Rebel 16.2: Impressive!

[mclane]

At least they do something productive, while other people …

The gap between Stockfish and rebel is not big anymore. And that is because ed did a good job tuning it.

[Rebel]

I have nothing against this engine. I wouldn't have even read the topic if the word impressive hadn't been mentioned. So I was curious and installed the engine. But I couldn't find anything that I would call impressive. I already know Rebel from the MS DOS times, I also know MChess and Chess Genius. I also remember old forum posts on the German platform Gambit Soft, where "Mclane" played with CSTal vs. Junior forum games.

It was a good time, but it's history. These programs are history, and by being revisited over and over again (countless new Rebel variations) will not serve the advancement of computer chess. I have the feeling that the old programmers only do it because they are either bored with life or they need attention.

When people suddenly start to post personal remarks in an ongoing discussion to strengthen their points on a non personal issue (chess in this case) is not only very convincing, but a sign of resignation also. From grandfather to grandfather , it is said the elder have wisdom, I invite you to show it and refrain from making false personal remarks.

[chrisw]

Well.. assuming there a still a few other old school lurkers about, I say 'go for it, Ed and Chris' and 'bravo'.

Feels like you are injecting some fun back into computer chess.

All the best,

Tom (never met you Ed, but your engine smashed mine in London in 2000. And Chris, we met once, I think in 1997, Paris when CSTal was causing commotion - in a good way!)

Yes, Paris 1997

[Eduard]

I have nothing against this engine. I wouldn't have even read the topic if the word impressive hadn't been mentioned. So I was curious and installed the engine. But I couldn't find anything that I would call impressive. I already know Rebel from the MS DOS times, I also know MChess and Chess Genius. I also remember old forum posts on the German platform Gambit Soft, where "Mclane" played with CSTal vs. Junior forum games.

It was a good time, but it's history. These programs are history, and by being revisited over and over again (countless new Rebel variations) will not serve the advancement of computer chess. I have the feeling that the old programmers only do it because they are either bored with life or they need attention.

When people suddenly start to post personal remarks in an ongoing discussion to strengthen their points on a non personal issue (chess in this case) is not only very convincing, but a sign of resignation also. From grandfather to grandfather , it is said the elder have wisdom, I invite you to show it and refrain from making false personal remarks.

It all started with a short sentence (to which I stand) after looking at the engine. Then I was asked to get out of here. I can't do anything, I stand by the sentences I wrote and if I hadn't written them, I would feel this way about them. At least now you know what I'm thinking. I will stay away from Rebel threads in the future.

[BrendanJNorman]

I have nothing against this engine. I wouldn't have even read the topic if the word impressive hadn't been mentioned. So I was curious and installed the engine. But I couldn't find anything that I would call impressive. I already know Rebel from the MS DOS times, I also know MChess and Chess Genius. I also remember old forum posts on the German platform Gambit Soft, where "Mclane" played with CSTal vs. Junior forum games.

It was a good time, but it's history. These programs are history, and by being revisited over and over again (countless new Rebel variations) will not serve the advancement of computer chess. I have the feeling that the old programmers only do it because they are either bored with life or they need attention.

When people suddenly start to post personal remarks in an ongoing discussion to strengthen their points on a non personal issue (chess in this case) is not only very convincing, but a sign of resignation also. From grandfather to grandfather , it is said the elder have wisdom, I invite you to show it and refrain from making false personal remarks.

It all started with a short sentence (to which I stand) after looking at the engine. Then I was asked to get out of here. I can't do anything, I stand by the sentences I wrote and if I hadn't written them, I would feel this way about them. At least now you know what I'm thinking. I will stay away from Rebel threads in the future.

Let's make it simple:

If the "old men" are still persisting because they seek attention or are bored with life, then what does this say about you yourself?

If you really created these hacked Stockfish clones for yourself, then (by your logic) you wouldn't release them to others, right?

Are you bored with life? Need attention?

Stand by your strong opinions?

Regardless, at least Ed and Chris are making something brand new (and great imo) and not merely tinkering with Stockfish code.

Your statements seem to smell a bit of hypocrisy to me.

Is it so hard to give respect where respect is due?!?!

Or are you glad to *only* use Stockfish for the rest of your life, since it's the "strongest"?

[Eduard]

I don't have to pass on any engines.

It actually started with the fact that I wanted to build my own engine for InfinityChess, which only I have. I assumed that there would be more engine prize tournaments and that the freestyle league would also start at some point. Unfortunately, it no longer looks like something is coming here. I think that's why I'll soon stop dealing with engines so intensively. Without the missing tournaments, it doesn't make any sense to me anymore. Well, if people come to my homepage for engines, then of course I hope that they will also be interested in my openings books.

[mclane]

Maybe it is a good idea to do some more games on longer time control.
40/5' or 40/10'.

[Rebel]

I have nothing against this engine. I wouldn't have even read the topic if the word impressive hadn't been mentioned. So I was curious and installed the engine. But I couldn't find anything that I would call impressive. I already know Rebel from the MS DOS times, I also know MChess and Chess Genius. I also remember old forum posts on the German platform Gambit Soft, where "Mclane" played with CSTal vs. Junior forum games.

It was a good time, but it's history. These programs are history, and by being revisited over and over again (countless new Rebel variations) will not serve the advancement of computer chess. I have the feeling that the old programmers only do it because they are either bored with life or they need attention.

When people suddenly start to post personal remarks in an ongoing discussion to strengthen their points on a non personal issue (chess in this case) is not only very convincing, but a sign of resignation also. From grandfather to grandfather , it is said the elder have wisdom, I invite you to show it and refrain from making false personal remarks.

