Benjamin 1.1 for the GRL

[lkaufman]

The 4 matches I played :

1997 - Rebel9 - Arthur Yusopov, on that moment rated 10th on the FIDE rating list
1998 - Rebel10 - Vishy Anand, second place FIDE rating list
2001 - Rebel Century - GM John van der Wiel who never lost a game to a computer.
2002 - Rebel Century 4 - GM Loek van Wely, at the time rated 2700+

The 2001 and 2002 matches the time control was 40 moves in 2 hours, shorter time controls were no longer an issue.

Regarding your questions -

1. What was the hardware in that match (how many cores, what speed?)
2. Is the RebelCentury UCI engine pretty close to the one that played Anand? If it is improved, how much?
3. I see a RebelCentury 3 and 4 in the SSDF list. Which one (if either) is the UCI version?

All 4 programs were DOS, hardware, NPS, TC etc. is listed in the 4 links.

4. How different is Benjamin 1.1 from RebelCentury UCI, aside from the gambit style? I can look at rating lists, I'm just asking if it is substantially different or just modestly, and if the search is substantially modernized or fairly similar?

After the 2002 match I retired and lost interest, only so now and then did something minor. I became interested in comp-chess again after the crazy ICGA verdict in 2011. Even started to improve the engine, not so much to compete, but to understand the latests inventions. ProDeo still is and will always remain an old school 32-bit assembler engine, the idea to change it into a modern competitive engine died in 2002, my grand children and other things became more important. Being blackmailed by a 4 year old little lady with big eyes and curly hair for a new doll gives ultimate pleasure. I am drifting away, coming to your question, CCRL tested the UCI version of Rebel Century (rated 2542) that played Loek van Wely. Nowadays ProDeo is ~2800, so with limited effort it's substantially stronger, not similar any longer and not modernized.

5. Any other data that would suggest how RebelCentury UCI would perform against top human players on a modern i7, either at Classical time limit or Rapid?I realize it's been more than two decades since RebelCentury was written and competed, so I'll certainly understand if you can't remember details.

Faster hardware certainly would have avoided throwing away a won position against Anand on classical tournament time control ending in just a draw. While Deep Blue got all the credit beating Kasparov in 1997, one year later a PC program showed all the signs it was capable also, not so many years later confirmed by Fritz vs Kramnik and Junior vs Kasparov.

Thanks, Ed. This is quite helpful. My analysis of the data suggests that RebelCentury would be a good anchor engine for a rating list that claims to correspond to human FIDE ratings. I would estimate from the data that RebelCentury running on an I-7 (say the reference hardware of CCRL) playing matches against current human GMS would perform about 2700 FIDE at Classical time limit, 2800 FIDE at Rapid (15' + 10"), and perhaps 2950 at blitz (3' + 2"). At 2' + 1" (which is technically bullet chess) it would probably be 3000. If these seem a bit low, I'm allowing for some rating deflation in recent years (Carlsen only player over 2800 now despite general increase in playing strength), much more experience for GMs in Rapid play online, and much more familiarity with engines compared to twenty years ago. I'm using this partly as a guide for Dragon Skill levels.

I think your estimations are pretty good. But if we take a good look at the 2 tournament games Rebel 10 played against Anand one year after the famous victory of Deep Blue over Kasparov in 1997 one may conclude PC programs (Rebel 10 in this case) were very near and did not need 200 million NPS but only a NPS of 200,000-250,000 (a factor 800 less) to put a player like Anand into big trouble.

