Patricia 3

[pohl4711]

I think you missed the entire purpose of Patricia.

The goal isn't to compete with vanilla 3600 Elo SF lookalikes.

So I think the programmer is doing a great job.

Giving his *real* goals.

Exactly. Of course, Clover 7 is way too strong for Patricia 3 (350 Celos or so).
Patricia will definitly gain some Celos in the future, without loosing her extremly aggressive playing-style, because there is so much space for optimizations and bugfixes, besides all further development. But playing like Patricia IMHO makes it impossible to reach the strength of a top-engine (like Clover 7) - but that is not the goal. The goal is to create a super aggressive playing engine, which has at least superhuman strength and can be limited in strength for playing against it as a human. But that goal was already achieved with the release of Patricia 3. So, the next goal can be gaining more Celo, without loosing EAS-Score = Aggressiveness in play. But reaching the strength of a Top15 engine will stay a nice dream for Patricia, I believe.

[chrisw]

I think there are still many things that the programmer needs to improve in his program, although the depth during the game is very poor.

[pgn][Event "My Tournament"]
[Site "Home"]
[Date "2024.07.27"]
[Round "1.1.1"]
[White "Clover 7.0 x64"]
[Black "Patricia 3 x64"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B95"]
[GameDuration "00:14:28"]
[GameEndTime "2024-07-27T08:33:55.702 Środkowoeuropejski czas letni"]
[GameStartTime "2024-07-27T08:19:27.465 Środkowoeuropejski czas letni"]
[Opening "Sicilian"]
[PlyCount "126"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[TimeControl "300+3"]
[Variation "Najdorf, 6...e6"]

1. e4 {book} c5 {book} 2. Nf3 {book} d6 {book} 3. d4 {book} cxd4 {book}
4. Nxd4 {book} Nf6 {book} 5. Nc3 {book} a6 {book} 6. Bg5 {book} e6 {book}
7. Qf3 {book} h6 {book} 8. Be3 {book} Qc7 {book} 9. a4 {+0.13/29 18.43s}
Nc6 {-0.36/24 14.15s} 10. Nxc6 {+0.05/30 9.39s} bxc6 {-0.32/26 17.50s}
11. Bd3 {+0.12/31 10.86s} d5 {-0.37/25 13.28s} 12. a5 {+0.21/29 8.81s}
Bd6 {-0.37/26 13.82s} 13. Bb6 {+0.08/32 9.15s} Qe7 {-0.21/25 13.39s}
14. O-O {+0.05/32 11.09s} Nd7 {-0.31/26 13.28s} 15. Na4 {+0.18/30 15.57s}
O-O {-0.15/24 11.11s} 16. Qe2 {+0.11/30 16.44s} Bb7 {-0.07/22 9.90s}
17. c3 {+0.25/30 9.82s} f5 {+0.23/23 10.15s} 18. exf5 {+0.17/27 7.26s}
e5 {+0.44/23 8.50s} 19. Bc2 {+0.03/29 14.76s} Rae8 {+0.21/22 10.06s}
20. f3 {+0.29/25 6.51s} c5 {+0.13/24 15.00s} 21. c4 {+0.28/30 8.90s}
e4 {-0.03/24 8.75s} 22. cxd5 {+0.10/30 6.71s} Rxf5 {-0.15/25 8.92s}
23. Bxe4 {+0.31/30 6.73s} Nf6 {-0.15/27 6.97s} 24. Nc3 {+0.19/33 6.12s}
Nxe4 {-0.27/28 23.45s} 25. fxe4 {+0.32/32 11.00s} Rg5 {-0.15/27 6.87s}
26. Rf3 {+0.21/31 5.78s} Bc8 {-0.14/26 9.39s} 27. Qe3 {+0.29/33 9.72s}
Bg4 {-0.14/30 19.39s} 28. Rf2 {+0.13/32 7.38s} Rh5 {-0.15/30 6.71s}
29. h3 {+0.53/30 15.80s} Qe5 {-0.34/21 5.20s} 30. Kf1 {+0.65/26 8.26s}
Rb8 {-0.86/21 11.84s} 31. Re1 {+1.07/26 7.31s} Bd7 {-1.21/22 10.51s}
32. Ree2 {+1.02/28 7.28s} Qe7 {-1.13/22 4.60s} 33. Ke1 {+0.98/29 8.05s}
Kh7 {-1.24/20 6.23s} 34. Kd1 {+1.39/26 5.39s} Rg5 {-1.56/22 7.63s}
35. Kc2 {+1.36/24 5.42s} Be8 {-1.50/20 4.54s} 36. Rf5 {+1.61/30 13.78s}
Rg3 {-1.62/22 4.33s} 37. Rf3 {+1.55/31 6.30s} Rg5 {-1.84/23 8.11s}
38. g4 {+1.68/30 8.18s} Re5 {-1.81/24 5.37s} 39. Qd3 {+1.61/29 7.28s}
Qb7 {-1.81/21 5.25s} 40. Qc4 {+1.73/28 9.22s} Bg6 {-1.84/23 5.33s}
41. Kb1 {+1.76/27 7.39s} Ree8 {-1.77/22 4.56s} 42. Ka2 {+1.94/23 4.33s}
Qe7 {-2.06/19 5.50s} 43. Na4 {+2.16/22 4.32s} h5 {-2.23/18 3.84s}
44. Bxc5 {+2.52/24 8.82s} Rb5 {-2.79/17 3.97s} 45. b4 {+2.76/23 4.28s}
Qc7 {-3.01/20 4.51s} 46. Rc3 {+2.79/23 8.09s} Bf4 {-3.29/21 7.91s}
47. Ka3 {+2.93/23 5.48s} Qd8 {-3.38/20 5.38s} 48. d6 {+3.35/20 3.03s}
Bxd6 {-3.82/21 7.84s} 49. Rd3 {+3.64/24 2.77s} Rxc5 {-3.55/22 4.46s}
50. bxc5 {+3.87/22 4.05s} Bxc5+ {-3.90/25 11.85s} 51. Nxc5 {+3.97/23 4.09s}
Qxa5+ {-3.90/26 24.80s} 52. Kb2 {+4.10/23 5.09s} Rf8 {-3.54/19 4.02s}
53. Nb3 {+4.24/24 5.60s} Rb8 {-3.90/19 3.21s} 54. Qd5 {+4.96/24 4.63s}
Qxd5 {-4.31/19 4.31s} 55. Rxd5 {+5.36/21 4.87s} hxg4 {-4.50/20 2.44s}
56. hxg4 {+5.69/20 3.39s} a5 {-4.61/22 3.77s} 57. Kc3 {+6.30/18 3.47s}
Bf7 {-4.86/19 2.33s} 58. Nxa5 {+6.96/16 3.06s} Be6 {-4.99/20 3.29s}
59. Nc6 {+9.61/16 2.54s} Rc8 {-6.23/22 8.11s} 60. Rh2+ {+14.93/18 2.70s}
Kg8 {-6.97/23 4.91s} 61. Rd8+ {+36.51/17 1.72s} Rxd8 {-5.98/28 2.10s}
62. Nxd8 {+168.30/34 4.94s} Bxg4 {-6.21/22 9.65s} 63. Ne6 {+168.30/31 6.88s}
Bxe6 {-3.03/29 2.43s, White wins by adjudication: SyzygyTB} 1-0[/pgn]