It all started with a short sentence (to which I stand) after looking at the engine. Then I was asked to get out of here. I can't do anything, I stand by the sentences I wrote and if I hadn't written them, I would feel this way about them. At least now you know what I'm thinking. I will stay away from Rebel threads in the future.

Great, I love Hollywood endings namesake Eduard.

[Eduard]

Good. I have one more question. I understand that there are engines where no source code is published, also for commercial reasons.

However, Rebel 16 is currently non-commercial.

Why don't you release source code? Maybe codes are included that could serve as ideas for the younger generation. What would be wrong with that?

[Ajedrecista]

Hello Chris:

Here an example of an attack being generated out of nowhere (well, actually the inferior black side of an UHO opening). The opponent didn't seem to play any "blunders", haha! TC=20+0.02, move times are about 0.5 seconds, long enough.

9 ... Rb8, then b5, just ridiculous, but it preempted any white attack and left black with a perfect launch pad after 19. O-O, all pieces perfectly poised on the back rank ....
I am quite impressed.

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2023.02.24"]
[Round "102"]
[White "Seer-2.6"]
[Black "Chess-System-Tal-1.59"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C48"]
[Opening "Four knights"]
[Variation "Spanish Variation"]
[TimeControl "20+0.05"]
[PlyCount "60"]
[GameDuration "00:00:23"]
[GameEndTime "2023-02-24T11:09:48.684 W. Europe Standard Time"]
[GameStartTime "2023-02-24T11:09:24.908 W. Europe Standard Time"]

1. e4 { book } 1... e5 { book } 2. Nf3 { book } 2... Nc6 { book } 3. Nc3 {
book } 3... Nf6 { book } 4. Bb5 { book } 4... Bd6 { book } 5. d3 { book }
5... O-O { book } 6. a3 { book } 6... Re8 { book } 7. h3 { book } 7... Bf8
{ book } 8. Bc4 { book } 8... h6 { book } 9. Be3 { +1.09/16 0.86s } 9...
Rb8 { -1.79/16 1.1s } 10. g4 { +1.54/17 0.86s } 10... b5 { -1.98/16 0.70s }
11. Bxb5 { +1.69/17 0.52s } 11... Nd4 { -1.97/17 0.61s } 12. Nxd4 {
+1.68/16 0.42s } 12... exd4 { -2.08/18 1.1s } 13. Bxd4 { +1.41/17 0.67s }
13... c6 { -1.81/17 0.67s } 14. Ba4 { +1.42/17 0.57s } 14... Rxb2 {
-1.92/17 0.61s } 15. Ne2 { +1.68/17 0.75s } 15... Rb6 { -1.48/14 0.59s }
16. Bxb6 { +1.74/17 1.0s } 16... axb6 { -1.42/16 0.40s } 17. c4 { +1.50/17
1.6s } 17... b5 { -0.54/16 0.76s } 18. cxb5 { +2.05/16 0.51s } 18... d5 {
-0.48/15 0.48s } 19. O-O { +2.14/16 0.33s } 19... Bxg4 { -0.24/14 0.54s }
20. hxg4 { +2.44/17 0.49s } 20... Nxg4 { +2.12/14 0.39s } 21. Ng3 {
+2.67/18 0.41s } 21... Qh4 { +2.40/15 0.50s } 22. Kg2 { +2.78/17 0.33s }
22... Qh2+ { +2.40/14 0.41s } 23. Kf3 { +2.86/17 0.39s } 23... Bd6 {
+2.05/15 0.33s } 24. Kxg4 { 0.00/16 0.43s } 24... Qg2 { +17.37/14 0.30s }
25. Kh4 { 0.00/17 1.2s } 25... Re5 { +M11/29 0.40s } 26. Rh1 { -46.43/26
0.55s } 26... Be7+ { +M9/39 0.27s } 27. Kg4 { -46.44/30 0.28s } 27... Rg5+
{ +M7/52 0.26s } 28. Kh4 { -46.44/31 0.23s } 28... Rxg3+ { +M5/82 0.17s }
29. Kh5 { -46.45/33 0.25s } 29... Rg5+ { +M3/116 0.027s } 30. Kh4 {
-46.45/33 0.26s } 30... Re5# { +M1/116 0.020s, Black mates } 0-1

[/pgn]

I also find the game very interesting and impressive: while it is true that white did not always played the best moves (and sometimes played really bad moves), it is astonishing that the position is even at move 20 with black being a rook down! The lack of white king safety is enough to compensate a full rook. Other moves are curious or counter intuitive to me:

9.- ..., b5 → gifting a pawn (maybe later recovered by 14.- ..., Rxb2). Easy for SF, but anyway, watch out.
11.- ..., Nd4 → gifting other pawn after the exchanges (counterplay on the b-file?). Easy for SF again.
15.- ..., Rb6 → giving the exchange. Why? There were similar moves in eval without sac more material, but 'I play it because I can'. Easy for SF again.
17.- ..., b5 → other 'free' pawn! Just deviating white control over d5 square after 17.- c4?! Easy for SF again.
19.- ..., Bxg4 → Going for the full rook down in an even position (though very risky for white) with the white king being very exposed. Easy for SF again.

After 22.- Kg2? (the only move was 22.- f3), black was better and 24.- Kxg4? was the last mistake, with a checkmate short after.

I guess that chess can be very special sometimes, with this kind of positions that easily fool (almost) everybody.

------------

[...]

It seems nothing has changed much from earlier days. Chess engines still count material. They don’t understand that chess is NOT about having the most material but MATING the opponent king.

Well, having more material than the opponent is usually a good strategy to win the game. It does not work always, of course, but most of the time.

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.