Komodo 3 release

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi,

if time is important you should use 1 core and more engines for your analyzes. More different engines with different strengths. That point should a rating list find out and not an ELO without any information more only.

I think with a good combination on engines in analyzes and 1 core you will have a clearly better result. Furthermore your machine (if Quad core) don't losses 0.8 time ... if time is important for yourself.

Furthermore, do you really think that perhaps a 12hour analyzes with one engine and 4 cores produced a better analyzes as 4 different engines with one core. Many engines find very fast a good move and change never or very rarly the main variant. Houdini is a good example, very very fast but other weaker engines find clearly more with more and more time. A bit speculation by myself but my opinion after the analyzes I made, and believe me I used a lot of engines and not only the strongest one.

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi,

believe me, no engine is perfect. Different engines have different strengths. This we should find out, we need better programs for statistics. ChessBase is good but I missed a lot here. The tools by Norm Pollock helps a lot. Other tools.

Thats what we need because all of the TOPs are clearly stronger as the all humans in this World. A computer is our slave and not we are slave of the computers. We should go in computer chess a new way of development in find out with better statistics the strengths of this one the programmer gave us.

Search a good combination on different engines and you will like this hobby in the next years

Best
Frank

[Don]

I do play OTB and have a relatively low ELO of 2050.

when analysing games/openings, time is important and the level of moves from a 2800 or 3200 ELO is very important. Even so I cannot play at that level, they help me to understand some chess mechanics. Trust me I see a difference in analysis between Shredder and Houdini.

Thus as time is limited, it does impact the quality.

regards

EDIT - It 1cpu in some cases doesnt see tactics because of time/speed.

You are both right. If you are analyzing a game the speed factor is quite important - especially if you are stepping forward and backward trying to figure out where you went wrong or what you should play. So it definitely helps a lot.

For absolute ELO rating and finding tactics the speed is a big deal, but it doesn't change a program much stylistically.

On the other hand, SMP is inefficient in the sense that given 4 cores, it's far better to run 4 programs and not one. So for some uses single core programs are better. If I had a number of positions that I need to deep search, it's far more efficient to have a number of instances of a single core program running.

If I'm testing a program (assuming it's not the SMP implementation I'm testing) it's far better to run several program simultaneously than to run just one big SMP game at a time. Of course you cannot always arrange that - so this depends on what you are doing. If you are analyzing your own games interactively, then SMP is the way to go - but if you are running analysis and such in any kind of "batch" mode (such as auto-testing, problem testing, etc) then it's not the best use of CPU resources.

An example of when SMP is crucial is when your program is playing in a tournament. You have an entire machine dedicated to playing 1 game at a time and of course you want to utilize every CPU cycle and core the best you can.

[Lion]

I think SMK tried the triple brain but it never turned out to be better than one engine using all cores in terms of pure strengh.

Now I would agree that having different opinions from several engines is always good to select candidate moves but then you need speed to analyse the branches.

Maybe we just work differently....

regards

[Frank Quisinsky]

Please,

but only my personal opinion after the results and analyzes I know and made from my own ratinglist. If 75% I found out is right ... it's a good result. So I wrote in a German fora ... load the CEGT, CCRL or my SWCR database and analyzes all the different engines with own fantasy in create different statistics. I have a lot of fun in this work. But often I am complete wrong after a night with new impressions I created ... perhaps created to fast.

We have a nice hobby with a lot of possibilities. Not easy to use it.

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi,

if I thinking on all the interesting analyzes I got from so many different engines computer chess is wonderful.

Often not the best move in analyzing produced new knowledge about an engine. Junior is a good example after the opening moves. Most engines don't understand the opening idea but the moves the engines produced are very interesting.

Why the Spracklen programs (Mach 3 for an example) like it to set the knight on field a6 or h6. Why the other engines don't give the bishop and produced a double pawn. And Mach 3 produced with the next move Nh6-g4 a king attack. This one we can explain today with the level the most have, we cann't explain many moves the best engines today plays. We have not the level to do this.

I mean, that not the best move can explain a lot about an engine. But it's for us not easy to see a better move if the programs don't find it.

Yes, perhaps we are working different in analyze positions. I have 7 Quad Core systems and used only one with 4 Engines and one cores for analyzes. Enough on engine power for myself.

If we got from 4 engines 4 different analyzes on 1 core we should used our brain. Which moves I think is the best one or which I like the most.