[pgn][Event "My Tournament"]
[Site "Home"]
[Date "2024.07.27"]
[Round "2.1.1"]
[White "Patricia 3 x64"]
[Black "Clover 7.0 x64"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D43"]
[GameDuration "00:18:23"]
[GameEndTime "2024-07-27T08:52:18.957 Środkowoeuropejski czas letni"]
[GameStartTime "2024-07-27T08:33:55.734 Środkowoeuropejski czas letni"]
[Opening "Queen's Gambit declined Semi-Slav"]
[PlyCount "188"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[TimeControl "300+3"]

1. d4 {book} d5 {book} 2. c4 {book} e6 {book} 3. Nc3 {book} Nf6 {book}
4. Nf3 {book} c6 {book} 5. Bg5 {book} h6 {book} 6. Bxf6 {book} Qxf6 {book}
7. e3 {book} g6 {book} 8. Ne5 {book} Bg7 {book} 9. Bd3 {+0.20/25 18.39s}
O-O {0.00/32 15.64s} 10. O-O {0.00/25 10.97s} dxc4 {+0.06/32 10.82s}
11. Nxc4 {+0.05/27 19.09s} Nd7 {0.00/36 11.73s} 12. Be2 {+0.06/25 19.20s}
Qe7 {0.00/36 9.79s} 13. Qb3 {+0.06/25 26.42s} Rb8 {0.00/33 14.80s}
14. Rfd1 {+0.03/24 8.46s} b6 {0.00/34 9.71s} 15. Rac1 {-0.06/25 8.68s}
Bb7 {0.00/31 7.75s} 16. Bf3 {-0.15/24 16.90s} Rfd8 {+0.07/30 10.97s}
17. h3 {0.00/26 18.06s} h5 {+0.02/34 19.96s} 18. a3 {+0.22/22 7.83s}
Ba8 {+0.05/32 16.27s} 19. Qc2 {+0.05/24 7.30s} Rbc8 {0.00/38 13.60s}
20. a4 {+0.04/25 13.22s} Rb8 {0.00/30 12.21s} 21. b3 {+0.03/20 7.35s}
Rdc8 {0.00/38 23.64s} 22. Ne2 {+0.32/25 6.64s} Nf6 {+0.10/28 9.70s}
23. Nf4 {+0.06/24 12.41s} Nh7 {0.00/33 10.84s} 24. b4 {+0.72/21 17.91s}
Qxb4 {+0.30/27 4.94s} 25. Ne5 {+0.60/26 8.52s} Bxe5 {+0.17/28 5.66s}
26. dxe5 {+0.20/22 9.27s} Nf8 {+0.23/33 10.39s} 27. Rd6 {+0.01/22 6.86s}
Qa5 {+0.43/30 7.17s} 28. Nd3 {0.00/23 5.04s} Bb7 {+0.36/30 5.96s}
29. Rb1 {-0.14/26 5.82s} Ba6 {+0.33/34 8.68s} 30. Nb4 {-0.14/29 6.61s}
Qxe5 {+0.23/31 10.29s} 31. Qd2 {-0.14/26 4.85s} Bb7 {+0.23/31 4.72s}
32. Bxc6 {-0.15/30 6.12s} Qf6 {+0.23/35 20.02s} 33. Rd1 {-0.36/22 4.63s}
Qf5 {+0.13/35 10.59s} 34. Rc1 {0.00/29 23.57s} Qg5 {+0.16/32 6.97s}
35. Rd4 {-0.14/27 4.45s} Qe7 {+0.16/32 7.53s} 36. Rdc4 {-0.14/30 11.00s}
g5 {+0.13/34 19.16s} 37. Qd3 {0.00/24 3.84s} Ng6 {+0.30/31 4.81s}
38. Bxb7 {-0.15/27 3.78s} Rxc4 {+0.24/36 4.37s} 39. Rxc4 {-0.15/26 6.44s}
Rxb7 {+0.30/36 5.47s} 40. Nc6 {-0.15/26 5.22s} Qd7 {+0.44/34 3.70s}
41. Qc2 {-0.41/25 3.46s} Qd5 {+0.32/36 5.70s} 42. Nd8 {-0.33/24 3.69s}
Re7 {+0.43/31 5.82s} 43. Rd4 {-0.37/26 4.51s} Qc5 {+0.43/31 4.03s}
44. Rc4 {-0.57/26 4.94s} Qd5 {+0.31/34 12.14s} 45. Rd4 {-0.15/37 4.83s}
