Why hasn't Naum 4 received recognician?

[bigo]

After reviews lots of games of Naum 4 this engine seems to play incredibly strong chess. I like it's style better then rybka, Naum is head and shoulders above programs like fritz and Hiarcs, it is not too far from rybka, in fact i think if rybka hadn't been around everyone would probally praise Naum as they do rybka. I have a strong suspicion the next Naum will be a surprise to everyone. The programmer is certainly very talented and competitive with Rybka.

[Graham Banks]

A very good question indeed.
I also like Naum 4's style of play.

[Sylwy]

After reviews lots of games of Naum 4 this engine seems to play incredibly strong chess. I like it's style better then rybka, Naum is head and shoulders above programs like fritz and Hiarcs, it is not too far from rybka, in fact i think if rybka hadn't been around everyone would probally praise Naum as they do rybka. I have a strong suspicion the next Naum will be a surprise to everyone. The programmer is certainly very talented and competitive with Rybka.

Hi !

Yes -a good question !
But............Naum comes from a Serbian immigrated in Canada , therefore - after the "western" ideas - a modest man from a poor country , not from a traditional power point of computer chess.If this engine was the creation of Robert Hyatt,Mark Uniake or Uri Blass.... we listen to a lot of praises & comments.
Also Rybka isn't a great love for "westmen".The ostentation to consider Vasik a cow-boy is endemic.Because is a clear no. 1 , not because is a great love on western forums.
Globalization, globalization.........but the genius must arrive from a single point of this planet.
Clear ?

Regards,
Silvian

[CThinker]

After reviews lots of games of Naum 4 this engine seems to play incredibly strong chess. I like it's style better then rybka, Naum is head and shoulders above programs like fritz and Hiarcs, it is not too far from rybka, in fact i think if rybka hadn't been around everyone would probally praise Naum as they do rybka. I have a strong suspicion the next Naum will be a surprise to everyone. The programmer is certainly very talented and competitive with Rybka.

I'm guessing, its because it is not sold by Chessbase.

All the tests show that, with the exception of Rybka, Naum is way better than all the other commercial engines out there (especially the ones from Chessbase). It makes one wonder what the 'value' is of those others. And yes, Naum does not play that 'bland' style that we all hate.

[ArmyBridge]

In my opinion naum 4 tries to imitate the Rybka style, Naumilov even confessed once it, he tried to copy the Rybka 2.3.2a evaluation so I prefer a more original style it doesnt matter for me that a engine can beat Rybka, I like to see play engines like Thinker, Bright 0.4!!! Deep Sjeng etc. Yes Naum is stronger but is like see play a little Rybka
Regards

[Graham Banks]

In my opinion naum 4 tries to imitate the Rybka style, Naumilov even confessed once it, he tried to copy the Rybka 2.3.2a evaluation so I prefer a more original style it doesnt matter for me that a engine can beat Rybka, I like to see play engines like Thinker, Bright 0.4!!! Deep Sjeng etc. Yes Naum is stronger but is like see play a little Rybka
Regards

In my opinion, Naum 4's style of play is quite different to that of Rybka's.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

In my opinion naum 4 tries to imitate the Rybka style, Naumilov even confessed once it, he tried to copy the Rybka 2.3.2a evaluation so I prefer a more original style it doesnt matter for me that a engine can beat Rybka, I like to see play engines like Thinker, Bright 0.4!!! Deep Sjeng etc. Yes Naum is stronger but is like see play a little Rybka
Regards

In my opinion, Naum 4's style of play is quite different to that of Rybka's.

Agreed Mr.Banks
Dr.D

[Mike S.]

I think Naum needs more advertising, and have a more professional website (compare shredderchess.com). Also, Naum is missing from the WCCC.