To search the perfect result on this high level today isn't possible in complicated positions I think.

We need a GUI, produced with a PGN database only 100 or 200 different statistics over night. My dream and wish development for the future of computer chess. We all can use the results this statistic program gave us as knowledge to engines for our own analyzes.

It need to many time to try to find out more about engines and his strength and weaknesses without a better statistic program.

Best
Frank

A good Triple Brain system can be one of the most interesting ideas for the future in Chess GUI development. I am sure Stefan produced a good result in his work here.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Thanks for all your time and information here. Learn a lot. The reason I like this forum, many programmers speaking about thoughts.

Have a nice evening and thanks for the time you gave Komodo and the results you gave us.

Same for all the others programmers
Day need 1000 hours.

Best
Frank

[fern]

Damn, Don, I was expecting, as I opened your post, to see a commercial announcement of a new komodo with its own gui and all the rest we have chatted so many times AND so pricy that I would be the only one chap here to get it...instead, it is for free

Jokes apart, I have laughed a lot when I read a post talking of Komodo as VERY weak in tactics....hahahaha.

Well, as much as WE play the engine and NOT another sillicon entity, Komodo tactics are good enough to crush everybody here and GM's too.

It is incredible how much this curious race of people playing one engine againts other has got such a malignant growth

Fern

[perejaslav]

Jokes apart, I have laughed a lot when I read a post talking of Komodo as VERY weak in tactics....hahahaha.


Fern

You may continue laughing but the results are here (Arasan Test Suite (8-12) 500 pos. from immortal forum):

418-Critter 1.2 64-bit SSE4 1-cpu\
416-Houdini 1.5 x64 1-cpu\
403-Critter 1.01 64-bit SSE4 1-cpu\
400-spark-1.0 x64 1-cpu\
397-Rybka WinFinder 2.2 1-cpu\
390-Critter 0.90 64-bit SSE4 1-cpu\
377-Ivanhoe B49jA_1-cpu_x64p\
375-spark-0.4 1-cpu\
371-Rybka 3 Dynamic 1-cpu\
366-Rybka 4.1 x64\
362-Rybka 3 1-cpu\
358-Rybka 4 x64\
356-RobboLito 0.09 x64\
354-Rybka 3 Human 1-cpu\
347-Naum 4.2 1-cpu\
341-Critter 0.80 64-bit 1-cpu\
340-Stockfish 2.0 JA 64bit A200C50 1-cpu\
336-Stockfish 2.1 JA 64bit 1-cpu\
336-Stockfish 1.9.1 JA 64bit 1-cpu\
332-Zappa Mexico II Dissident Aggressor 1-cpu\
325-Stockfish 2.0 JA 64bit 1-cpu\
317-Spike 1.4 1-cpu\
311-HIARCS 13.1 SP\
307-HIARCS 13.2 SP\
307-HIARCS 11.2 SP\
304-HIARCS 12.1 SP\
297-bright-0.5c 1-cpu\
293-Rybka 2.3.2a\
287-Protector 1.4.0 x32 JA 1-cpu\
284-Hannibal 1.0a\
284-Deep Junior 12.5 UCI 1-cpu\
282-Rybka 1.0 Beta x64\
276-Gull 1.1 x64\
275-Komodo 2.01 x64 sse4\
275-Zappa Mexico II 1-cpu\
274-Deep Junior 12 UCI 1-cpu\
270-SmarThink 1.20 x64\
270-Deep Sjeng c't 2010\
262-Shredder 12 UCI\
261-Gull 1.2 x64\
259-Umko 1.1 SSE42 x64 1-cpu\
247-Chess Tiger 2007.1\
242-Komodo 1.3 x64\
241-Deep Sjeng WC2008 x64 1-cpu\
224-Ktulu 9\
216-Deep Onno 1-2-70 1-cpu\
216-Spike 1.2\
197-Pro Deo 1.6 Q3\
197-Booot 5.0.1\
173-Jonny 4.00 1-cpu\

[fern]

I did NOT say Komodo is not relatively weak compared with other engines, but that it is irrelevant considering the human point of view. It is the one that interest me, as a player and not as an umpire of engines-engines games.
So my laugh has another ground and it is still valid.
I am sure you will agree that Komodo tactics are enough to kill anyone here. I am not a machine, so...

So, if you let me do it..,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Fern