What is Komodo Average rating at Knight odds Vs Humans

[Chessqueen]

Dragon2.6.1 used 7 cores with contempt 100 and won easily against Dragon4.6 with knight odds in the only game that I tried at time control of 15+10.

Of course one game proves nothing but I see no reason to believe that Dragon4.6 is better in these conditions.

I believe that Mr. Kaufman only use 1 core against humans, In the previous game that I posted I also used 1 core for both but I used MCTS and it lost, now I used the standard version which is suppose to be stronger when paired against other engines . This is from game 4 between Komodo Dragon vs GM Finegold up to move 8 at the end of the opening. The T/C is still 15'+10' for both. I do NOT know why in the actual match when playing versus humans Komodo Dragon is listed rated as 3400 when it is playing at Knight Odds it should be listed rated 2426 or 2450. Most viewer kept writing WOW GM Finegold is beating an engine rated 3400. Mr. Kaufman, please for the next Match at Knight Odds list Komodo Dragon 2.6.x with either 2426 or 2450 rating.

[pgn][Event "KnightOdds"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.01.15"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Dragon-2.6.1-64bit-avx2"]
[Black "Dragon 4.6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2405"]
[WhiteElo "2450"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[WhiteType "program"]
[BlackType "program"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. g3 Nc6 7. Nf3 f5 8. Nh4
Qa5+ 9. Bd2 Qb6 10. Qh5+ Kd8 11. O-O-O Qa6 12. Kb1 Nb6 13. Ng6 hxg6 14.
Qxh8 Ke8 15. h4 Bd7 16. h5 Na4 17. h6 gxh6 18. Rxh6 Nxb2 19. Kxb2 Qb6+ 20.
Kc1 Qa6 21. Bc3 Nb4 22. Qg8 Nxa2+ 23. Kd2 Nxc3 24. Rh8 Ke7 25. Rh7+ Kd8 26.
Qf7 Qb5 27. Qxf8+ Kc7 28. Qd6+ Kc8 29. Rh8+ Be8 30. Qxe6+ Kd8 31. Qf6+ Kc8
32. Qxg6 Kc7 33. Qd6+ Kc8 34. Qe7 Qd7 35. Rxe8+ Kc7 36. Qxc5+ Qc6 37. Qxc6+
bxc6 38. Rxa8 Kb7 39. Kxc3 d4+ 40. Kc4 Kxa8 41. Rb1 a6 {Black resigns} *[/pgn]

[Chessqueen]

Dragon2.6.1 used 7 cores with contempt 100 and won easily against Dragon4.6 with knight odds in the only game that I tried at time control of 15+10.

Of course one game proves nothing but I see no reason to believe that Dragon4.6 is better in these conditions.

I believe that Mr. Kaufman only use 1 core against humans, In the previous game that I posted I also used 1 core for both but I used MCTS and it lost, now I used the standard version which is suppose to be stronger when paired against other engines . This is from game 4 between Komodo Dragon vs GM Finegold up to move 8 at the end of the opening. The T/C is still 15'+10' for both. I do NOT know why in the actual match when playing versus humans Komodo Dragon is listed rated as 3400 when it is playing at Knight Odds it should be listed rated 2426 or 2450. Most viewer kept writing WOW GM Finegold is beating an engine rated 3400. Mr. Kaufman, please for the next Match at Knight Odds list Komodo Dragon 2.6.x with either 2426 or 2450 rating. Probably Tang Andrew would be a great Match https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2059630

[pgn][Event "KnightOdds"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.01.15"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Dragon-2.6.1-64bit-avx2"]
[Black "Dragon 4.6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2405"]
[WhiteElo "2450"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[WhiteType "program"]
[BlackType "program"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. g3 Nc6 7. Nf3 f5 8. Nh4
Qa5+ 9. Bd2 Qb6 10. Qh5+ Kd8 11. O-O-O Qa6 12. Kb1 Nb6 13. Ng6 hxg6 14.
Qxh8 Ke8 15. h4 Bd7 16. h5 Na4 17. h6 gxh6 18. Rxh6 Nxb2 19. Kxb2 Qb6+ 20.
Kc1 Qa6 21. Bc3 Nb4 22. Qg8 Nxa2+ 23. Kd2 Nxc3 24. Rh8 Ke7 25. Rh7+ Kd8 26.
Qf7 Qb5 27. Qxf8+ Kc7 28. Qd6+ Kc8 29. Rh8+ Be8 30. Qxe6+ Kd8 31. Qf6+ Kc8
32. Qxg6 Kc7 33. Qd6+ Kc8 34. Qe7 Qd7 35. Rxe8+ Kc7 36. Qxc5+ Qc6 37. Qxc6+
bxc6 38. Rxa8 Kb7 39. Kxc3 d4+ 40. Kc4 Kxa8 41. Rb1 a6 {Black resigns} *[/pgn]