Qc5 {+0.41/36 4.93s} 46. Rc4 {-0.15/40 4.15s} Qd6 {+0.34/40 30.25s}
47. Rd4 {-0.36/26 3.29s} Qc7 {+0.34/40 5.67s} 48. Rc4 {-0.50/25 4.74s}
Qd6 {+0.39/39 4.55s} 49. Rd4 {-0.15/37 3.53s} Qc7 {+0.26/35 2.60s}
50. Rc4 {-0.15/39 6.66s} Qe5 {+0.32/31 2.47s} 51. Nc6 {-0.45/28 6.08s}
Qa1+ {+0.32/33 2.08s} 52. Kh2 {-0.48/28 5.07s} Rd7 {+0.23/30 2.59s}
53. Nd4 {-0.25/29 4.97s} Qa3 {+0.25/32 3.67s} 54. Qe2 {-0.43/24 3.05s}
h4 {+0.56/24 2.37s} 55. Qc2 {-0.52/27 7.60s} Kg7 {+0.50/25 1.83s}
56. Rc8 {-0.49/29 14.66s} Qd6+ {+0.40/28 7.99s} 57. Kg1 {-0.49/27 4.26s}
Ne7 {+0.42/29 1.16s} 58. Rc3 {-0.57/26 5.32s} Nd5 {+0.53/25 2.08s}
59. Rc6 {-0.60/29 2.35s} Qa3 {+0.66/24 2.04s} 60. Rc4 {-0.71/22 2.25s}
Nf6 {+0.66/29 2.65s} 61. Qb1 {-0.77/24 3.38s} Qd6 {+0.73/29 2.71s}
62. Qf1 {-0.88/24 2.64s} Qa3 {+0.62/31 9.73s} 63. Qb1 {-0.15/35 2.56s}
Qd6 {+0.60/31 1.15s} 64. Qf1 {-0.15/38 2.55s} Qd5 {+0.62/30 1.60s}
65. Nf3 {-0.76/23 3.20s} a5 {+0.66/28 5.07s} 66. Kh2 {-0.62/22 2.30s}
Qd6+ {+0.49/26 2.33s} 67. Kg1 {-0.15/26 3.21s} Qd5 {+0.55/27 2.03s}
68. Kh2 {-0.14/39 2.63s} Ne4 {+0.58/25 2.21s} 69. Rd4 {-0.89/23 2.70s}
Qb7 {+0.66/26 2.21s} 70. Kg1 {-1.00/23 3.14s} Rxd4 {+1.08/15 1.96s}
71. Nxd4 {-1.34/22 3.09s} e5 {+1.06/24 2.04s} 72. Nb5 {-1.63/23 2.59s}
Qd5 {+1.30/24 1.80s} 73. Qb1 {-1.75/25 2.32s} Nc5 {+1.32/28 2.15s}
74. Qf5 {-1.80/26 4.20s} f6 {+1.52/28 2.41s} 75. Kh2 {-2.03/23 3.31s}
Qd7 {+1.52/29 2.43s} 76. Qc2 {-2.04/24 2.30s} Qd3 {+1.58/29 3.66s}
77. Qc1 {-2.05/25 2.96s} Qb3 {+1.73/30 9.27s} 78. Nc3 {-2.06/26 2.52s}
Qc4 {+1.74/30 6.94s} 79. Qa3 {-2.05/24 2.61s} e4 {+1.80/28 1.12s}
80. Qb2 {-2.05/27 8.31s} Nd3 {+1.81/24 1.35s} 81. Qd2 {-2.18/29 6.13s}
Kg6 {+1.89/27 5.08s} 82. g3 {-2.20/22 2.11s} Ne5 {+2.33/23 1.04s}
83. Kg2 {-2.36/26 2.08s} g4 {+2.51/21 1.43s} 84. Ne2 {-2.36/29 4.96s}
gxh3+ {+2.65/24 1.61s} 85. Kxh3 {-2.45/31 9.27s} Qxa4 {+2.79/22 1.76s}
86. gxh4 {-2.58/28 2.56s} Qd7+ {+3.28/22 2.33s} 87. Qxd7 {-2.80/30 3.28s}
Nxd7 {+3.44/28 2.07s} 88. Nc3 {-2.68/30 2.15s} Nc5 {+3.63/26 2.09s}
89. f3 {-3.00/32 5.11s} exf3 {+4.48/23 2.90s} 90. Kg3 {-3.06/33 3.07s}
Kh5 {+4.80/24 2.21s} 91. Kxf3 {-3.06/36 2.20s} Kxh4 {+5.42/22 3.77s}
92. Nb5 {-3.06/35 6.11s} Kg5 {+5.90/22 2.20s} 93. e4 {-3.26/32 4.55s}
f5 {+7.87/17 1.11s} 94. exf5 {-3.09/27 1.68s}
Kxf5 {+168.23/43 12.00s, Black wins by adjudication: SyzygyTB} 0-1[/pgn]

