New engine releases & news 2021

[Brunetti]

Blank 1.2.0 released.

https://github.com/RyanLauQF/BLANK-Chess

Nice increase on 1+1 rating:

Code: Select all

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engines in Blank 1.2.0 64-bit family
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rank  Elo   ±  Engine                                      Score Games  Wins Draws  Loss  Oppo time stal ille
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   1. 1718  32 Blank 1.2.0 64-bit                            43%   394   124    87   183   -60   0%   2%   0%
   2. 1573  21 Blank 1.1.0 64-bit                            45%   907   334   142   431   -45   0%   3%   0%
   3. 1572  21 Blank 1.0 64-bit                              45%   894   321   155   418   -46   0%   4%   0%
   4. 1549  22 Blank 1.0.1 64-bit                            44%   889   318   148   423   -48   0%   3%   0%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex

[mvanthoor]

In case anyone notices: There was a release of Rustic Alpha 3.0.1 today.

https://github.com/mvanthoor/rustic/releases

It fixes a bug (typo) in the "extra" module which caused the engine to not compile if you included this module. I have reactivated the "extra" module in my code completion, because the tuner will be in there. That caused the code completion to indicate this error.

Nothing has changed in the main part of the engine. This release does not have to be tested.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi there,

Bagatur 2.2f is available.
https://github.com/bagaturchess/Bagatur/

Best
Frank

[tmokonen]

Hi there,

Bagatur 2.2f is available.
https://github.com/bagaturchess/Bagatur/

Best
Frank

And now Bagatur 2.2g has already been released, which is a bugfix of 2.2f. It's the same link as before.

[Guenther]

Soon to come:
Inanis (successor of Cosette)
https://github.com/Tearth/Inanis

[jmcd]

https://github.com/jonathanmcdermid/Hop ... ngine-v1.8

Hopper 1.8 released

[algerbrex]

https://github.com/jonathanmcdermid/Hop ... ngine-v1.8

Hopper 1.8 released

I see you've been doing a lot of hard work and testing on Hopper. Props to you! I can't wait to see it climb the CCRL rating list like I see many new engines doing.

[jmcd]

I see you've been doing a lot of hard work and testing on Hopper. Props to you! I can't wait to see it climb the CCRL rating list like I see many new engines doing.

Thanks! I've been binging it for the past couple months. I'm excited to see how much its improved on the next CCRL iteration.

[algerbrex]

I see you've been doing a lot of hard work and testing on Hopper. Props to you! I can't wait to see it climb the CCRL rating list like I see many new engines doing.

Thanks! I've been binging it for the past couple months. I'm excited to see how much its improved on the next CCRL iteration.

Of course! Seeing it climb in the CCRL is always fun.

Here was an interesting game I just played between Hopper 1.8 and Blunder 7.1.0 (tc=40/5 min):

[pgn]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2021.11.07"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Blunder 7.1.0"]
[Black "Hopper 1.8"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C55"]
[GameDuration "00:16:26"]
[GameEndTime "2021-11-07T22:55:22.213 CST"]
[GameStartTime "2021-11-07T22:38:55.557 CST"]
[Opening "Two knights defense (Modern Bishop's Opening)"]
[PlyCount "127"]
[TimeControl "40/300"]

