It is also not true that top engine styles are going to merge more and more as the game advances. I can claim with a very large degree of confidence that Junior and Fritz from 15 years ago are closer in playing style than SF and Komodo of today, and it is very difficult to refute that.

Truth is, search space is at least 5 times larger than what most people actually suppose, and eval parametrising could be made much more detailed and accurate, so expecting quick convergence of playing styles sooner than 30-50 years from now is simply very much off-target.

So what's going on Lyudmil?

You're now stalking me because I humiliated you in two other threads?

Grow up man. You're like 20 years older than me and showing a poor example of how a man should conduct himself.

Rodent II Henny has been weakened so much that it is only about 2400 strength by CCRL measures, but it is also designed to create complete chaos on the board and this paid off against Ktulu 7.1 (which is 200-300 points HIGHER, not lower).

I don't know why I bother addressing the things you say.

"Weak engines, like Komodo, SF, Houdini, etc., average some 50 elo progress per year, but that is only they are weak and have a lot to improve. Top GMs do not have that much room for improvement, as they are much closer to perfect positional play than top engines are."

What a hilarious thing to say.

These "weak" engines you mentioned (which happen to be the strongest chess entities in the universe) do AMAZINGLY well do gain 50 points in a single year.

Top GMs having no room for improvement, despite being much weaker than said engines (which you say do have much room for improvement) is also a weird contradiction.

By the way, have you see any player from the top 5 of humans who has gained 50 points in one year? No room to improve, right?

Lyudmil, you've made you aggressive intentions clear, so I'm going to keep this in mind.

Not to censor myself, nor to flood this great forum with flame posts, but I might deal with our "differences" in more detail elsewhere.

[BrendanJNorman]

I do not find games matching engines couple of hundreds elo apart interesting at all: it is like a soccer game between Barcelona and a local town club, the mant goals from the stronger side do not make the game more interesting.

False equivalence.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence)

[leavenfish]

I do not find games matching engines couple of hundreds elo apart interesting at all: it is like a soccer game between Barcelona and a local town club, the mant goals from the stronger side do not make the game more interesting..

Interestingly, many people will say that it is precisely the difference in playing strength between players which make for instructional value/entertainment.

Consider all those old Alekhine or Capablanca - just to name two - games against 'good' players (for their time) with the great attacks, sacrifices, positional crushes...etc. Indeed, a distinctive 'style'. Entertaining and instructive.

It's actually why those game still have 'life to them'. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single 'engine' vs 'engine' game...

[carldaman]

I am no programmer, but...

I think sometimes what people have seen as 'style' is little more than how an engine operated with a zone of uncertainty.

That is to say that at one time evaluation functions bumped up against the horizon effect with uncertain results...with the hardware being so powerful these days, this is less of a problem and evaluation functions are likely to be closer between engines...because they see more.

Just my two cents.

There's probably some validity to this, based on what is generally observed, but... I have found that one can tweak current Komodo's settings and get plenty of style, while sacrificing relatively little strength.

(For example, I don't really care if the engine is rated 3100-3200 instead of 3300, but now has a very exciting attacking style with plenty of piece/pawn sacs).

Regards,
CL

Brian makes an interesting point.

And with regard to your comment Carl, you're essentially "weakening" (making Komodo's evaluation less accurate) Komodo by making it more "stylish".

Nothing wrong with that of course, we both know that "weakening" engines is pretty much all I do!

With that being said...

The same argument can be used across the board (no pun intended) with the same result.

In the games of humans we witness the same phenomenon.

At 1300-1500 level, games are so random and full of mistakes, that they are very exciting for other amateurs to watch. All intentions and plans are more or less clear and tactics not very deep. The outcome is ALWAYS uncertain and the "horizon" very low.

At the IM-Average GM level, we see a closer alignment of move choices, but still retain individual prejudices (all that a "style" is, is the material/positional/psychological prejudices we obey when choosing a move or plan) which give our game a unique character.

I could tell an Alekhine game from a Tal game for example, because of this "fingerprint", despite them both being attackers.

at this level, the "horizon" is much higher than the aforementioned amateurs, but still low enough to "speculate" or have your own unique approach.

At the 2780-2800+ level, these guys have already seen all of the ideas, all of the attacking structures, key games and plans.

They all calculate very deeply with extreme accuracy.

For this reason, the "horizon" is even higher than for the strong IM or average GM. They simply know in advance how a certain plan/idea/direction is going to end and choose accordingly.

