kingliveson wrote:M ANSARI wrote:And what agenda would that be? If it is to note that all the Ippolit based engines are derived from Rybka 3 and not an original work, then you are of course correct. I would hardly say that finding the truth is "an agenda".
With regards to hardware, I was using Skulltrail at 4 Ghz which has 8 cores and RL g3. The point of using Ponder ON was to increase time and thus remove time as a factor in the engine's play. For me I am more interested in evaluation advantages. I don't think that engines would be fighting for resources as they would have each been using 1 core only and there would be 6 cores spare. Again there could be a bug with RL g3 ponder ON that makes it play weaker, but looking at the games I couldn't see any such behavior. There was around 1% or 2% of RL games that were lost due to time, but most of those were in lost positions. I disregard such games and play additional games to cover for them as there is a possibility that instability in the engine before the time loss.
By the way Franklin you seem to come off as one real ass hole. I would be very happy to discuss with you my findings in an adult productive way. You seem to be unable to do that ... maybe you have an "agenda". I have done my tests and I am convinced. I might be wrong in my conclusion and my data might not be enough to convince you, and there is nothing I can do about that. But it would be nice if you would also do some testing and give some meaningful data output instead of simply dismissing everything as one side or the other.
This is funny, what else can I say?! I love this place. Ok, on a serious note, you never present anything to back up your claims.
1) You say one engine is a derivative work, but you don't have any supporting evidence. Take a
look at what people think about your god Rybka.
2) When ever I make a statement, I provide concrete data to support what I have said. Go through these forum--I post results as well as the actual games that people can download and anylyze.
CONCRETE DATA.
3) You refuse to provide any data to support your claims, whether it be the derivative issue or the strength of a particular engine. You made the claim (
here) that given a position, you have yet to see where these 2 engines do not agree. So I gave you a postion ( 8/3N4/8/8/1pp5/brpp3p/qpprp2P/1nkbK3 w - - 0 1 ) to analyze with both engines and report back, and we continue to wait... Please do this and tell us your findings.
Accusations without evidence or unwillingness to provide one is called gossip, propaganda, fabrication, falsehood, fiction, hearsay, hoax, innuendo, lie, tale, belittlement, character assassination, cheap shot, denigration, mud, slime, slur, smear, vilification, etc. This is why I say you have an agenda. And why are you so angry?
You send me a position that Rybka 3 might have a bug or maybe RL has has a bug and you give that as DATA ??? But since you insist I get R3 sees mate in 4 and so does ZM II but RL thinks it is mate in 12 and takes a longer time. Actually I have seen Rybka also stick to the first mate it sees and not the shortest mate .... so ???? I am sorry but that is beyond pathetic. I can show you some even simpler bugs that R3 suffers from that were fixed and for sure there will be bugs in RL that need to be fixed. After all I don't think anyone said that R3 and RL are identical programs. Do you even know how to move chess pieces? Do you ever look at a chess game and analyse it and look for where one engine went wrong. I think I am one of the very few who will actually go into the games played in their tourneys and try to get information from them. It might be weird but I actually enjoy that. I have looked at and analysed several thousand R3 games and I feel I know where it is weak. R3 can devastate any engine on earth but yet can look feeble in some positions. I am not talking about some simple bug ... I am talking about poor evaluation. There are 3 main things that I can point out that are very obviously poor evaluation scenarios in R3 ... and R3 can get CRUSHED due to these poor evaluation scenarios even if it is on 8 cores and the other engine is on 1 core. THE SAME EXACT 3 weaknesses are there in RL or any of IPP derivatives. I will not post what these weaknesses are because I think that is not fair to Vas ... the original author. But it is no secret that I made a huge post about R3 bishop pair weakness, I see you have only 200 posts so you probably were not here when I posted it some time back. RL has the same incorrect evaluation of bishop pair and will get CRUSHED convincingly by an engine more than 250 ELO weaker than it the same way R3 gets crushed. This will most likely be "fixed" very quickly with new versions of the clone as evaluation parameters are tuned, but the cloners will find that actually tuning evaluation is not so simple. Fixing bugs is simple, but tuning evaluation is tremendously difficult.
