THINKER 5.3B - A VERY STRONG ENGINE !

[Marc Lacrosse]

I am really glad to see so many reports on Thinker's promising developments.

This being said I have to say that deciding not to go for UCI compatibility the Thinker team explicitly decided that this engine would not be one for the common majority of users. OK.

For what regards myself I am not interested anymore in WB-only engines.

Marc

[Steve Maughan]

... myself I am not interested anymore in WB-only engines....

ditto - IMHO it's just plain laziness not to implement UCI.

Steve

[Marc Lacrosse]

For what regards myself I am not interested anymore in WB-only engines.

Marc

Why ?

Mainly because :
- I cannot use them easily in those interfaces that do offer UCI support and no easy WB support
- I cannot use them with Polyglot books
- Any kind of tuning requires detailed study of specific configuration files syntax. This is not pleasant at all with several hundreds of engines available.

Marc

[meschle]

I doubt if anybody would consider lance lazy!

wb or uci - i am not bothered - in my tourni this release is doing really great! (inert's score is just behind rybka 2.2 n2 )

So thanks lance

[Zach Wegner]

Yawn... another protocol war.


UCI sucks.

[Ovyron]

Do you have problems with the adapters at:

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... l?tid=6272

?

From the first two games I've played with Inert Thinker, it won both against Rybka Winfinder:

[Date "2008.11.04"]
[Round "1.1"]
[White "Rybka WinFinder 2.2 32-bit"]
[Black "SP-InertThinker53BUCI-32bit"]
[Result "0-1"]
[PlyCount "104"]
[TimeControl "60+3"]

{Pondering=Off} 1. d4 {0.10/12 4} Nf6 {4} 2. Nf3 {0.10/11 3} d5 {10} 3. g3 {
0.05/10 8} Nc6 {3} 4. Bg2 {0.15/10 1} g6 {5} 5. Nc3 {0.00/11 6} Bf5 {4} 6. Nh4
{0.05/10 4} Be6 {2} 7. Bf4 {0.00/9 2} Bg7 {4} 8. O-O {0.00/8 1} h6 {4} 9. Nb5 {
0.00/9 4} Rc8 {4} 10. Nf3 {0.00/8 1} g5 {2} 11. Be5 {-0.05/10 3} O-O {2} 12.
Qd3 {-0.05/9 3} Qd7 {4} 13. a4 {-0.05/8 2} a6 {4} 14. Nc3 {-0.15/9 3} Bf5 {4}
15. Qd1 {-0.15/9 1} Rfd8 {9} 16. Ra3 {-0.15/8 3} Qe6 {4} 17. Rb3 {-0.30/7 1} b6
{2} 18. Re1 {-0.25/9 4} g4 {2} 19. Nh4 {-0.25/7 0} Nxe5 {2} 20. dxe5 {-0.31/8 1
} Qxe5 {1} 21. Nxf5 {-0.23/8 0} Qxf5 {1} 22. Qd3 {-0.32/9 1} Qxd3 {2} 23. exd3
{-0.41/11 1} e6 {3} 24. h3 {-0.35/10 1} h5 {4} 25. Re5 {-0.43/11 5} c5 {4} 26.
Rg5 {-0.43/10 3} Kh7 {3} 27. hxg4 {-0.57/10 5} hxg4 {4} 28. Rxb6 {-0.78/11 4}
Rb8 {2} 29. Rxa6 {-0.73/11 3} Rxb2 {3} 30. Nb5 {-0.78/9 1} Rxc2 {3} 31. Nd6 {
-1.17/10 3} Rc1+ {3} 32. Kh2 {-1.54/13 2} Rd7 {3} 33. Re5 {-1.63/10 2} Ne8 {4}
34. Rh5+ {-1.26/10 2} Kg6 {2} 35. Nxe8 {-1.35/10 2} Kxh5 {2} 36. Nxg7+ {
-1.74/10 1} Kg6 {3} 37. Nxe6 {-1.70/10 1} fxe6 {2} 38. Rxe6+ {-2.20/12 3} Kf5 {
3} 39. Rh6 {-2.50/13 3} Rd1 {8} 40. a5 {-2.30/12 4} Rxd3 {2} 41. Rh5+ {
-2.50/11 2} Kg6 {3} 42. Rh4 {-2.90/13 5} Kg5 {2} 43. Rh8 {-3.10/12 4} c4 {2}
44. a6 {-3.20/11 4} c3 {2} 45. Bxd5 {-3.60/9 3} R3xd5 {3} 46. Rg8+ {-4.80/12 4}
Kf6 {12} 47. Rc8 {-4.80/10 3} Rh7+ {3} 48. Kg2 {-4.40/10 0} Rd1 {3} 49. Rc6+ {
-10.00/14 12} Ke5 {3} 50. a7 {-19.10/14 10} Rdh1 {3} 51. Rh6 {-#18/14 1} R7xh6
{0} 52. a8=Q {-#16/5 0} R6h2# {0 Checkmate !!} 0-1

[Date "2008.11.04"]
[Round "1.2"]
[White "SP-InertThinker53BUCI-32bit"]
[Black "Rybka WinFinder 2.2 32-bit"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "111"]
[TimeControl "60+3"]

