INTERESTING Engines with Unique Styles (Unlike SF)

[Cornfed]

"Interesting" generally means 'not very good'. Sorry.

[AdminX]

I am still a fan of MChess

[pgn]
[Event "The Hague AEGON"]
[Site "The Hague"]
[Date "1995.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Christiansen, Larry Mark"]
[Black "Comp MChess Pro, "]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2570"]
[BlackElo "0"]
[ECO "D42"]

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. Nf3 e6 4. e3 Nc6 5. d4 d5 6. a3 cxd4 7. exd4 Ne4 8. Bd3 Nxc3 9. bxc3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Be7 11. O-O O-O 12. Bd3 b6 13. Qe2 Bb7 14. Bb2 Na5 15. Ne5 Rc8 16. Rad1 Bd6 17. f4 Qc7 18. a4 f6 19. Ng4 Bd5 20. f5 Nc4 21. Bc1 h5 22. Ne3 Nxe3 23. Bxe3 h4 24. h3 e5 25. dxe5 Bxe5 26. Bd4 Rfe8 27. Qg4 Bh2+ 28. Kh1 Qg3 29. Qxg3 Bxg3 30. Ba6 Rc7 31. a5 bxa5 32. Ra1 Be4 33. Rxa5 Ree7 34. Kg1 Bc2 35. Rd5 Kh7 36. Rd8 Re1 37. Rxe1 Bxe1 38. Rc8 Re7 39. Rc5 Bg3 40. Bf2 Kh6 41. Kf1 Kg5 42. Ra5 Kf4 43. Ra1 Bxf2 44. Kxf2 Bxf5 45. c4 Re5 46. Bb5 Be4 47. Ra2 Rg5 48. Kg1 Ke3 49. Ba6 Kd4 50. Rb2 Ra5 51. Bb5 Ra1+ 52. Kf2 a5 53. Rd2+ Bd3 54. Kf3 Kc3 55. Rf2 a4 56. Kg4 a3 57. Kxh4 Rc1 58. g4 Rc2 59. Rf3 a2 60. c5 a1=Q 61. Bxd3 Qe1+ 62. Kh5 Rf2 63. Rxf2 Qxf2 64. Bf5 Qxc5 65. Kg6 Qe7 66. h4 Kd4 67. h5 Ke3 68. Kh7 Kf4 69. Kg6 Qf8 70. Bd7 Kg3 71. Bf5 Qg8 72. Bd7 Kf3 73. Bf5 Kf4 74. Bd7 Kg3 75. Bf5 Qh8 76. Bd7 Kf2 77. Bf5 Kf3 78. Bd7 Qh6+ 79. Kf7 Qh7 80. Kf8 Kg3 81. Bf5 Qh8+ 82. Kf7 Kf4 83. Kg6 Ke3 84. Bd7 Qg8 85. Bf5 Kf3 86. Bd7 Ke4 87. Bf5+ Ke3 88. Bd7 Ke4 89. Bf5+ Ke5 90. Bd7 Kd6 91. Bf5 Ke7 92. Be4 Qc4 93. Kf5 Qf1+ 94. Kg6 Qf4 0-1
[Event "Harvard Cup"]
[Site "Boston"]
[Date "1995.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kaidanov, Gregory S"]
[Black "Comp MChess Pro, "]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2585"]
[BlackElo "0"]
[ECO "A57"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. Nf3 bxc4 5. Nc3 d6 6. e4 Qa5 7. Nd2 Ba6 8. Qc2 Qb4 9. a3 Qb7 10. Nxc4 g6 11. Be2 Bg7 12. O-O O-O 13. h3 Bxc4 14. Bxc4 Nbd7 15. Be3 Ne5 16. Be2 Rfb8 17. f4 Ned7 18. Bb5 Rc8 19. Bc6 Rxc6 20. dxc6 Qxc6 21. Rad1 Rb8 22. Rd2 Nb6 23. b3 Nh5 24. Nd5 Nxd5 25. exd5 Qa6 26. a4 Qb7 27. Rb1 Qb4 28. f5 c4 29. Bxa7 cxb3 30. Qd1 Rb7 31. Bd4 Qxa4 32. fxg6 hxg6 33. Bxg7 Kxg7 34. Rdb2 Nf4 35. Rxb3 Ne2+ 36. Kf2 Nc1 37. Qxc1 Rxb3 38. Rxb3 Qxb3 39. Qa1+ Kg8 40. Qa8+ Kh7 41. Kg1 Qe3+ 42. Kh1 e6 43. dxe6 fxe6 44. Qf8 Qe1+ 45. Kh2 Qe5+ 46. Kh1 g5 47. Qf7+ Kh6 48. g4 d5 49. Qf8+ Qg7 50. Qd8 Qa1+ 51. Kg2 Qb2+ 52. Kh1 Qc1+ 53. Kg2 Qd2+ 54. Kh1 Qe1+ 55. Kg2 Qe2+ 56. Kg1 Qe3+ 57. Kg2 Qe4+ 58. Kg1 Qf4 59. Kg2 Kg6 60. Qg8+ Kf6 61. Qd8+ Ke5 62. Qc7+ Ke4 63. Qc2+ Kd4 64. Qa4+ Ke5 65. Qd7 Qd2+ 66. Kg3 Qe3+ 67. Kg2 Qe2+ 68. Kg3 Qe1+ 69. Kg2 Qe4+ 70. Kg3 Qd3+ 71. Kg2 Qc2+ 72. Kg3 Qb3+ 73. Kg2 Qa2+ 74. Kg3 Qa3+ 75. Kg2 Qb2+ 76. Kg3 Qc1 77. Qg7+ Ke4 78. Qg6+ Kd4 79. Qg7+ e5 80. Kg2 Qc2+ 81. Kg3 Qd3+ 82. Kg2 Qe2+ 83. Kg3 Qe3+ 84. Kg2 Kd3 85. Qb7 Qe2+ 86. Kg1 d4 87. Qb5+ Kd2 88. Qa5+ Ke3 89. Qxe5+ Kf3 90. Qd5+ Kg3 91. Qd6+ Kxh3 92. Qh6+ Kxg4 93. Qc6 Qe1+ 94. Kg2 Qg3+ 95. Kf1 Qf3+ 96. Qxf3+ Kxf3 97. Ke1 Ke3 98. Kd1 d3 99. Kc1 g4 100. Kb2 d2 101. Kc2 Ke2 102. Kc3 d1=Q 103. Kc4 Ke3 104. Kc5 g3 105. Kc4 Qa1 106. Kd5 g2 107. Kc4 Qa5 108. Kb3 g1=Q 109. Kc4 Qg8# 0-1