I think you missed the entire purpose of Patricia.

The goal isn't to compete with vanilla 3600 Elo SF lookalikes.

So I think the programmer is doing a great job.

Giving his *real* goals.

I think you missed the entire point. It is the inalienable right of a random end user to tell a programmer(s) random generalisations (often off point/ill-informed) about his engine which is given away free and has had a large amount of effort put into it, and then tell him what else he “needs” to do (also undefined) to bring it to standard (also undefined) of end user. If posters were sitting around a table, discussing face to face, such commenting would be seen as rude and hurtful and pretty dumb.
Try and up your manners, folks.

[Rebel]

I think there are still many things that the programmer needs to improve in his program, although the depth during the game is very poor.

I think you were responding to this, instead of Brendan ?

[chrisw]

I think there are still many things that the programmer needs to improve in his program, although the depth during the game is very poor.

I think you were responding to this, instead of Brendan ?

Yes! I was being too narcissistic, assuming everyone can mind read and would realise what was sarcasm and what not and in what directions. Brendan is a long time mate of mine, so he knows it's not directed at him, but, re-reading, I can see potential misinterpretation.

These sorts of self-entitled patronising criticisms and ever so helpful generalised suggestions can very easily be seen as gratuitous *public* attacks which then need rebuttal defences. It's not good, it's not nice, and it's not what the original programmer released his work for. Think a bit about what's about to be said before saying it, and remember you're dealing with an artist who has *given* you his work. Incidentally, a work created for entirely different purposes than the critic has assumed.

[Ciekce]

My sentiments exactly. Vanilla 3600 SF Elo lookalikes. Patricia 3 is perfect the way it is.

don't get me wrong, I am entirely in agreement that the criticism of patricia was, to put it very charitably, misguided

no need to dismiss a random strong engine out of hand as an "SF lookalike", though

[Whiskers]

I think there are still many things that the programmer needs to improve in his program, although the depth during the game is very poor.

[pgn][Event "My Tournament"]
[Site "Home"]
[Date "2024.07.27"]
[Round "1.1.1"]
[White "Clover 7.0 x64"]
[Black "Patricia 3 x64"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B95"]
[GameDuration "00:14:28"]
[GameEndTime "2024-07-27T08:33:55.702 Środkowoeuropejski czas letni"]
[GameStartTime "2024-07-27T08:19:27.465 Środkowoeuropejski czas letni"]
[Opening "Sicilian"]
[PlyCount "126"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[TimeControl "300+3"]
[Variation "Najdorf, 6...e6"]