{Pondering=Off} 1. e4 {7} d5 {0.05/11 6} 2. exd5 {4} Nf6 {0.10/9 1} 3. Nf3 {2}
Nxd5 {0.10/8 0} 4. Bb5+ {3} c6 {0.05/11 7} 5. Be2 {4} g6 {0.05/10 4} 6. O-O {4}
Bg7 {0.16/11 8} 7. d3 {3} O-O {0.00/10 3} 8. c4 {6} Nf6 {0.05/11 2} 9. h3 {4}
Na6 {0.00/10 4} 10. Nc3 {5} Qd6 {0.05/10 7} 11. d4 {3} Bf5 {0.16/9 3} 12. Be3 {
4} Rfd8 {0.11/9 4} 13. Re1 {4} c5 {0.11/8 3} 14. g4 {5} cxd4 {0.11/8 2} 15.
Nxd4 {4} Bd7 {0.06/8 1} 16. Bf3 {5} e5 {0.06/8 2} 17. Ndb5 {3} Qf8 {0.18/9 3}
18. Bxb7 {4} Bxb5 {0.26/9 2} 19. Qe2 {4} Rab8 {0.27/8 1} 20. cxb5 {3} Rxb7 {
0.79/11 4} 21. bxa6 {3} Rbd7 {1.01/11 2} 22. Red1 {5} h5 {0.78/11 6} 23. g5 {3}
Nh7 {0.93/11 2} 24. Rxd7 {4} Rxd7 {1.05/11 0} 25. Rc1 {5} Qe8 {1.09/11 5} 26.
Qc4 {2} Qd8 {1.18/10 2} 27. Ne4 {2} Nf8 {1.18/10 0} 28. Qc8 {2} Ne6 {1.26/10 1}
29. b4 {10} Nd4 {1.77/11 4} 30. Qxd8+ {3} Rxd8 {1.92/13 1} 31. Rc7 {3} Ra8 {
1.99/10 1} 32. Nd6 {3} f6 {2.26/11 4} 33. gxf6 {3} Bxf6 {3.00/11 2} 34. Rc8+ {3
} Rxc8 {3.68/12 1} 35. Nxc8 {3} Ne6 {3.50/12 3} 36. Bxa7 {7} Nc7 {4.90/12 4}
37. b5 {3} Bh4 {12} 38. Bb8 {3} Nxb5 {10.70/12 4} 39. a4 {3} Nd4 {11.50/12 9}
40. a7 {3} Bf6 {12.30/12 7} 41. a8=Q {3} e4 {12.50/10 2} 42. Qxe4 {3} Nf5 {
12.90/11 2} 43. Qe6+ {3} Kg7 {12.90/11 4} 44. Be5 {5} Bxe5 {14.70/10 6} 45.
Qxe5+ {2} Kf8 {#25/11 5} 46. Qf6+ {2} Ke8 {15.80/8 0} 47. Qxg6+ {2} Kd8 {
15.80/8 1} 48. Qxf5 {1} h4 {#6/7 0} 49. Qe6 {0} Kc7 {#5/5 0} 50. Qd5 {0} Kxc8 {
#9/8 0} 51. Qc6+ {1} Kd8 {#8/6 0} 52. Qb7 {2} Ke8 {#4/5 0} 53. a5 {0} Kd8 {
#18/5 0} 54. a6 {0} Ke8 {#2/5 0} 55. a7 {0} Kd8 {#6/5 0} 56. a8=Q# {
0 Checkmate !!} 1-0

[Graham Banks]

Yawn... another protocol war.


UCI sucks.

Despite your aversion to uci, it currently seems to be the most accepted protocol.
I'm most appreciative of the wb2uci adaptors.

[Zach Wegner]

Yawn... another protocol war.


UCI sucks.

Despite your aversion to uci, it currently seems to be the most accepted protocol.
I'm most appreciative of the wb2uci adaptors.

Well, Windows is the most popular operating system. Tells you something, huh?

Don't get me wrong, the XB protocol isn't the best, but there are efforts to improve it that will make it much better. IMO the design of UCI is fundamentally flawed, and the fact that it was designed by non-native English speakers just makes it that much worse.

[kranium]

Yawn... another protocol war.


UCI sucks.

Hi Zach-

i've been a WB user for many years, ( i still use for 100% of my testing), but more and more it seems that UCI is the way to go...

just put yourself in the users' shoes...no INI files, no difficult adaptors, polyglot, etc.

Fritz, Chessbase, etc. offer beautiful GUIs (compare to Winboard!)...sorry it's becoming a no brainer!

Like any protocol war, there's usually 1 winner.

Time's change...go Obama!

PS - Hi Marc!
thanks for releasing ultrafast wbx...it rocks! I use it all the time.

Regards to all,
Norm

[Zach Wegner]

For what regards myself I am not interested anymore in WB-only engines.

Marc

Why ?

Mainly because :
- I cannot use them easily in those interfaces that do offer UCI support and no easy WB support

True, but this argument cuts both ways. I don't use any GUIs with native UCI support, and polyglot is a pain in the ass to use IMO.

- I cannot use them with Polyglot books

True, but how does this work if you're using the GUIs that you are talking about above? You would have to pass through wb2uci as well, which could be done in the opposite way to give XB engines access to polyglot books.

BTW it would probably be very easy to make polyglot into a book wrapper around XB engines. It would work like this:
Polyglot takes all input from the GUI, and processes it like normal, keeping track of the game state
Whenever it gets a "go" command, it tries to play a book move. If it can, it passes this move to the engine.
Otherwise, it passes all other input straight into the engine and sends the response back to the GUI.

- Any kind of tuning requires detailed study of specific configuration files syntax. This is not pleasant at all with several hundreds of engines available.

Agreed. This is one of the extensions to the XB protocol that is planned. I think the option system of UCI is one of its strengths (though the syntax is ugly).