Komodo 10 released

[Jesse Gersenson]

99 $ is too expensive.

The program costs $59 USD. With the discount it is 47.97 USD.

[shrapnel]

Komodo is the strongest program in the world. They deserve to charge a premium.

Your Free Complementary Copy of Komodo 10 is being sent to you !
Check your Mail.
Regards
Komodo Team

[shrapnel]

To me now, please send.

Yeah, ask Komodo Team
Its being distributed all over the 'Net for free anyway, even as we speak...

[shrapnel]

Honour?

Tho Thweet

[shrapnel]

Just kidding.

I kid you NOT !

[cma6]

Comparing the evals in K10 vs. K9.4, it seems that with default value of 88 for Magnify, that K10 compresses evals.
Would using Magnify = 100 return the evals to the K9.4 values?

[abulmo]

This is awful. There is a standard for scoring, and GUIs as well as engines should stick to it. Options like this just promote chaos.

What is awful, is that there is a standard for scoring, and, worse, that this standard is not well defined. I wonder if this standard did not constrain too much engine programmers to stick with a single way to evaluate a position. Instead of a centipawn, why not a winning probability, a distance to make progress, a millipawn, or whatever else?
Moreover, nothing is more volatile than the value of a pawn. Can you show us this unknown pawn that should be use as a reference of 100 centipawns?

[lkaufman]

Comparing the evals in K10 vs. K9.4, it seems that with default value of 88 for Magnify, that K10 compresses evals.
Would using Magnify = 100 return the evals to the K9.4 values?

Well, the 88 value does compress evals, but the 110 for Dynamism raises them. Perhaps something like 95 would best approximate k9.42 evals on average.

[lkaufman]

Up to now I was OK seeing an engine display a score of 0.7, I knew its advantage was equal to almost one pawn.
Now if I set Magnify from 88 to 200, the same position provides a score of about 1.5.
This is confusing, to obtain a traditional value I will always have to check the value of Magnify and modify the score accordingly.

Do we really need this?

Why not just leave it at the default level then? It does reduce scores on average a bit from K9.42, but I think it just roughly brings them back on average to levels Komodo used a year or two ago. It's not the most useful option; we may not keep it in the future.

[Laskos]

This is awful. There is a standard for scoring, and GUIs as well as engines should stick to it. Options like this just promote chaos.

What is awful, is that there is a standard for scoring, and, worse, that this standard is not well defined. I wonder if this standard did not constrain too much engine programmers to stick with a single way to evaluate a position. Instead of a centipawn, why not a winning probability, a distance to make progress, a millipawn, or whatever else?
Moreover, nothing is more volatile than the value of a pawn. Can you show us this unknown pawn that should be use as a reference of 100 centipawns?

I think some engine authors do use some winning probability, say 65% for 100cp. And it correlates well with the static value of the pawn in endgame for many.