[/pgn]

[Ferdy]

This is a fresh thread for Thorsten's idea of making a list of all "interesting" engines.

For me, in no particular order, they are:

Teki 2
Thinker 5.1c Passive
Baron 1.8.1
Gandalf 6
WChess 1.06
Vajolet 2.03
ProDeo 1.0-1.6 (assuming no personality used)
ZuriChess Graubuenden
Alfil 8.11
Stash 21.0 (new discovery...nice style to play against)
CM9000 (King 3.23)
Lambchop
Gromit 2.2
Horizon 4.3
Wyldchess 1.5.1
Detrich Kappe's "Distilled" Leela Nets like Bad Gyal etc
Winter
Zarkov
Trace

Tons more. Let's see your opinions.

Could you list what makes an engine interesting? Like, likes to attack opponent's king than defends it own. Prefers mobile pieces in exchange for material, an engine that blunders like human giving away its queen or rook in a complicated position, etc. Perhaps there is rating range. Interesting engine in the range 1000 to 1200, and so on. With a given list hopefully programmers will make an attempt to create such interesting engine.

At certain level, it is fun to play an engine with limited depth. It may hold in middle as humans is not that accurate, but have issues when there is mate threat or in ending because it could not think deep enough.
[pgn]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.10.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ferdy"]
[Black "CDrill 1200"]
[Result "1-0"]
[TimeControl "360:300+5"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 e6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Qc2 O-O 6.Bg5 d5 7.e3 Bxc3+ 8.Qxc3 a5 9.Bd3 Nb4 10.Bb1 Nc6 11.O-O Bd7 12.Rd1 Kh8 13.a3 Ra6 14.Qc2 g6 15.Qc3 Rb6 16.Bc2 Kg8 17.b3 Kh8 18.Rab1 Qe7 19.c5 Ra6 20.b4 axb4 21.axb4 Rfa8 22.b5 Ra3 23.Rb3 Rxb3 24.Qxb3 Na5 25.Qc3 Bxb5 26.Ra1 b6 27.Ne5 Be8 28.h4 h5 29.f3 Ra7 30.cxb6 cxb6 31.Qb2 Rc7 32.Bd3 Nc4 33.Bxc4 dxc4 34.Qxb6 Nd5 35.Qb8 Rb7 36.Qa8 Nb6 37.Bxe7 Nxa8 38.Bf6+ Kh7 39.Rxa8 Rb1+ 40.Kh2 c3 41.Rxe8 Kh6 42.Rh8# 1-0
[/pgn]

[carldaman]

We need to define what "unlike SF" means. Is OpenTal like SF? You didn't mention it...

[BrendanJNorman]

This is a fresh thread for Thorsten's idea of making a list of all "interesting" engines.

For me, in no particular order, they are:

Teki 2
Thinker 5.1c Passive
Baron 1.8.1
Gandalf 6
WChess 1.06
Vajolet 2.03
ProDeo 1.0-1.6 (assuming no personality used)
ZuriChess Graubuenden
Alfil 8.11
Stash 21.0 (new discovery...nice style to play against)
CM9000 (King 3.23)
Lambchop
Gromit 2.2
Horizon 4.3
Wyldchess 1.5.1
Detrich Kappe's "Distilled" Leela Nets like Bad Gyal etc
Winter
Zarkov
Trace

Tons more. Let's see your opinions.

Most of those are either old, very old, or new engines that are still in development and have not reached the stage where the author starts to automatically tune the eval-function. Maybe I was right when I said that the hand-crafted evaluation function determines the engine's personality I hope that at some point, my engine will be in that list as well. (I actually intend to have a hand-crafted evaluation and a tuned one, at some point, for playing against people, or computers. IIRC, DanaSah does something similar.)

My personal picks would be Hiarcs (I only know the versions 10 and 12), and Fritz 10 and 11. (After 11, Fritz 12 and 13 got tuned to play more like Ryba, and suddenly Frans Morsch went on retirement, if I recall correctly.)

Well, for me an engine (outside of the Stockfish 12 and Leela world, which I use for analysis) needs to be weak enough to be a sparring partner that doesn't crush me like a bug.

I'm probably a little weaker than FM strength and very old engines tend to be more suitable, plus have handcrafted eval, so more "human-like" and with lower search depth (so they allow deep tactics) to boot.

I'm also a fan of the older Hiarcs and Fritz (Morsch versions)...a shame that they stopped development.

Wish I still had my Hiarcs 10 engine too...lost it!

[BrendanJNorman]

I would like to add Minic NNUE with the Nascent Nutrient net trained by the Minic author himself using the Minic engine search and eval, it plays a very aggressive style that is very different from Stockfish according to Sylwy.

Test conditions:
-TC=4'+2"
-Hash=256 MB
-GUI: Arena 3.5.1
-Book: Perfect_2010.abk for both engines
-default settings for both engines
-1 thread-CPU=Intel i5-7400-3GHz (Kaby Lake)
-OS: Windows 10 Home
-6-men Syzygy bases for both engines.

Texel 1.07 x64 has .......................3114 Elo points-CCRL Blitz
Minic 2.50 NNUE-Nascent Nutrient...around 3355 Elo points (3114+241)
Minic 2.50 NNUE-SV1520.............around 3458 (3451-Komodo 14 x64 +7)

Nascent Nutrient is about 100 Elo points below the best Segio Vieri nets.
A strong chess entity and an original play ! Congratulations !

Thanks a lot for testing.

Did you really see some "personalty" in this net ? Does it recall Minic playing style (if such thing exists ...) ? It is different from SV net playing style to your eyes ?

It is different from SV net playing style to your eyes ?

Yes, it's definitely something different ! Almost all my NNUE tests used various versions of SV net. In Igel and Minic the difference is obvious. A very aggressive Minic.
I understand the frustration of the masters of handcrafted evaluation. A lot of years. A lot of work. But the finality is chess and here the progress is great......and inevitable. Someday the end of the new NNUE age will come. That's life !