1. e4 {+0.13/14 7.5s} e5 {-0.18/13 5.2s} 2. Nf3 {+0.14/14 7.5s}
Nc6 {-0.21/12 2.2s} 3. Bc4 {+0.16/13 7.5s} Nf6 {-0.08/13 2.5s}
4. d3 {+0.16/14 7.5s} Bd6 {+0.03/13 5.3s} 5. O-O {+0.42/14 7.5s}
Na5 {-0.12/14 8.8s} 6. Bb3 {+0.51/14 7.5s} Nxb3 {-0.05/13 3.7s}
7. axb3 {+0.58/15 7.5s} c5 {-0.24/14 9.7s} 8. Nc3 {+0.72/14 7.5s}
O-O {-0.02/13 2.1s} 9. Bg5 {+0.86/14 7.5s} h6 {-0.04/15 2.1s}
10. Bxf6 {+0.79/15 7.5s} Qxf6 {+0.01/16 2.6s} 11. Re1 {+0.64/14 7.5s}
b6 {+0.03/16 4.1s} 12. Nd5 {+0.72/15 7.5s} Qd8 {+0.09/15 4.1s}
13. Nd2 {+0.72/13 7.5s} b5 {+0.02/13 3.6s} 14. c4 {+0.84/13 7.5s}
b4 {+0.09/14 2.5s} 15. Nf1 {+0.63/13 7.5s} Bb7 {-0.11/13 4.0s}
16. Nfe3 {+0.73/14 7.5s} g6 {-0.23/13 4.4s} 17. Qg4 {+0.66/14 7.5s}
h5 {-0.11/15 8.4s} 18. Qf3 {+0.61/15 7.5s} Kg7 {-0.12/15 3.4s}
19. Qg3 {+0.53/14 7.5s} Kh7 {-0.14/14 3.8s} 20. h3 {+0.53/14 7.5s}
a5 {-0.10/14 3.5s} 21. Qf3 {+0.49/13 7.5s} Kg7 {-0.02/13 2.9s}
22. Qe2 {+0.39/14 7.5s} Bc6 {0.00/17 3.1s} 23. Qc2 {+0.23/13 7.5s}
Kg8 {0.00/15 2.9s} 24. Qd1 {+0.39/13 7.5s} h4 {0.00/17 5.6s}
25. Qg4 {+0.58/15 7.5s} Kh7 {0.00/18 3.5s} 26. Kh2 {+0.43/14 7.5s}
Re8 {0.00/17 14s} 27. Rf1 {+0.50/14 7.5s} Kh8 {0.00/14 3.4s}
28. g3 {+0.80/14 7.5s} Be7 {+0.19/12 4.6s} 29. Nxe7 {+0.87/15 7.5s}
hxg3+ {+0.17/15 3.9s} 30. fxg3 {+2.36/15 7.5s} Qxe7 {-0.08/14 3.9s}
31. Nf5 {+2.69/15 7.5s} Qf6 {-3.89/22 135s} 32. Nh6 {+3.13/15 7.5s}
Qg7 {-2.25/13 1.1s} 33. Nxf7+ {+4.25/16 7.5s} Kg8 {-2.37/14 1.2s}
34. Qg5 {+4.15/17 7.5s} Rf8 {-4.15/18 12s} 35. Rf6 {+4.12/17 7.5s}
Kh7 {-4.40/17 4.8s} 36. Raf1 {+4.20/16 7.5s} Rae8 {-5.35/14 4.4s}
37. Qh4+ {+9.12/18 7.5s} Kg8 {-6.32/19 3.6s} 38. Nh6+ {+9.24/18 7.5s}
Kh8 {-6.34/18 1.9s} 39. Rf7 {+9.43/18 7.5s} Rxf7 {-6.59/17 1.3s}
40. Nxf7+ {+9.43/16 7.0s} Kg8 41. Nh6+ {+9.96/17 7.5s} Kh8 {-6.66/17 2.1s}
42. Nf5+ {+9.96/16 7.5s} Qh7 {-11.10/26 46s} 43. Qf6+ {+10.63/21 7.5s}
Kg8 {-10.61/20 2.0s} 44. Nh6+ {+10.63/20 7.5s} Qxh6 45. Qf7+ {+10.63/20 7.5s}
Kh8 46. Qxe8+ {+10.63/20 7.5s} Kh7 {-12.95/24 22s} 47. Rf7+ {+11.31/22 7.5s} Qg7
48. Rxg7+ {+11.46/22 7.5s} Kxg7 {-12.05/15 2.2s} 49. Qxe5+ {+11.46/21 7.5s}
Kf7 {-13.65/18 20s} 50. Qxc5 {+11.74/21 7.5s} a4 {-13.79/17 10s}
51. bxa4 {+11.71/20 7.5s} Bxa4 {-13.85/14 2.6s} 52. Qxb4 {+11.76/19 7.5s}
Bc6 {-15.58/17 14s} 53. h4 {+12.04/18 7.5s} Ke6 {-13.41/12 1.9s}
54. Qb8 {+12.42/17 7.5s} Ba4 {-15.86/18 22s} 55. b3 {+14.62/18 7.5s}
Bc6 {-15.75/14 1.9s} 56. d4 {+14.73/18 7.5s} d6 {-20.78/19 33s}
57. d5+ {+23.40/17 7.5s} Kd7 {-26.19/22 27s} 58. Qa7+ {+23.08/14 7.5s}
Bb7 {-249.84/18 0.67s} 59. Qxb7+ {+M11/14 7.5s} Ke8 {-249.84/1 0.039s}
60. e5 {+M9/14 7.5s} dxe5 {-249.84/1 0.037s} 61. d6 {+M7/14 7.5s}
Kf8 {-249.84/1 0.030s} 62. Qe7+ {+M5/14 7.5s} Kg8 63. d7 {+M3/14 7.5s}
e4 {-249.98/3 0.029s} 64. d8=R# {+M1/13 7.5s, White mates} 1-0
[/pgn]

It appears that hxg3+ was the move that really allowed Blunder to infiltrate the position.

[Guenther]

I see you've been doing a lot of hard work and testing on Hopper. Props to you! I can't wait to see it climb the CCRL rating list like I see many new engines doing.

Thanks! I've been binging it for the past couple months. I'm excited to see how much its improved on the next CCRL iteration.

Of course! Seeing it climb in the CCRL is always fun.