[Dann Corbit]

After reviews lots of games of Naum 4 this engine seems to play incredibly strong chess. I like it's style better then rybka, Naum is head and shoulders above programs like fritz and Hiarcs, it is not too far from rybka, in fact i think if rybka hadn't been around everyone would probally praise Naum as they do rybka. I have a strong suspicion the next Naum will be a surprise to everyone. The programmer is certainly very talented and competitive with Rybka.

Time for the Rodney Dangerfield "I don't get no respect" list.

Code: Select all

Rank Name Rating Score Average Opponent Draws Games LOS ELO + -
1 Rybka 3 64-bit 4CPU 3231 +18 -18 77.5% -194.6 35.7% 1231
2 Naum 4 64-bit 4CPU 3156 +21 -20 64.2% -94.0 42.9% 767
Clearly underappreciated.  The only program within 100 Elo of Rybka.
3 Deep Fritz 11 4CPU 3096 +29 -29 54.2% -27.6 55.2% 335
Did anyone notice that Fritz is a world-beater again?  When is the last time you heard someone going on about the excellence of Fritz.  And yet here it is.
4 Zappa Mexico II 64-bit 4CPU 3069 +15 -15 58.1% -51.1 46.7% 1447
Tragic that Anthony got sick and tired of it.
5 Thinker 5.4C Inert 64-bit 4CPU 3041 +23 -23 52.9% -18.0 37.7% 613
This one is the most amazing of all.  Considering the size of Thinker, its strength is just plain ridiculous.
6 Deep Sjeng WC2008 64-bit 4CPU 3030 +20 -20 48.9% +7.1 39.5% 801
Stronger than Shredder.  SHREDDER for crying out loud.  A few years ago everyone thought that Shredder was simply unassailable and would sit on top of the pedestal forever.
7 Deep Shredder 11 64-bit 4CPU 3019 +13 -13 50.7% -5.8 43.4% 2024
I guess Shredder's excellence is old news.
8 Hiarcs 12 4CPU 3005 +15 -15 50.4% -0.4 44.5% 1349
Hiarcs has made recent, rapid progress.
9 Toga II 1.4.1SE 4CPU 3004 +16 -16 48.8% +11.0 41.1% 1322
10 Glaurung 2.2 64-bit 4CPU 2998 +21 -21 46.2% +25.8 40.5% 758
Two free engines that are stronger than 2/3 of the commercial programs.
11 Bright 0.4a 4CPU 2995 +18 -18 47.5% +16.9 40.9% 956
For a relatively new engine, this one is kicking butt.
12 Loop M1-T 64-bit 4CPU 2956 +13 -13 44.8% +33.2 46.1% 1936
13 Deep Junior 10 4CPU 2912 +14 -14 43.5% +46.1 35.3% 1828
14 Onno 0.12.0 64-bit 2890 +28 -28 44.8% +37.8 43.0% 391
15 Crafty 23.0 64-bit 4CPU 2852 +26 -26 41.8% +56.0 33.9% 499
Has anyone noticed lately that Crafty is skyrocketing in strength?  Dr. Hyatt's excellent testing procedures are clearly paying off.
16 Spike 1.2 Turin 2850 +8 -8 44.6% +33.2 39.8% 6310
17 Scorpio 2.0 4CPU 2839 +32 -33 34.9% +100.8 37.3% 314
18 Chessmaster 11 2CPU 2825 +35 -35 47.5% +15.8 39.6% 260
19 Delfi 5.4 2CPU 2820 +28 -28 55.1% -33.5 37.7% 403
Strongest Pascal program.  I used to think that you could never get a Pascal program this strong, since all the best tools are for C and C++.
20 Ktulu 8.0 2806 +10 -10 41.2% +58.8 36.8% 3925
21 Twisted Logic 20080620 2804 +22 -22 48.5% +9.6 38.9% 647