1. e4 {book} c5 {book} 2. Nf3 {book} d6 {book} 3. d4 {book} cxd4 {book}
4. Nxd4 {book} Nf6 {book} 5. Nc3 {book} a6 {book} 6. Bg5 {book} e6 {book}
7. Qf3 {book} h6 {book} 8. Be3 {book} Qc7 {book} 9. a4 {+0.13/29 18.43s}
Nc6 {-0.36/24 14.15s} 10. Nxc6 {+0.05/30 9.39s} bxc6 {-0.32/26 17.50s}
11. Bd3 {+0.12/31 10.86s} d5 {-0.37/25 13.28s} 12. a5 {+0.21/29 8.81s}
Bd6 {-0.37/26 13.82s} 13. Bb6 {+0.08/32 9.15s} Qe7 {-0.21/25 13.39s}
14. O-O {+0.05/32 11.09s} Nd7 {-0.31/26 13.28s} 15. Na4 {+0.18/30 15.57s}
O-O {-0.15/24 11.11s} 16. Qe2 {+0.11/30 16.44s} Bb7 {-0.07/22 9.90s}
17. c3 {+0.25/30 9.82s} f5 {+0.23/23 10.15s} 18. exf5 {+0.17/27 7.26s}
e5 {+0.44/23 8.50s} 19. Bc2 {+0.03/29 14.76s} Rae8 {+0.21/22 10.06s}
20. f3 {+0.29/25 6.51s} c5 {+0.13/24 15.00s} 21. c4 {+0.28/30 8.90s}
e4 {-0.03/24 8.75s} 22. cxd5 {+0.10/30 6.71s} Rxf5 {-0.15/25 8.92s}
23. Bxe4 {+0.31/30 6.73s} Nf6 {-0.15/27 6.97s} 24. Nc3 {+0.19/33 6.12s}
Nxe4 {-0.27/28 23.45s} 25. fxe4 {+0.32/32 11.00s} Rg5 {-0.15/27 6.87s}
26. Rf3 {+0.21/31 5.78s} Bc8 {-0.14/26 9.39s} 27. Qe3 {+0.29/33 9.72s}
Bg4 {-0.14/30 19.39s} 28. Rf2 {+0.13/32 7.38s} Rh5 {-0.15/30 6.71s}
29. h3 {+0.53/30 15.80s} Qe5 {-0.34/21 5.20s} 30. Kf1 {+0.65/26 8.26s}
Rb8 {-0.86/21 11.84s} 31. Re1 {+1.07/26 7.31s} Bd7 {-1.21/22 10.51s}
32. Ree2 {+1.02/28 7.28s} Qe7 {-1.13/22 4.60s} 33. Ke1 {+0.98/29 8.05s}
Kh7 {-1.24/20 6.23s} 34. Kd1 {+1.39/26 5.39s} Rg5 {-1.56/22 7.63s}
35. Kc2 {+1.36/24 5.42s} Be8 {-1.50/20 4.54s} 36. Rf5 {+1.61/30 13.78s}
Rg3 {-1.62/22 4.33s} 37. Rf3 {+1.55/31 6.30s} Rg5 {-1.84/23 8.11s}
38. g4 {+1.68/30 8.18s} Re5 {-1.81/24 5.37s} 39. Qd3 {+1.61/29 7.28s}
Qb7 {-1.81/21 5.25s} 40. Qc4 {+1.73/28 9.22s} Bg6 {-1.84/23 5.33s}
41. Kb1 {+1.76/27 7.39s} Ree8 {-1.77/22 4.56s} 42. Ka2 {+1.94/23 4.33s}
Qe7 {-2.06/19 5.50s} 43. Na4 {+2.16/22 4.32s} h5 {-2.23/18 3.84s}
44. Bxc5 {+2.52/24 8.82s} Rb5 {-2.79/17 3.97s} 45. b4 {+2.76/23 4.28s}
Qc7 {-3.01/20 4.51s} 46. Rc3 {+2.79/23 8.09s} Bf4 {-3.29/21 7.91s}
47. Ka3 {+2.93/23 5.48s} Qd8 {-3.38/20 5.38s} 48. d6 {+3.35/20 3.03s}
Bxd6 {-3.82/21 7.84s} 49. Rd3 {+3.64/24 2.77s} Rxc5 {-3.55/22 4.46s}
50. bxc5 {+3.87/22 4.05s} Bxc5+ {-3.90/25 11.85s} 51. Nxc5 {+3.97/23 4.09s}
Qxa5+ {-3.90/26 24.80s} 52. Kb2 {+4.10/23 5.09s} Rf8 {-3.54/19 4.02s}
53. Nb3 {+4.24/24 5.60s} Rb8 {-3.90/19 3.21s} 54. Qd5 {+4.96/24 4.63s}
Qxd5 {-4.31/19 4.31s} 55. Rxd5 {+5.36/21 4.87s} hxg4 {-4.50/20 2.44s}
56. hxg4 {+5.69/20 3.39s} a5 {-4.61/22 3.77s} 57. Kc3 {+6.30/18 3.47s}
Bf7 {-4.86/19 2.33s} 58. Nxa5 {+6.96/16 3.06s} Be6 {-4.99/20 3.29s}
59. Nc6 {+9.61/16 2.54s} Rc8 {-6.23/22 8.11s} 60. Rh2+ {+14.93/18 2.70s}
Kg8 {-6.97/23 4.91s} 61. Rd8+ {+36.51/17 1.72s} Rxd8 {-5.98/28 2.10s}
62. Nxd8 {+168.30/34 4.94s} Bxg4 {-6.21/22 9.65s} 63. Ne6 {+168.30/31 6.88s}
Bxe6 {-3.03/29 2.43s, White wins by adjudication: SyzygyTB} 1-0[/pgn]

[pgn][Event "My Tournament"]
[Site "Home"]
[Date "2024.07.27"]
[Round "2.1.1"]
[White "Patricia 3 x64"]
[Black "Clover 7.0 x64"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D43"]
[GameDuration "00:18:23"]
[GameEndTime "2024-07-27T08:52:18.957 Środkowoeuropejski czas letni"]
[GameStartTime "2024-07-27T08:33:55.734 Środkowoeuropejski czas letni"]
[Opening "Queen's Gambit declined Semi-Slav"]
[PlyCount "188"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[TimeControl "300+3"]