Here was an interesting game I just played between Hopper 1.8 and Blunder 7.1.0 (tc=40/5 min):

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2021.11.07"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Blunder 7.1.0"]
[Black "Hopper 1.8"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C55"]
[GameDuration "00:16:26"]
[GameEndTime "2021-11-07T22:55:22.213 CST"]
[GameStartTime "2021-11-07T22:38:55.557 CST"]
[Opening "Two knights defense (Modern Bishop's Opening)"]
[PlyCount "127"]
[TimeControl "40/300"]

1. e4 {+0.13/14 7.5s} e5 {-0.18/13 5.2s} 2. Nf3 {+0.14/14 7.5s}
Nc6 {-0.21/12 2.2s} 3. Bc4 {+0.16/13 7.5s} Nf6 {-0.08/13 2.5s}
4. d3 {+0.16/14 7.5s} Bd6 {+0.03/13 5.3s} 5. O-O {+0.42/14 7.5s}
Na5 {-0.12/14 8.8s} 6. Bb3 {+0.51/14 7.5s} Nxb3 {-0.05/13 3.7s}
7. axb3 {+0.58/15 7.5s} c5 {-0.24/14 9.7s} 8. Nc3 {+0.72/14 7.5s}
O-O {-0.02/13 2.1s} 9. Bg5 {+0.86/14 7.5s} h6 {-0.04/15 2.1s}
10. Bxf6 {+0.79/15 7.5s} Qxf6 {+0.01/16 2.6s} 11. Re1 {+0.64/14 7.5s}
b6 {+0.03/16 4.1s} 12. Nd5 {+0.72/15 7.5s} Qd8 {+0.09/15 4.1s}
13. Nd2 {+0.72/13 7.5s} b5 {+0.02/13 3.6s} 14. c4 {+0.84/13 7.5s}
b4 {+0.09/14 2.5s} 15. Nf1 {+0.63/13 7.5s} Bb7 {-0.11/13 4.0s}
16. Nfe3 {+0.73/14 7.5s} g6 {-0.23/13 4.4s} 17. Qg4 {+0.66/14 7.5s}
h5 {-0.11/15 8.4s} 18. Qf3 {+0.61/15 7.5s} Kg7 {-0.12/15 3.4s}
19. Qg3 {+0.53/14 7.5s} Kh7 {-0.14/14 3.8s} 20. h3 {+0.53/14 7.5s}
a5 {-0.10/14 3.5s} 21. Qf3 {+0.49/13 7.5s} Kg7 {-0.02/13 2.9s}
22. Qe2 {+0.39/14 7.5s} Bc6 {0.00/17 3.1s} 23. Qc2 {+0.23/13 7.5s}
Kg8 {0.00/15 2.9s} 24. Qd1 {+0.39/13 7.5s} h4 {0.00/17 5.6s}
25. Qg4 {+0.58/15 7.5s} Kh7 {0.00/18 3.5s} 26. Kh2 {+0.43/14 7.5s}
Re8 {0.00/17 14s} 27. Rf1 {+0.50/14 7.5s} Kh8 {0.00/14 3.4s}
28. g3 {+0.80/14 7.5s} Be7 {+0.19/12 4.6s} 29. Nxe7 {+0.87/15 7.5s}
hxg3+ {+0.17/15 3.9s} 30. fxg3 {+2.36/15 7.5s} Qxe7 {-0.08/14 3.9s}
31. Nf5 {+2.69/15 7.5s} Qf6 {-3.89/22 135s} 32. Nh6 {+3.13/15 7.5s}
Qg7 {-2.25/13 1.1s} 33. Nxf7+ {+4.25/16 7.5s} Kg8 {-2.37/14 1.2s}
34. Qg5 {+4.15/17 7.5s} Rf8 {-4.15/18 12s} 35. Rf6 {+4.12/17 7.5s}
Kh7 {-4.40/17 4.8s} 36. Raf1 {+4.20/16 7.5s} Rae8 {-5.35/14 4.4s}
37. Qh4+ {+9.12/18 7.5s} Kg8 {-6.32/19 3.6s} 38. Nh6+ {+9.24/18 7.5s}
Kh8 {-6.34/18 1.9s} 39. Rf7 {+9.43/18 7.5s} Rxf7 {-6.59/17 1.3s}
40. Nxf7+ {+9.43/16 7.0s} Kg8 41. Nh6+ {+9.96/17 7.5s}...


It appears that hxg3+ was the move that really allowed Blunder to infiltrate the position.

I can see from that game alone that Hopper has a time management problem (at least in mps tcs)!
Of course I could calculate it exactly with my import macro, but that it can still use
135s in move 31 for trying to solve the fail low after Nf5 is already proof enough
for an mps game (40/300)!

(Blunders time management OTH is practically linear here, which could be optimized too.)

I guess it is not tested usually with mps time controls?

BTW for the next year I will split up the engine releases thread explicitely
in two threads, one should be only for the announcement of them
and the other one for discussions/bug reports about those.
Of course every one is still free for creating new threads about
each and every program alone, especially the authors themselves.
May be I will also shorten the time span in half years?!

Keep in mind that this thread was started to collect all that information
for future researchers. It will make their work much easier.

Guenther