First I recommend you look at the post I made about a year ago
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... ishop+pair
And then I would recommend you look at the following game played by RL on 1 core against N4 on 1 core and tell me what you think. I am hoping that you understand a little about chess otherwise you will not have a clue what I am talking about. Please run your engine and check the evaluation scores just in case you think I am making this up because of the "agenda" issue.
[Event "RLg3_Naum4_1_core_5_2"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2010.01.10"]
[Round "4.1"]
[White "Naum 4_1 thread"]
[Black "RobboLito 0.085g3 x64"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A87"]
[Annotator "0.44;0.24"]
[PlyCount "159"]
[EventDate "2010.01.10"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[TimeControl "300+2"]
{Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Extreme CPU X9775 @ 3.20GHz W=14.7 plies; 1,294kN/s;
Perfect v12.ctg B=17.9 plies; 2,217kN/s; Perfect v12.ctg} 1. d4 {B 0} f5 {B 0}
2. g3 {B 0} Nf6 {B 0} 3. Bg2 {B 0} g6 {B 0} 4. Nf3 {B 0} Bg7 {B 0} 5. O-O {B 0}
O-O {B 0} 6. c4 {B 0} d6 {B 0} 7. Nc3 {B 0} Qe8 {B 0} 8. d5 {B 0} a5 {B 0} 9.
Ne1 {B 0} e6 {0.24/16 14} 10. Nd3 {0.44/15 10 (Be3)} e5 {0.17/18 9 (Na6)} 11.
f3 {0.30/15 14} Na6 {0.14/17 3} 12. e4 {0.28/16 13} fxe4 {0.20/18 20} 13. Nxe4
{0.25/16 10 (fxe4)} b5 {0.11/17 25 (Bd7)} 14. Qb3 {0.16/15 11 (b3)} Bd7 {-0.16/
18 22 (Nb4)} 15. cxb5 {0.00/15 12} a4 {-0.16/18 6} 16. Nxf6+ {0.00/16 10} Rxf6
{-0.17/18 12} 17. Qc2 {0.00/16 33} Bxb5 {-0.17/16 0} 18. Re1 {-0.05/16 7 (Be3)}
Rf8 {-0.26/17 6} 19. Be3 {-0.16/17 29} Qf7 {-0.14/18 9 (Rb8)} 20. Rad1 {-0.02/
16 9} Rab8 {-0.23/17 9} 21. b3 {-0.09/15 5 (a3)} axb3 {-0.46/20 9} 22. axb3 {
-0.20/16 8} Qf5 {-0.44/19 3} 23. Qb1 {-0.19/16 10 (Bf2)} Rf7 {-0.45/17 17} 24.
Rd2 {-0.23/17 17} Bc4 {-0.43/17 3 (c5)} 25. bxc4 {0.06/15 4} Rxb1 {-0.43/15 0}
26. Rxb1 {0.06/6 0} Rf8 {-0.41/20 22} 27. Ra1 {0.05/17 7} Nb8 {-0.43/20 33
(Qc8)} 28. Ra7 {0.04/16 9} Bf6 {-0.35/20 8 (c6)} 29. g4 {0.10/15 4} Bg5 {-0.35/
19 13} 30. f4 {0.11/15 2 (gxf5)} Bxf4 {-0.49/18 4} 31. Bxf4 {0.14/16 4} Qxg4 {
-0.49/17 0} 32. h3 {0.13/16 3 (Be3)} Qh4 {-0.65/18 2} 33. Be3 {0.13/17 5} Qxc4
{-0.65/17 0} 34. Ra1 {0.13/17 7 (Raa2)} Na6 {-0.73/19 7} 35. Re1 {0.14/17 13
(Rc1)} Kg7 {-0.73/18 10 (Qa4)} 36. Rc1 {0.19/16 3} Qb3 {-0.73/18 4} 37. Be4 {
0.16/16 3 (Rc6)} Qa4 {-0.63/17 8} 38. Re2 {0.15/17 7} Rc8 {-0.59/17 11 (Rb8)}
39. Kh2 {0.29/14 7} Rb8 {-0.46/17 11} 40. Bg5 {0.29/15 3 (Bd2)} Rb3 {-0.53/17
7 (Rf8)} 41. Rf1 {0.36/15 3 (Rc6)} Nb4 {-0.31/17 7 (Rb8)} 42. Nxb4 {0.44/15 3}
Rxb4 {0.00/19 6} 43. Bg2 {0.46/16 7 (Ref2)} h6 {-0.63/18 3} 44. Bd2 {0.40/17 9
(Bd8)} Rb3 {0.07/19 22} 45. Ref2 {0.40/16 2 (Rc1)} Qd7 {0.00/17 3} 46. Rc1 {0.