First game

[pgn][Event "game-7 (40/2:00 all 1:00)"]
[Site "8 game match"]
[Date "1998.07.22"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Anand,V"]
[Black "Rebel10 (exp)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2795"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[ECO "D07"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. e3 e5 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Nc3 exd4 6. Nxd5 Nf6 7. Qb3 Bxf3
8. gxf3 Rb8 9. Bd2 Bd6 10. O-O-O O-O 11. Kb1 Nxd5 12. cxd5 Ne5 13. Be2
Re8 14. h4 c5 15. f4 Nd7 16. Bf3 b5 17. Qd3 Qf6 18. Bc1 dxe3 19. fxe3 c4
20. Qc2 Nc5 21. h5 Nd3 22. Rxd3 cxd3 23. Qxd3 Rec8 24. Bd2 b4 25. Be4 Qh6
26. Bg2 Rc7 27. Rf1 b3 28. e4 bxa2+ 29. Ka1 Rcb7 30. Bc1 Bc5 31. e5 Rb3
32. Qc2 Bd4 33. d6 Bxb2+ 34. Bxb2 Rxb2 35. Qxb2 Rxb2 36. Kxb2 g5 37. Bf3
gxf4 38. Rd1 Qe6 39. d7 Qxe5+ 40. Kxa2 Qa5+ 1/2-1/2[/pgn]
The position after 33.d6 black is won for black. I was much surprised. Instead of playing 33..Qe6 Rebel went for the drawish endgame exchange with 33..Bxb2+? One iteration deeper and Rebel 10 would have seen the winning 33..Qe6.

Second game

[pgn][Event "game-8 (40/2:00 all 1:00)"]
[Site "8 game match"]
[Date "1998.07.23"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Rebel10 (exp)"]
[Black "Anand,V"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "2795"]
[ECO "E12"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3 Bb7 5. Nc3 d5 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Qc2 Nxc3
8. bxc3 Nd7 9. e4 c5 10. Bf4 Qc8 11. Bb5 a6 12. Bxd7+ Qxd7 13. Ne5 Qc8
14. Qd3 b5 15. Qf3 Bd6 16. Nxf7 Bxf4 17. Nxh8 Qc7 18. Qh5+ g6 19. Nxg6
hxg6 20. Qxg6+ Qf7 21. Qxf7+ Kxf7 22. g3 Bh6 23. f3 cxd4 24. cxd4 Rc8 25.
h4 Rc2 26. g4 Be3 27. h5 Kg7 28. Rd1 a5 29. d5 exd5 30. Rh3 b4 31. axb4
axb4 32. f4 Bf2+ 33. Kf1 Bc5 34. Ke1 d4 35. e5 Rc3 36. Rh2 b3 37. h6+ Kh7
38. Rb2 0-1[/pgn]
After 17 moves Anand already is in trouble, then Rebel went wrong with 18.Qh5+ and blew its material advantage in the ending. 18. g3 or 18. 0-0 would have given Rebel 10 good chances on a victory, a draw at least.

It was surprising to see an 1998 engine doing only 200,000-250,000 NPS causing the world number 2 after Kasparov with a rating of 2795 so much trouble on the last bastion (40/2:00 all 1:00), a sign the end of the human domination over comps was inevitable in the near future.

A new article in ChessBase (https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-elo-r ... -deflation) implies by graphs that players in the IM/GM range play as well today as players with 100 elo more did 20 years ago, based on error rates from Stockfish. So we can now quantify rating deflation. This happens to roughly correspond to the elo gain in chess engines at classical time controls due to single-thread hardware speedup (at least on CCRL reference i7, not the latest) since about 2002. So this means that a single-thread engine from 2002 should earn about the same FIDE rating today in classical chess on the CCRL i7 as it earned in 2002 on the best hardware of that time. Since RebelCentury made an even score against Loek van Wely in classical chess in 2002, who was rated slightly over 2700 then, it should earn a bit over 2700 today on the CCRL reference hardware. That is very useful for setting the levels of the rating lists, and happens to agree with my estimate.

[Rebel]

I don't know Larry, FIDE itself constantly are changing the elo formula.

What I never understood is why old top players like Kasparov with 2812 is not listed in the top-100, Fischer can not even be found any longer, Karpov listed with 2617 elo ??

[lkaufman]

I don't know Larry, FIDE itself constantly are changing the elo formula.

What I never understood is why old top players like Kasparov with 2812 is not listed in the top-100, Fischer can not even be found any longer, Karpov listed with 2617 elo ??