This is interesting. A fear I have is that in time all nets may more or less converge to the same with LR.
This doesn't seem to be the case yet, but Nascent Nutrient hasn't be RL yet.
I'm glad this one shows some aggressiveness.

I think as NNUE authors stop using Stockfish to train their nets and start using their own engines, we would begin to see more diversity in engine playing style.

Is there a link to download? You're making me curious!

[BrendanJNorman]

Ok, I would like to begin with 2 dos engines:

Philidor by David broughton.
It runs in dosbox.
https://www.schachcomputer.info/forum/s ... php?t=6209


This dos engine for 8086 CPU was developed 1983 in assembler.

David Broughton got the championship title for dedicated chess computers with his chess champion MK V by scisys.
I like the human playing style.



The next dos Program is Gandalf 2.1 by steen suurballe.
I think I first met steen at the championship in Munich.
And hold contact in the years later.

http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=68797

Gandalf 2.1 is said to have 1 ply plus extensions.

Hi Thorsten, these Dos oldies look great. Do you have a direct download link? I'd love to download, challenge and review them.

[BrendanJNorman]

OliThink is certainly the most Unlike-SF engine. There are many others, too.

Okay you made me curious...

And so did Dan.

Let's pause for a moment and consider Olithink.
It does not give a damn about King safety. You can pile wood around the king until the cows come home and he won't flinch.
Bishop pairs? Who cares?
All the eval terms we know and love are nothing.

And yet, it is about Glaurung strength. That is (quite frankly) absurd and flies in the face of chess knowledge painstakingly coded into most chess engines.

So I put 2 Olithink versions through a test and I also played a few blitz games myself.

Observations:

- Very unorthodox, but sound chess. Seems positional and materialistic, sort of like Karpov-style.

- Weak "king safety", but a great defender. Gives humans a feeling that we can get *close* to forcing checkmate, unlike "perfect" engines.

- Really likes to REDUCE opponent's mobility, just as much, if not more than to increase its own.

Examples:

First I'll share a blitz game I played as black vs Olithink (2479 CCRL version) which I could/should have won, but missed the critical moment.

I played in my usual dynamic style, as if I were playing a human, sacrificed an exchange in a rather thematic manner (color-complex domination, pawn and initiative in return, though still a bit speculative) and after a few attacking moves I was completely winning.

Then after I missed my moment, Oli defended like a champ (also very human like) and I had no chance.