This is why as Nakamura "matured" toward the 2800 level his style became less and less flashy. At that level, the styles more or less merge together (for the most part). The "fingerprint" is less distinct.

In computer chess, the top "players" improve at a greater speed than do the human players, so at the very top level the styles will become more and more merged. I think Brian is right.

But I don't think this is a bad thing.

I don't think the programs see more because of just hardware improvements.

The evaluation is also a big deal.

If I could calculate 25 moves ahead, I still doubt I could beat Carlsen.

His positional judgement would only require him to see a few moves ahead and still outplay me handily.

Just as Fritz 7 on my Macbook Pro will lose to Stockfish running from my old Android phone.

Anyway, I digress...

I, like a few of the fellas here, am specifically fond of this "weakness" which style basically is, and prefer a 2700-2800 engine like Prodeo/Frenzee/Ktulu/Gandalf/Junior 7/Rodent/Wasp and others, than the powerhouses approaching 3500 ELO.

I save those just for opening analysis or "truth seeking".

Besides, If I run Stockfish 8 against Ktulu (for example), it will stomp Ktulu into the ground with no effort, but the game will be a typical "stockfish win".

Everything is okay until Ktulu spots what SF's deep intention was and starts doing dumb stuff to avoid it. There is then a tactical explosion and the game is over.

It probably wouldnt be as beautiful as this win by Rodent II Henny (which was designed to be weak enough for ME to train against!).

[pgn][Event "Sicilian Masters Blitz Challenge"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.01.08"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Rodent II 0.8.7 Henny"]
[Black "Ktulu 7.1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B81"]
[WhiteElo "2160"]
[BlackElo "2364"]
[PlyCount "61"]
[EventDate "2017.01.07"]
[Source "Norman"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. g4 h6 8. f4
Nc6 9. Be2 e5 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. fxe5 Nxg4 12. Bxg4 Qh4+ 13. Bf2 Qxg4 14. exd6
Qg2 15. Rg1 Qxh2 16. Rg3 Bd7 17. Qd4 h5 18. O-O-O h4 19. Rxg7 Bxg7 20. Qxg7
Qf4+ 21. Kb1 Rf8 22. Be3 Qg4 23. Qf6 Qe6 24. Qxh4 f6 25. Bd4 O-O-O 26. Bb6 Rde8
27. Qf2 Qe5 28. Bc7 Bg4 29. d7+ Kxc7 30. dxe8=N+ Qxe8 31. Qg3+ 1-0[/pgn]

For me, this is what computer chess is all about.

Not so much edging closer and closer to 32 man tablebases, but creating chess games that make us fans smile.

If I have to sacrifice some strength to get this style, so be it.

Hi Brendan,

Absolutely, that's my creed as well.

There may be a trend that shows that style slowly goes away with Elo gains, but I'm not fully convinced it can't be bucked. There are recent engines likes Fizbo, Alfil 15.07 and Hakkapeliitta 3.0 that sport flashy, attacking and speculative styles (perhaps to a varying extent) while exhibiting remarkable strength, clearly above that of historical programs.

Then there is the tweaked Komodo king-hunter personality I mentioned before. Private tests I have run against some engines weaker by 200+ Elo points show performance levels even higher than those expected by the normal rating difference between these and untweaked Komodo 10.1, suggesting that I did not weaken Komodo that much, or perhaps even strengthened it -- at least vs weaker engines (such as Naum 4.6, etc).

On the human side, as far as Nakamura is concerned, it may be that *he* needed to restrain his flashy impulses to maintain a near 2800 rating. But is the same true of Kasparov, Topalov and Shirov back in their prime? Shirov played his usual brand of 'fire on the board' chess, while being one of the top players on the rating list for many years.

Cheers,
CL

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

I do not find games matching engines couple of hundreds elo apart interesting at all: it is like a soccer game between Barcelona and a local town club, the mant goals from the stronger side do not make the game more interesting..

Interestingly, many people will say that it is precisely the difference in playing strength between players which make for instructional value/entertainment.

Consider all those old Alekhine or Capablanca - just to name two - games against 'good' players (for their time) with the great attacks, sacrifices, positional crushes...etc. Indeed, a distinctive 'style'. Entertaining and instructive.

It's actually why those game still have 'life to them'. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single 'engine' vs 'engine' game...

the I suggest for next TCEC 10 final to match Komodo with Skipper_2017 as a wild card.

there will be some extreme attacks and tremendous positional crushes from Komodo.

what is your estimate of the people that will follow it?