Kayra 1.1

[Eduard]

The Kayra author wrote that he would like to make further changes. He doesn't want to change too much.

He actually wanted to test the engine with a few testers first, but he couldn't do that because some people here called for the source code.

Everything is wrong what he does, how is it right?

-First create a SF fork
-Make changes in the code
-Test the resulting engines (own testing or on FishTest)
-If the changes are giving positive ELO
-write a PR and wait for the reaction of the other devs

This is at least a crude sketch of the normal SF developing process.
Note, that there's no point: renaming the engine from SF to blabla

I am personally interested in the style of play more than 10 Elo plus or minus. I am watching a lot of my games and study the behavior of engines. In my tests, the engine has to play all possible variants. I use 3 books. A Gambit Style book, with openings like Kings Gambit, Danish Gambit, Evans Gambit. A broad universal book with openings such as Kings Indian, Budapest Gambit, Volga Gambit, Pirc, Philidor, Franch, Caro Kann. And a tournament book for the best results. Kayra has played with all of these books. In the middle of my test, I used Stockfish dev for 100 games. I liked Kayra's style better. Kayra plays more refreshingly and less carefully.

I'm not interested in the fish test. I therefore take the liberty of testing engines that do not violate the GPL.

As for the name: There are Cfish who call themselves Ditto or Fat Titz, also stockfish who were chosen after the names of US politicians. Kayra is a nicer name.

[AlexChess]

As for the name: There are Cfish who call themselves Ditto or Fat Titz, also stockfish who were chosen after the names of US politicians. Kayra is a nicer name.

...And Mehmet is a very good and kind guy. Please TC members support Kayra development with suggestions and wish lists

[mehmet123]

...And Mehmet is a very good and kind guy. Please TC members support Kayra development with suggestions and wish lists

Alex thanks for your nice words. But do you want to make me an obvious target.
This beautiful logo was prepared by Anton. I hesitated to use it because it was too spectacular.

I wrote this Outskirt Chess Forum:
I don't have a chance to be angry with the criticism. I took a short break from the Kayra project. I will return to this project as soon as I have time. My aim is to make Kayra better in the future. This engine should come to a much better point so that even those who criticize this chess engine will start using it in the future. Otherwise, I have no intention of continuing because this engine is very popular and has too many downloads.

[DrEinstein]

The Kayra author wrote that he would like to make further changes. He doesn't want to change too much.

He actually wanted to test the engine with a few testers first, but he couldn't do that because some people here called for the source code.

Everything is wrong what he does, how is it right?

-First create a SF fork
-Make changes in the code
-Test the resulting engines (own testing or on FishTest)
-If the changes are giving positive ELO
-write a PR and wait for the reaction of the other devs

This is at least a crude sketch of the normal SF developing process.
Note, that there's no point: renaming the engine from SF to blabla

I am personally interested in the style of play more than 10 Elo plus or minus. I am watching a lot of my games and study the behavior of engines. In my tests, the engine has to play all possible variants. I use 3 books. A Gambit Style book, with openings like Kings Gambit, Danish Gambit, Evans Gambit. A broad universal book with openings such as Kings Indian, Budapest Gambit, Volga Gambit, Pirc, Philidor, Franch, Caro Kann. And a tournament book for the best results. Kayra has played with all of these books. In the middle of my test, I used Stockfish dev for 100 games. I liked Kayra's style better. Kayra plays more refreshingly and less carefully.

I'm not interested in the fish test. I therefore take the liberty of testing engines that do not violate the GPL.

As for the name: There are Cfish who call themselves Ditto or Fat Titz, also stockfish who were chosen after the names of US politicians. Kayra is a nicer name.

Please never ask again any question! Just continue with telling your Playchess stories and myths. Thanks!

[tcusr]

IT security expert

you managed to leak your real name and all your info on a public forum, what an expert!
anyway, i see that none of the words other people said entered your (and others) head, next time i won't waste time arguing with you

[Eduard]

The Kayra author wrote that he would like to make further changes. He doesn't want to change too much.

He actually wanted to test the engine with a few testers first, but he couldn't do that because some people here called for the source code.

Everything is wrong what he does, how is it right?

-First create a SF fork
-Make changes in the code
-Test the resulting engines (own testing or on FishTest)
-If the changes are giving positive ELO
-write a PR and wait for the reaction of the other devs

This is at least a crude sketch of the normal SF developing process.
Note, that there's no point: renaming the engine from SF to blabla

I am personally interested in the style of play more than 10 Elo plus or minus. I am watching a lot of my games and study the behavior of engines. In my tests, the engine has to play all possible variants. I use 3 books. A Gambit Style book, with openings like Kings Gambit, Danish Gambit, Evans Gambit. A broad universal book with openings such as Kings Indian, Budapest Gambit, Volga Gambit, Pirc, Philidor, Franch, Caro Kann. And a tournament book for the best results. Kayra has played with all of these books. In the middle of my test, I used Stockfish dev for 100 games. I liked Kayra's style better. Kayra plays more refreshingly and less carefully.

I'm not interested in the fish test. I therefore take the liberty of testing engines that do not violate the GPL.

As for the name: There are Cfish who call themselves Ditto or Fat Titz, also stockfish who were chosen after the names of US politicians. Kayra is a nicer name.

Please never ask again any question! Just continue with telling your Playchess stories and myths. Thanks!

Ok, bye. But keep in mind that things that are developed in a laboratory should also be used in practice at some point. Otherwise all tests are pointless.

I test in practice. I play live on 3 servers and in freestyle chess (where practical analysis is important). It is a cheek to call something like this a myth. Practice is real life.

[connor_mcmonigle]

The Kayra author wrote that he would like to make further changes. He doesn't want to change too much.