1. d4 {book} d5 {book} 2. c4 {book} e6 {book} 3. Nc3 {book} Nf6 {book}
4. Nf3 {book} c6 {book} 5. Bg5 {book} h6 {book} 6. Bxf6 {book} Qxf6 {book}
7. e3 {book} g6 {book} 8. Ne5 {book} Bg7 {book} 9. Bd3 {+0.20/25 18.39s}
O-O {0.00/32 15.64s} 10. O-O {0.00/25 10.97s} dxc4 {+0.06/32 10.82s}
11. Nxc4 {+0.05/27 19.09s} Nd7 {0.00/36 11.73s} 12. Be2 {+0.06/25 19.20s}
Qe7 {0.00/36 9.79s} 13. Qb3 {+0.06/25 26.42s} Rb8 {0.00/33 14.80s}
14. Rfd1 {+0.03/24 8.46s} b6 {0.00/34 9.71s} 15. Rac1 {-0.06/25 8.68s}
Bb7 {0.00/31 7.75s} 16. Bf3 {-0.15/24 16.90s} Rfd8 {+0.07/30 10.97s}
17. h3 {0.00/26 18.06s} h5 {+0.02/34 19.96s} 18. a3 {+0.22/22 7.83s}
Ba8 {+0.05/32 16.27s} 19. Qc2 {+0.05/24 7.30s} Rbc8 {0.00/38 13.60s}
20. a4 {+0.04/25 13.22s} Rb8 {0.00/30 12.21s} 21. b3 {+0.03/20 7.35s}
Rdc8 {0.00/38 23.64s} 22. Ne2 {+0.32/25 6.64s} Nf6 {+0.10/28 9.70s}
23. Nf4 {+0.06/24 12.41s} Nh7 {0.00/33 10.84s} 24. b4 {+0.72/21 17.91s}
Qxb4 {+0.30/27 4.94s} 25. Ne5 {+0.60/26 8.52s} Bxe5 {+0.17/28 5.66s}
26. dxe5 {+0.20/22 9.27s} Nf8 {+0.23/33 10.39s} 27. Rd6 {+0.01/22 6.86s}
Qa5 {+0.43/30 7.17s} 28. Nd3 {0.00/23 5.04s} Bb7 {+0.36/30 5.96s}
29. Rb1 {-0.14/26 5.82s} Ba6 {+0.33/34 8.68s} 30. Nb4 {-0.14/29 6.61s}
Qxe5 {+0.23/31 10.29s} 31. Qd2 {-0.14/26 4.85s} Bb7 {+0.23/31 4.72s}
32. Bxc6 {-0.15/30 6.12s} Qf6 {+0.23/35 20.02s} 33. Rd1 {-0.36/22 4.63s}
Qf5 {+0.13/35 10.59s} 34. Rc1 {0.00/29 23.57s} Qg5 {+0.16/32 6.97s}
35. Rd4 {-0.14/27 4.45s} Qe7 {+0.16/32 7.53s} 36. Rdc4 {-0.14/30 11.00s}
g5 {+0.13/34 19.16s} 37. Qd3 {0.00/24 3.84s} Ng6 {+0.30/31 4.81s}
38. Bxb7 {-0.15/27 3.78s} Rxc4 {+0.24/36 4.37s} 39. Rxc4 {-0.15/26 6.44s}
Rxb7 {+0.30/36 5.47s} 40. Nc6 {-0.15/26 5.22s} Qd7 {+0.44/34 3.70s}
41. Qc2 {-0.41/25 3.46s} Qd5 {+0.32/36 5.70s} 42. Nd8 {-0.33/24 3.69s}
Re7 {+0.43/31 5.82s} 43. Rd4 {-0.37/26 4.51s} Qc5 {+0.43/31 4.03s}
44. Rc4 {-0.57/26 4.94s} Qd5 {+0.31/34 12.14s} 45. Rd4 {-0.15/37 4.83s}
Qc5 {+0.41/36 4.93s} 46. Rc4 {-0.15/40 4.15s} Qd6 {+0.34/40 30.25s}
47. Rd4 {-0.36/26 3.29s} Qc7 {+0.34/40 5.67s} 48. Rc4 {-0.50/25 4.74s}
Qd6 {+0.39/39 4.55s} 49. Rd4 {-0.15/37 3.53s} Qc7 {+0.26/35 2.60s}
50. Rc4 {-0.15/39 6.66s} Qe5 {+0.32/31 2.47s} 51. Nc6 {-0.45/28 6.08s}
Qa1+ {+0.32/33 2.08s} 52. Kh2 {-0.48/28 5.07s} Rd7 {+0.23/30 2.59s}
53. Nd4 {-0.25/29 4.97s} Qa3 {+0.25/32 3.67s} 54. Qe2 {-0.43/24 3.05s}
h4 {+0.56/24 2.37s} 55. Qc2 {-0.52/27 7.60s} Kg7 {+0.50/25 1.83s}
56. Rc8 {-0.49/29 14.66s} Qd6+ {+0.40/28 7.99s} 57. Kg1 {-0.49/27 4.26s}
Ne7 {+0.42/29 1.16s} 58. Rc3 {-0.57/26 5.32s} Nd5 {+0.53/25 2.08s}
59. Rc6 {-0.60/29 2.35s} Qa3 {+0.66/24 2.04s} 60. Rc4 {-0.71/22 2.25s}
Nf6 {+0.66/29 2.65s} 61. Qb1 {-0.77/24 3.38s} Qd6 {+0.73/29 2.71s}
62. Qf1 {-0.88/24 2.64s} Qa3 {+0.62/31 9.73s} 63. Qb1 {-0.15/35 2.56s}
Qd6 {+0.60/31 1.15s} 64. Qf1 {-0.15/38 2.55s} Qd5 {+0.62/30 1.60s}
65. Nf3 {-0.76/23 3.20s} a5 {+0.66/28 5.07s} 66. Kh2 {-0.62/22 2.30s}
Qd6+ {+0.49/26 2.33s} 67. Kg1 {-0.15/26 3.21s} Qd5 {+0.55/27 2.03s}
68. Kh2 {-0.14/39 2.63s} Ne4 {+0.58/25 2.21s} 69. Rd4 {-0.89/23 2.70s}
Qb7 {+0.66/26 2.21s} 70. Kg1 {-1.00/23 3.14s} Rxd4 {+1.08/15 1.96s}
71. Nxd4 {-1.34/22 3.09s} e5 {+1.06/24 2.04s} 72. Nb5 {-1.63/23 2.59s}
Qd5 {+1.30/24 1.80s} 73. Qb1 {-1.75/25 2.32s} Nc5 {+1.32/28 2.15s}
74. Qf5 {-1.80/26 4.20s} f6 {+1.52/28 2.41s} 75. Kh2 {-2.03/23 3.31s}
Qd7 {+1.52/29 2.43s} 76. Qc2 {-2.04/24 2.30s} Qd3 {+1.58/29 3.66s}
77. Qc1 {-2.05/25 2.96s} Qb3 {+1.73/30 9.27s} 78. Nc3 {-2.06/26 2.52s}
Qc4 {+1.74/30 6.94s} 79. Qa3 {-2.05/24 2.61s} e4 {+1.80/28 1.12s}
80. Qb2 {-2.05/27 8.31s} Nd3 {+1.81/24 1.35s} 81. Qd2 {-2.18/29 6.13s}
Kg6 {+1.89/27 5.08s} 82. g3 {-2.20/22 2.11s} Ne5 {+2.33/23 1.04s}
83. Kg2 {-2.36/26 2.08s} g4 {+2.51/21 1.43s} 84. Ne2 {-2.36/29 4.96s}
gxh3+ {+2.65/24 1.61s} 85. Kxh3 {-2.45/31 9.27s} Qxa4 {+2.79/22 1.76s}
86. gxh4 {-2.58/28 2.56s} Qd7+ {+3.28/22 2.33s} 87. Qxd7 {-2.80/30 3.28s}
Nxd7 {+3.44/28 2.07s} 88. Nc3 {-2.68/30 2.15s} Nc5 {+3.63/26 2.09s}
89. f3 {-3.00/32 5.11s} exf3 {+4.48/23 2.90s} 90. Kg3 {-3.06/33 3.07s}
Kh5 {+4.80/24 2.21s} 91. Kxf3 {-3.06/36 2.20s} Kxh4 {+5.42/22 3.77s}
92. Nb5 {-3.06/35 6.11s} Kg5 {+5.90/22 2.20s} 93. e4 {-3.26/32 4.55s}
f5 {+7.87/17 1.11s} 94. exf5 {-3.09/27 1.68s}
Kxf5 {+168.23/43 12.00s, Black wins by adjudication: SyzygyTB} 0-1[/pgn]