When Twisted Logic becomes the world champion, remember that I said it first here and now.  This is a new and interesting program and consider that it is running on a single thread against the big boys in full armor.
22 Chess Tiger 2007.1 2803 +11 -11 44.1% +39.1 42.2% 2728
23 SmarThink 1.00 64-bit 2800 +36 -36 49.6% +0.9 36.2% 254
24 Frenzee Feb08 2794 +17 -17 47.6% +15.6 38.6% 1079
25 Booot 4.15.0 2784 +28 -28 45.0% +32.4 45.0% 387
26 Movei 00.8.438 (10 10 10) 2769 +16 -16 52.8% -21.7 36.4% 1323
I think that if Uri did a complete rewrite, knowing what he knows now, he would make a world beater.  He did not really know how to program when he started on this project.
27 Alaric 707 2765 +15 -15 49.3% +4.7 34.1% 1546
28 Cyrano 0.6b17 2755 +23 -23 50.6% -6.0 38.2% 618
29 Colossus 2008b 2747 +23 -23 49.6% +3.4 37.0% 605
30 E.T. Chess 13.01.08 2745 +18 -18 51.2% -8.1 37.7% 994
31 Slow Chess Blitz WV2.1 2740 +13 -13 48.0% +12.9 37.5% 1994
32 Pharaon 3.5.1 2CPU 2739 +32 -33 31.9% +137.7 27.4% 368
33 Ruffian 2.1.0 2734 +16 -16 47.5% +18.7 35.7% 1261
34-35 Hamsters 0.7 2730 +36 -36 50.2% -1.4 38.9% 244
34-35 WildCat 8 2730 +22 -22 47.8% +13.7 37.7% 687
36 BugChess2 1.6.3 2727 +22 -22 47.5% +17.3 36.0% 687
37 Gandalf 6 2721 +13 -13 43.2% +46.5 36.3% 2121
38 Pro Deo 1.2 2720 +17 -17 48.9% +4.5 30.5% 1179
39 Chiron 0.8.7 2707 +24 -24 51.6% -10.8 33.9% 579
40 Aristarch 4.50 2699 +14 -14 45.1% +35.2 33.7% 1699
41 Petir 4.39 2697 +28 -28 50.4% -5.7 39.7% 393
42 The Baron 1.8.1 2696 +25 -25 49.3% +2.4 32.7% 550
43 Alfil 8.1.1 2695 +18 -18 51.5% -14.5 30.6% 1052
44 Pseudo 0.7c 2693 +17 -17 50.2% -1.4 38.2% 1157
45 Sloppy 0.2.0 2691 +19 -19 46.6% +22.3 34.4% 878
46 Lemming 0.24 2684 +32 -32 48.4% +10.9 37.5% 307
47 Jonny 2.83 2679 +17 -17 47.0% +18.5 31.9% 1134
48 SOS 5.1 2665 +19 -19 46.4% +22.4 36.0% 950
49 Tornado 2.2 2659 +34 -34 61.9% -87.4 35.9% 298
50 Anaconda 2.0.1 2658 +30 -30 48.6% +6.3 37.0% 362

[swami]

In my opinion naum 4 tries to imitate the Rybka style, Naumilov even confessed once it, he tried to copy the Rybka 2.3.2a evaluation so I prefer a more original style it doesnt matter for me that a engine can beat Rybka, I like to see play engines like Thinker, Bright 0.4!!! Deep Sjeng etc. Yes Naum is stronger but is like see play a little Rybka
Regards

In my opinion, Naum 4's style of play is quite different to that of Rybka's.

I disagree. I design test suites partly taken from games of Naum and analysed on with Rybka. If both agree on first line by a significant score, I put the test question into pass criteria and send it to Dann. (who in turn runs deep analysis of 5 hours 48 minutes each position)

I believe I found a lot of games where Naum-Rybka's choices are similar and hence easier to add positions to the test suite.

And Zappa - Rybka, or Shredder-Rybka was different and hence sometimes difficult to find positions for the test suite.

I suppose on higher level, engines tend to think alike most of the time.