He actually wanted to test the engine with a few testers first, but he couldn't do that because some people here called for the source code.

Everything is wrong what he does, how is it right?

-First create a SF fork
-Make changes in the code
-Test the resulting engines (own testing or on FishTest)
-If the changes are giving positive ELO
-write a PR and wait for the reaction of the other devs

This is at least a crude sketch of the normal SF developing process.
Note, that there's no point: renaming the engine from SF to blabla

I am personally interested in the style of play more than 10 Elo plus or minus. I am watching a lot of my games and study the behavior of engines. In my tests, the engine has to play all possible variants. I use 3 books. A Gambit Style book, with openings like Kings Gambit, Danish Gambit, Evans Gambit. A broad universal book with openings such as Kings Indian, Budapest Gambit, Volga Gambit, Pirc, Philidor, Franch, Caro Kann. And a tournament book for the best results. Kayra has played with all of these books. In the middle of my test, I used Stockfish dev for 100 games. I liked Kayra's style better. Kayra plays more refreshingly and less carefully.

I'm not interested in the fish test. I therefore take the liberty of testing engines that do not violate the GPL.

As for the name: There are Cfish who call themselves Ditto or Fat Titz, also stockfish who were chosen after the names of US politicians. Kayra is a nicer name.

Please never ask again any question! Just continue with telling your Playchess stories and myths. Thanks!

Ok, bye. But keep in mind that things that are developed in a laboratory should also be used in practice at some point. Otherwise all tests are pointless.

I test in practice. I play live on 3 servers and in freestyle chess (where practical analysis is important). It is a cheek to call something like this a myth. Practice is real life.

You literally said you value style over Elo in your previous message. However, you'd almost certainly be unable to tell apart Kayra from SF were the names hidden as they play effectively identically... what exactly do you think you're measuring? There are so many manipulated variables and your sample size is so small that your testing is meaningless. We have rating lists to perform third party, "real world" tests already.

I have nothing against what you're doing. Have fun, but don't pretend your playing with chess engines has any value for engine developers.

[AlexChess]

You literally said you value style over Elo in your previous message. However, you'd almost certainly be unable to tell apart Kayra from SF were the names hidden as they play effectively identically... what exactly do you think you're measuring? There are so many manipulated variables and your sample size is so small that your testing is meaningless. We have rating lists to perform third party, "real world" tests already.

I have nothing against what you're doing. Have fun, but don't pretend your playing with chess engines has any value for engine developers.

Even trusted rating lists aren't so reliable also playing thousands of games (but only between few engines, not the totality available)

1. Mixed results obtained using 1,2,4,8 CPUs
2. The same engine (eg Stockfish 14.1) is evaluated from 3500 up to 3900 ELO!!
3. Different time controls
4. Different hardwares (somebody states that every time you double the hardware speed, you gain 80 ELO)

Best regards, Alex

[Sopel]

You literally said you value style over Elo in your previous message. However, you'd almost certainly be unable to tell apart Kayra from SF were the names hidden as they play effectively identically... what exactly do you think you're measuring? There are so many manipulated variables and your sample size is so small that your testing is meaningless. We have rating lists to perform third party, "real world" tests already.

I have nothing against what you're doing. Have fun, but don't pretend your playing with chess engines has any value for engine developers.

Even trusted rating lists aren't so reliable also playing thousands of games (but only between few engines, not the totality available)

1. Mixed results obtained using 1,2,4,8 CPUs
2. The same engine (eg Stockfish 14.1) is evaluated from 3500 up to 3900 ELO!!
3. Different time controls
4. Different hardwares (somebody states that every time you double the hardware speed, you gain 80 ELO)

Best regards, Alex

1. Usually attributed to small sample size. I'm not aware of any significant results with more than one thread (apart from fishtest), as they are quite costly. Also, some engines just scale worse with amount of threads.
2. This starts making sense as soon as you learn that Elo is a relative metric
3. It's very rare that an engine's strength changes drastically compared to others depending on time control. Usually explained by small sample size.
4. What? Apart from testing Lc0 I don't know anyone who would use different hardware for different engines being tested in a single match. The relative performance across hardware is usually pretty comparable between engines.

[AlexChess]

You literally said you value style over Elo in your previous message. However, you'd almost certainly be unable to tell apart Kayra from SF were the names hidden as they play effectively identically... what exactly do you think you're measuring? There are so many manipulated variables and your sample size is so small that your testing is meaningless. We have rating lists to perform third party, "real world" tests already.

I have nothing against what you're doing. Have fun, but don't pretend your playing with chess engines has any value for engine developers.

Even trusted rating lists aren't so reliable also playing thousands of games (but only between few engines, not the totality available)

1. Mixed results obtained using 1,2,4,8 CPUs
2. The same engine (eg Stockfish 14.1) is evaluated from 3500 up to 3900 ELO!!
3. Different time controls
4. Different hardwares (somebody states that every time you double the hardware speed, you gain 80 ELO)

Best regards, Alex

1. Usually attributed to small sample size. I'm not aware of any significant results with more than one thread (apart from fishtest), as they are quite costly. Also, some engines just scale worse with amount of threads.
2. This starts making sense as soon as you learn that Elo is a relative metric
3. It's very rare that an engine's strength changes drastically compared to others depending on time control. Usually explained by small sample size.
4. What? Apart from testing Lc0 I don't know anyone who would use different hardware for different engines being tested in a single match. The relative performance across hardware is usually pretty comparable between engines.

Thank you for you comment Sopel.

4. I mean how can I obtain a credible ELO using my Android Snap 626 Smartphone instead of my Ryzen 9 5950 for work

Note: I'm trying to understand how to make my tests more meaningful.

Best regards and happy New year 2022!