Hi there, I am not entirely sure what you expect, Clover is one of the top 15 chess engines in the world and is the product of several years of work by a very talented developer who is hellbent on creating the strongest engine possible.

I am not as good at the engine dev business as Luca (the Clover dev), and Patricia has only been in development for a few months. ELO also isn't my biggest priority; I am happy with anything over 3000, so my first priority is increasing aggressiveness and trying to make cool innovations with neural networks, and my second priority is making Patricia customizable so that she can eventually become the perfect sparring partner for humans.

Consider putting Patricia up against weaker competition. The quality of play will still be far above grandmaster games, and the resulting games will be much more exciting than watching a 3600+ engine slowly grind their opponent to a fine powder.

[Whiskers]

My sentiments exactly. Vanilla 3600 SF Elo lookalikes. Patricia 3 is perfect the way it is.

don't get me wrong, I am entirely in agreement that the criticism of patricia was, to put it very charitably, misguided

no need to dismiss a random strong engine out of hand as an "SF lookalike", though

to add to this: Luca (the Clover dev) is my friend, we test on the same OpenBench instance and bounce ideas off of each other. I can attest that his engine is quite original and that there are few at that rating range that are less of a SF lookalike.
I appreciate the defense of me but there is no need to belittle other engines to accomplish it, thank you

[BrendanJNorman]

I think there are still many things that the programmer needs to improve in his program, although the depth during the game is very poor.