Let's see...Don't forget, this was 3 2! lol

[pgn][Event "banksia game"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.10.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "OliThink 5.66"]
[Black "hm::Norman"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A53"]
[Annotator "Tactical Analysis 3.0 (5s)"]
[PlyCount "87"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 Nbd7 4. Nf3 e5 5. e3 g6 6. Bd2 Bg7 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O
{The position is equal.} b6 {0.52/22} (8... Re8 $11 {-0.04/23}) 9. dxe5 {
-0.23/21} (9. Qc2 $14 {0.52/22}) 9... Nxe5 {0.38/22} ({Black should play} 9...
dxe5 $11 {-0.23/21} 10. Qb1 Bb7) 10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. e4 Bb7 12. f3 Re8 {0.72/20}
(12... Nh5 $11 {0.09/22 remains equal.}) 13. Be3 {0.27/21} (13. Bg5 $16 {
0.72/20}) 13... Bf8 {0.78/20} (13... Nd7 $11 {0.27/21}) 14. Qa4 {0.11/23} (14.
Qc2 $16 {0.78/20}) 14... Qd7 {0.57/23} (14... c6 $11 {0.11/23}) 15. Qb3 c6 16.
Rfd1 Qc7 17. c5 b5 18. a4 a6 $1 19. Qa3 $36 {White has the initiative.} Rad8
20. b4 Nh5 21. Bd3 {0.34/18} (21. axb5 $6 axb5 22. g3 Rxd1+ 23. Bxd1 (23. Rxd1
Ng7 $11) 23... Ng7 $11) ({Better is} 21. Rxd8 $16 {1.13/22} Rxd8 22. axb5 axb5
23. Bf1) 21... Nf4 $14 22. Bc2 Rd4 {1.03/23} (22... Bc8 $11 {0.00/21}) 23. Bxd4
{0.50/24} (23. g3 $16 {1.03/23} Rxd1+ 24. Rxd1) 23... exd4 24. Na2 $1 Bg7 $2 {
1.74/22} (24... Re5 $11 {0.00/23 and Black has nothing to worry.}) 25. Rab1 $4
{-4.65/24 [#]} (25. Nc1 $18 {1.74/22 is the narrow road to win.}) 25... h5 $2 {
1.12/21} (25... Ne2+ $1 $19 {-4.65/24} 26. Kh1 Re5) 26. g3 $16 Ne6 {1.78/20} (
26... Ne2+ $16 {1.27/21} 27. Kg2 h4) 27. Nc1 $18 h4 28. Kg2 (28. gxh4 Qf4 $11)
28... Ng5 29. Ne2 ({Don't do} 29. gxh4 $6 Ne6 $16) 29... Bc8 {2.87/19} (29...
Qd7 {1.87/20 was necessary.}) 30. Nxd4 ({Less strong is} 30. gxh4 Nh3 $14)
30... Qd7 $2 {4.50/20 [#]} (30... Bh6 {2.69/19 was worth a try.} 31. Ne2 (31.
gxh4 Nh3 $18) 31... Be6) 31. Nf5 $1 Qe6 32. Rd6 {White is clearly winning.} Qc4
33. Bd3 h3+ 34. Kf2 Qc3 35. Rb3 Qe5 36. Nxg7 Qxg7 37. Qb2 Qh6 38. Ra3 Qh5 39.
Be2 Be6 40. Rxc6 Bc4 41. Bxc4 bxc4 42. Rxa6 Rd8 43. Rd6 Re8 44. Rd5 {Accuracy:
White = 62%, Black = 36%.} *[/pgn]

Key Positions:

Initial Exchange Sac

Is my move 22...Rd4 sound? Looks good to me!

[d]3rrbk1/1bq2p1p/p1p3p1/1pP1p3/PP2Pn2/Q1N1BP2/2B3PP/R2R2K1 b - - 0 22

The rook lift 24...Re5! is very strong, position is very dynamic, probably better for black.

[d]4rbk1/1bq2p1p/p1p3p1/1pP5/PP1pPn2/Q4P2/N1B3PP/R2R2K1 b - - 0 24

I missed a clear win (which I'd easily see if it weren't blitz) with 25...Ne2+ and 26...Qf4 (with the idea of 27...Be5) and tried instead to pry open the kingside with my h-pawn.

[d]4r1k1/1bq2pbp/p1p3p1/1pP5/PP1pPn2/Q4P2/N1B3PP/1R1R2K1 b - - 0 25

After missing these opportunities, I fumbled around a bit and Oli shut me down effectively.

Much like a strong human would, once the moment of danger has passed.

Example 2: This was a game played against a newer version of Olithink, by a super human-like engine I am secretly working on with Pawel (Rodent author), but the spotlight in this instance, is on the way Oli slips out of the noose and manages to get into a decent queen an rook endgame.

Fantastic defense, despite losing in the end.

[pgn][Event "Testing"]
[Site "China"]
[Date "2020.10.12"]
[Round "7.1"]
[White "Unreleased"]
[Black "OliThink 5.86"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C10"]
[PlyCount "123"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Nf3 Ngf6 6. Bd3 Nxe4 7. Bxe4 Nf6
8. Bg5 Bd6 9. O-O h6 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Re1 O-O 12. Qd2 Kg7 13. c4 f5 14. Bd3
Bd7 15. c5 Be7 16. d5 exd5 17. Rad1 Bf6 18. Qf4 c6 19. h4 Qb8 20. Ne5 Bxe5 21.
Rxe5 Re8 22. Rde1 Rxe5 23. Rxe5 b6 24. Bxf5 Bxf5 25. Qxf5 bxc5 26. Re3 Qf8 27.
Qe5+ Kh7 28. h5 Rc8 29. a3 c4 30. Qf5+ Kh8 31. Rg3 Re8 32. Qf6+ Kh7 33. a4 Re6
34. Qf5+ Kh8 35. Qf4 Qe7 36. Qb8+ Qe8 37. Qxa7 Re1+ 38. Kh2 Re5 39. Re3 Rxh5+
40. Kg1 Qg8 41. a5 Qg4 42. Qe7 Rg5 43. g3 Kg7 44. Re5 Rxe5 45. Qxe5+ Kg6 46.
Kg2 Qc8 47. Qd6+ f6 48. g4 Qxg4+ 49. Qg3 Qxg3+ 50. fxg3 d4 51. Kf2 c3 52. bxc3
dxc3 53. Ke3 Kf5 54. a6 c2 55. Kd2 Kg4 56. a7 Kxg3 57. a8=Q f5 58. Qxc6 h5 59.
Ke3 f4+ 60. Ke4 f3 61. Qc7+ Kg2 62. Qxc2+ 1-0[/pgn]