It is not an all-time top-100 list, there is some requirement for activity within the past x years (not sure of the number), so deceased players and those who haven't played for many years won't be on that list. Kasparov hasn't played a rated standard time limit game since 2004. Karpov has played off and on, dropping to 2620 in 2010 and to 2613 in 2019. Given both old age and rating deflation, that seems about right for him now. I don't see any mystery here that needs an explanation. FIDE doesn't really change the elo formula, just the K factor that affects how quickly players move towards their performance ratings, but it has continually dropped the minimum rating, which is the cause of the 100 point deflation we are talking about.

[Rebel]

I don't know Larry, FIDE itself constantly are changing the elo formula.

What I never understood is why old top players like Kasparov with 2812 is not listed in the top-100, Fischer can not even be found any longer, Karpov listed with 2617 elo ??

It is not an all-time top-100 list, there is some requirement for activity within the past x years (not sure of the number), so deceased players and those who haven't played for many years won't be on that list. Kasparov hasn't played a rated standard time limit game since 2004. Karpov has played off and on, dropping to 2620 in 2010 and to 2613 in 2019. Given both old age and rating deflation, that seems about right for him now. I don't see any mystery here that needs an explanation. FIDE doesn't really change the elo formula, just the K factor that affects how quickly players move towards their performance ratings, but it has continually dropped the minimum rating, which is the cause of the 100 point deflation we are talking about.

Comp chess rating lists keep their oldies.

[lkaufman]

I don't know Larry, FIDE itself constantly are changing the elo formula.

What I never understood is why old top players like Kasparov with 2812 is not listed in the top-100, Fischer can not even be found any longer, Karpov listed with 2617 elo ??

It is not an all-time top-100 list, there is some requirement for activity within the past x years (not sure of the number), so deceased players and those who haven't played for many years won't be on that list. Kasparov hasn't played a rated standard time limit game since 2004. Karpov has played off and on, dropping to 2620 in 2010 and to 2613 in 2019. Given both old age and rating deflation, that seems about right for him now. I don't see any mystery here that needs an explanation. FIDE doesn't really change the elo formula, just the K factor that affects how quickly players move towards their performance ratings, but it has continually dropped the minimum rating, which is the cause of the 100 point deflation we are talking about.

Comp chess rating lists keep their oldies.

That's the difference between humans and engines. Old engines don't get weaker if they aren't used for years or become elderly, humans do. So a current best list of engines can include oldies, but a list that claims to report current playing strength can't include retired or deceased humans.

[Rebel]

I don't know Larry, FIDE itself constantly are changing the elo formula.

What I never understood is why old top players like Kasparov with 2812 is not listed in the top-100, Fischer can not even be found any longer, Karpov listed with 2617 elo ??

It is not an all-time top-100 list, there is some requirement for activity within the past x years (not sure of the number), so deceased players and those who haven't played for many years won't be on that list. Kasparov hasn't played a rated standard time limit game since 2004. Karpov has played off and on, dropping to 2620 in 2010 and to 2613 in 2019. Given both old age and rating deflation, that seems about right for him now. I don't see any mystery here that needs an explanation. FIDE doesn't really change the elo formula, just the K factor that affects how quickly players move towards their performance ratings, but it has continually dropped the minimum rating, which is the cause of the 100 point deflation we are talking about.

Comp chess rating lists keep their oldies.

That's the difference between humans and engines. Old engines don't get weaker if they aren't used for years or become elderly, humans do. So a current best list of engines can include oldies, but a list that claims to report current playing strength can't include retired or deceased humans.

Usain Bolt doesn't run any longer, his world record of 9.58 seconds still stands.

[lkaufman]

I don't know Larry, FIDE itself constantly are changing the elo formula.

What I never understood is why old top players like Kasparov with 2812 is not listed in the top-100, Fischer can not even be found any longer, Karpov listed with 2617 elo ??