I think you were responding to this, instead of Brendan ?

Yes! I was being too narcissistic, assuming everyone can mind read and would realise what was sarcasm and what not and in what directions. Brendan is a long time mate of mine, so he knows it's not directed at him, but, re-reading, I can see potential misinterpretation.

These sorts of self-entitled patronising criticisms and ever so helpful generalised suggestions can very easily be seen as gratuitous *public* attacks which then need rebuttal defences. It's not good, it's not nice, and it's not what the original programmer released his work for. Think a bit about what's about to be said before saying it, and remember you're dealing with an artist who has *given* you his work. Incidentally, a work created for entirely different purposes than the critic has assumed.

Don't worry mate, I got the sarcasm in the first post haha , and it seems I got my overall point across.

And of course, I meant no offense to the Clover developer when I said "SF lookalikes".

This phrasing is in no way calling Clover a clone or derivative or anything like this.

Just that IMO these days 99% of engines above say 3600 have an almost identical playing style and general PV analysis to SF.

As a coach, I do a LOT of opening analysis with engines.

Engines deliberately aimed to achieve good EAS scores (Chess System Tal EAS, Rebel EAS and Patricia etc) and a few others, are more interesting exceptions to this rule.

As well as MCTS stuff like Lc0, Dragon MCTS etc.

[pohl4711]

Patricia 3 plays in the just started Entry-League of the CCC23 Rapid event !

Mention, the chesscom machine is brutally fast (250 Threads = around 15x faster than a 8core Consumer-PC) and 10min+3sec thinking-time, so the engines can think very, very deep. But I did not expect Patricia 3 to make it into the next round, because IMHO Patricia 3 is too weak. But hopefully, Patricia will play some crazy and fascinating games. We will see.

https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship

Read more about the CCC23 Rapid in A.Grants Blog:
https://www.chess.com/blog/AndrewGrantE ... cc23-rapid

[jefk]

BN wrote

Engines deliberately aimed to achieve good EAS scores (Chess System Tal EAS, Rebel EAS and Patricia etc) and a few others, are more interesting

Not only more interesting, it Imo might be to further improve (*) engine chess (thus possibly also at the highest
levels, i.e. SF and two or three others). Note and the ratings of CST-2 and Rebel16.3 are already quite good.
While CST2, Rebel 16.3 (and certainly P3) have lower rating than SF, it wouldn't surprise me if SF could get
some further rating increase with similar methods (networks trained on lots of sharp positions eg. positional
sacrifices as from the Pohl tool etc). Idea: play lots of gambit games (eg. with Cutechess) eg. with my latest
gambit.bin (see below(***)) and subsequently extract the interesting positions with the Pohl tool. Now i'm not
an engine programmer nor a Nnue expert so in practice at highest levels it may be not so easy; key might be
to extract positions with sacrifices attacks etc with a favorable outcome (rather than just 'wild'/speculative
positions, whether the Pohl tool can be tuned for such a purpose, i don't know.

PS1 my latest gambiteer package (with the gambit.bin book included):
https://sourceforge.net/projects/chess-gambiteer/
Note these gambitlines, especially when going deeper eg. move 4/5/6 etc are not cast in iron, with some gambits
(eg. Smith Morra), using P3, i found some interesting new sacrifices (eg. with Nd5!? with still a play pawn on e6) and my
work on this gambitbook isn't finished yet, it's still an ongoing project. As for a separate version of P3 eg. P3-g playing
gambits by itself (without book), well that might be possible but often the compensation after a gambit goes
beyond the engine search, and thus I suspect that such a P3g (similar to P2) would have lower playing strenght (elo)

(*) PS2 some more thoughts:When I think of historical players in the past who played '(ultra) agressively', Nezhmetdinov and Tal come to mind;
but their sacrifices were not always correct. The players Morphy and Kasparov also played 'agressively' but usually more accurately,
less speculative. P3 is even more accurate, and -being able to quickly detect positional -or attacking- sacrifices,
imo has a good style, and already playing strong chess certainly compared with humans (although not at rating level of SF, ofcourse,
for other reasons maybe search related or otherwise). So the idea of using lots of positions with sacrifices etc for NN training (with the Pohl
tools) instead of zillions of drawish positions seems to pay off; while i first regarded P2 as just a curiosity, the new
version (P3) looks promising indeed. Wether this method (of going for 'aggression' will lead to a fundamentally stronger
engine remains to be seen; while it will be difficult to surpass SF in Elo, with similar methods I wouldn't be surprised
if the SF team might be able to add quite some Elo points again; my 2 cnts again. Maybe i should bring it up
in the Discord engine prog channel but like i said i'm not an engine -programming- expert.
(***) there may be other similar methods as well, I just gave an example (which might work, or not)
Ofcourse there's a limit for the SF rating, with chess being fundamentally a draw, so on these CCRL
lists there will be a limit for the top ratings, not exceeding eg. 4000 (or 3900), I predict.