39/16 4 (Rf6)} Ra3 {-0.36/18 4 (g5)} 47. Bb4 {0.44/16 2 (Rc6)} Ra7 {-0.28/18 4
(Ra4)} 48. Rc6 {0.42/15 4 (Rfc2)} Kh8 {-0.35/17 5 (Qd8)} 49. Be4 {0.58/16 5
(Be1)} Qg7 {-0.22/17 4 (Kg7)} 50. Rc4 {0.84/15 8} Ra4 {0.00/18 5 (Ra1)} 51. Bc2
{0.84/15 2} Ra1 {0.00/18 5 (Ra8)} 52. h4 {0.96/15 3 (Rg2)} h5 {0.00/19 3 (Ra2)}
53. Bd2 {1.08/14 5} Ra3 {0.46/20 13} 54. Bc1 {1.16/15 2} Ra8 {0.40/19 4} 55.
Be4 {1.31/15 8} Rf8 {0.46/20 3 (Qg8)} 56. Rfc2 {1.11/15 4 (Rg2)} Rf7 {0.34/19 2
} 57. Bg5 {1.27/14 3 (Rg2)} Kg8 {0.37/19 2 (Qf8)} 58. Rg2 {1.38/17 5 (Kg3)} Kh8
{0.45/19 2} 59. Rb4 {1.39/16 3 (Rcc2)} Rf8 {0.65/18 5 (Qg8)} 60. Be3 {1.44/16
3 (Rb3)} Rf6 {0.89/17 3} 61. Rb8+ {1.45/17 3} Rf8 {0.89/16 0} 62. Rbb2 {1.45/
17 1} Rf6 {1.25/18 6} 63. Rg5 {1.85/16 3} Kg8 {1.05/19 3} 64. Rbg2 {2.13/16 3
(Rb8+)} Kf7 {1.21/20 2} 65. R5g3 {2.33/15 2 (Bd2)} Qg8 {2.00/16 2} 66. Bg5 {2.
96/14 2} Rf1 {3.71/17 3} 67. Bh6 {3.25/14 1} Rf6 {1.98/15 0} 68. Rc3 {3.48/16 2
} Qb8 {6.39/16 4} 69. Rgc2 {4.02/15 2 (Bxg6+)} c5 {4.39/17 3 (Kg8)} 70. dxc6 {
5.20/14 3} Qc7 {4.39/15 0} 71. Bd5+ {6.48/13 2 (Bg5)} Ke8 {6.44/17 2} 72. Ra2 {
6.94/14 4 (Bg5)} Qc8 {10.42/16 3} 73. Bg5 {8.42/14 3} Rf1 {7.29/17 3 (Rf5)} 74.
Rca3 {#15/12 5 (c7)} Rb1 {#10/18 2 (Kf8)} 75. Rf2 {#9/13 0} Rb2 {#9/19 2 (Rb4)}
76. Rxb2 {#6/3 0 (Bf7+)} Kf8 {#4/22 2 (e4)} 77. Ra7 {#4/3 0 (Rb7)} e4 {#3/20 2}
78. Bh6+ {#3/3 0} Ke8 {#2/21 1} 79. Bf7+ {#2/3 0} Kd8 {#1/21 1} 80. Bg5# {#1/3
0} 1-0