It is not an all-time top-100 list, there is some requirement for activity within the past x years (not sure of the number), so deceased players and those who haven't played for many years won't be on that list. Kasparov hasn't played a rated standard time limit game since 2004. Karpov has played off and on, dropping to 2620 in 2010 and to 2613 in 2019. Given both old age and rating deflation, that seems about right for him now. I don't see any mystery here that needs an explanation. FIDE doesn't really change the elo formula, just the K factor that affects how quickly players move towards their performance ratings, but it has continually dropped the minimum rating, which is the cause of the 100 point deflation we are talking about.

Comp chess rating lists keep their oldies.

That's the difference between humans and engines. Old engines don't get weaker if they aren't used for years or become elderly, humans do. So a current best list of engines can include oldies, but a list that claims to report current playing strength can't include retired or deceased humans.

Usain Bolt doesn't run any longer, his world record of 9.58 seconds still stands.

If you want to see list of the all-time best peak FIDE ratings (as opposed to current ratings), go to https://2700chess.com/. Carlsen, Kasparov, and Caruana are the top 3; Karpov and Fischer are 19 and 20. But ratings are relative to the other players, whereas time on a race is absolute, so it's not quite the same. The results of the move-matching vs. SF tests show that in terms of actual quality of play, Kasparov wouldn't even make top 20, and Karpov and Fischer wouldn't even make top 100 now. That's not to say they were less talented, it's just a whole new world now, where it is so vastly easier to become a strong player. Fischer's achievements were much more impressive than Wesley So or MVL for example, but they play better quality chess than Fischer did. Since this forum is about computer chess, it is the actual quality of the players' play that is relevant for engine comparisons, not their rating relative to their peers.

[carldaman]

Is it completely fair to compare Fischer and top modern players that way?

Fischer always played for a win, suggesting an extra layer of risk-taking in order to achieve those wins, whereas today's SuperGMs are often all too happy to draw each other by playing too safely.

Playing risky chess would make one appear to be playing less accurately, and suggest weakness that may not necessarily be there.

[lkaufman]

Is it completely fair to compare Fischer and top modern players that way?

Fischer always played for a win, suggesting an extra layer of risk-taking in order to achieve those wins, whereas today's SuperGMs are often all too happy to draw each other by playing too safely.

Playing risky chess would make one appear to be playing less accurately, and suggest weakness that may not necessarily be there.

Well, that is a valid point, although Fischer didn't always go all-out for the win in the title match with Spassky, and I think it is fair to say that Carlsen also usually goes all-out to win except in special circumstances (when a draw is likely to get him tournament or match victory). But my main point is that the error rate of typical strong grandmasters rated say 2600 in Fischer's time is roughly like the error rate of GMs rated 2500 today, so without looking at error rates of particular players we can estimate that whatever rating Fischer or any other strong GM had in the 1970 to 2003 period (before the rating deflation which was triggered by the lowered floor in 2003), you need to subtract 100 from it to say what the same level of play would likely earn today. So Fischer and Karpov would both probably fall short (slightly) of 2700 today if they didn't play any better than in their prime. This gives Fischer the full benefit of risk-taking, which gave him such an astronomical rating (for his time). My own peak FIDE rating of 2445 (in the 1980s and 1990s) would only give me 2335 FIDE today, so it's not surprising that at age 73 I've fallen below 2200. But if I were age 30 now and devoted full time to chess, I would expect to get much higher than the 2445 peak I actually got. It's just much easier to improve now.

[lkaufman]

I have come to the conclusion that Benjamin 1.1 is perhaps the best substitute for Magnus Carlsen, both playing at a standard time control like 40/2 hours or 2 hours plus one minute, for any tests one might want to make, on an average I7. I concluded above that Rebel Century would earn a bit over 2700 fide under those conditions. Benjamin 1.1 is 183 elo higher on ccrl blitz, but elo gains contract with more time and vs humans, so it would probably gain perhaps 2/3 of this, which puts it close to 2850, Carlsen’s appr. Rating. Why not use a similarly rated new engine? It might be much better or worse vs humans, but Benjamin is an improvement of Rebel century so likely similarly improved vs any opponent.