This game is self-explanatory, but there was a funny trap our "mystery engine" set, which poor Oli fell right into.

Playing 48.g4!? here looks ridiculous, but of course, with the outside passed pawn on the a-file we can afford to set such traps.

Since 48...Qxg4+ is losing, I guess white's move is also objectively decent as well.

[d]2q5/8/2pQ1pkp/P2p4/2p5/6P1/1P3PK1/8 w - - 0 48

Conclusion:

Olithink is a great engine and definitely being added to my preferred sparring partners.

Weak king safety combined with solid positional play and excellent defense (and falling into traps occasionally!) makes it the perfect human-like sparring partner.

(Is this enough detail, Thorsten? )

[BrendanJNorman]

"Interesting" generally means 'not very good'. Sorry.

No need to be sorry, you misunderstood our intentions.

Firstly, 'not very good' is a subjective descriptor.

Perhaps, you mean ' not very strong' which would be true in a lot of cases in the context you stated.

But for us, good means something totally different.

We are the type of computer chess fan who actually looks at the games...

We actually play against the engines.

We care nothing for analyzing stats, code similarities, and excel spreadsheets full of results and "Elo gain".

We care nothing for playing thousands of "micro-bullet" games in the console.

In short, we are chess nerds, not computer nerds.

Anyway, thanks for your negative input, much appreciated.

[BrendanJNorman]

Could you list what makes an engine interesting? Like, likes to attack opponent's king than defends it own. Prefers mobile pieces in exchange for material, an engine that blunders like human giving away its queen or rook in a complicated position, etc. Perhaps there is rating range. Interesting engine in the range 1000 to 1200, and so on. With a given list hopefully programmers will make an attempt to create such interesting engine.

We need to define what "unlike SF" means. Is OpenTal like SF? You didn't mention it...

Hi Carl and Ferdy,

For me, the ideal "sparring partner" is low depth (maybe around 8 ply or so, like strong humans) but has enough knowledge to make it judge postions in a human-like way.

Human-like means:

- Underestimating king safety issues (see: Olithink), so that you actually have chances to attack like a human.

- Having exaggurated postional preferences (rather than balanced, like an engine). This could mean being obsessed with pawn structure, outposts, better minor pieces...i.e strong bishop vs knight, and control of the center (for a positional opponent...I know tons of humans who play like this and miss tactics often due to myopia haha!) or being obsessed with creating a naked enemy king (so will sac like a madman to make it happen), or anything in between.

- Having a narrow opening book which resembles a human's (so for example, ONE suitable response to 1.d4 and 1.e4, ONE main repertoire as white, etc - easy to do with polyglot books).

- Variety. Not sure how to explain what I mean here, but Thinker used to have a feature where it would occasionally choose the second or third best move in PV, as long as it is within a certain centipawn range. This results is minor mistakes/innacuracies and more human-like/less "perfect" play. I believe Pawel did similar in Rodent with his "Evalblur" option. This kind of simulates the human analytical process where you're considering 2-3 seemingly equal options, you get low on time and think "screw it, I'll play x!".

- Contempt or Negative comtempt if you want to train how to keep it complicated agaist those annoying guys who try to play for a draw.

And so on. I basically think about my own tournament games, and think "how could we simulate this experience/feeling in computer play?"

Really, want to study programming, but finishing Mandarin first!

P.S. Carl, I didn't mention OpenTal because it would be like bragging, since I (and Pawel) gave birth to it.