[lkaufman]

Dragon2.6.1 used 7 cores with contempt 100 and won easily against Dragon4.6 with knight odds in the only game that I tried at time control of 15+10.

Of course one game proves nothing but I see no reason to believe that Dragon4.6 is better in these conditions.

I believe that Mr. Kaufman only use 1 core against humans, In the previous game that I posted I also used 1 core for both but I used MCTS and it lost, now I used the standard version which is suppose to be stronger when paired against other engines . This is from game 4 between Komodo Dragon vs GM Finegold up to move 8 at the end of the opening. The T/C is still 15'+10' for both. I do NOT know why in the actual match when playing versus humans Komodo Dragon is listed rated as 3400 when it is playing at Knight Odds it should be listed rated 2426 or 2450. Most viewer kept writing WOW GM Finegold is beating an engine rated 3400. Mr. Kaufman, please for the next Match at Knight Odds list Komodo Dragon 2.6.x with either 2426 or 2450 rating.

[pgn][Event "KnightOdds"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.01.15"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Dragon-2.6.1-64bit-avx2"]
[Black "Dragon 4.6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2405"]
[WhiteElo "2450"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[WhiteType "program"]
[BlackType "program"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. g3 Nc6 7. Nf3 f5 8. Nh4
Qa5+ 9. Bd2 Qb6 10. Qh5+ Kd8 11. O-O-O Qa6 12. Kb1 Nb6 13. Ng6 hxg6 14.
Qxh8 Ke8 15. h4 Bd7 16. h5 Na4 17. h6 gxh6 18. Rxh6 Nxb2 19. Kxb2 Qb6+ 20.
Kc1 Qa6 21. Bc3 Nb4 22. Qg8 Nxa2+ 23. Kd2 Nxc3 24. Rh8 Ke7 25. Rh7+ Kd8 26.
Qf7 Qb5 27. Qxf8+ Kc7 28. Qd6+ Kc8 29. Rh8+ Be8 30. Qxe6+ Kd8 31. Qf6+ Kc8
32. Qxg6 Kc7 33. Qd6+ Kc8 34. Qe7 Qd7 35. Rxe8+ Kc7 36. Qxc5+ Qc6 37. Qxc6+
bxc6 38. Rxa8 Kb7 39. Kxc3 d4+ 40. Kc4 Kxa8 41. Rb1 a6 {Black resigns} *[/pgn]

If Magnus Carlsen played you a game on the internet at knight or rook odds, would they list his rating at 2865 or at something like 2000 or whatever they expected his result to be at the handicap? Surely 2865. If someone asks what his performance rating when giving knight odds, then the lower figure is correct, but if a rating is listed without explanation it should be the real strength of the player.

[Chessqueen]

Dragon2.6.1 used 7 cores with contempt 100 and won easily against Dragon4.6 with knight odds in the only game that I tried at time control of 15+10.

Of course one game proves nothing but I see no reason to believe that Dragon4.6 is better in these conditions.

I believe that Mr. Kaufman only use 1 core against humans, In the previous game that I posted I also used 1 core for both but I used MCTS and it lost, now I used the standard version which is suppose to be stronger when paired against other engines . This is from game 4 between Komodo Dragon vs GM Finegold up to move 8 at the end of the opening. The T/C is still 15'+10' for both. I do NOT know why in the actual match when playing versus humans Komodo Dragon is listed rated as 3400 when it is playing at Knight Odds it should be listed rated 2426 or 2450. Most viewer kept writing WOW GM Finegold is beating an engine rated 3400. Mr. Kaufman, please for the next Match at Knight Odds list Komodo Dragon 2.6.x with either 2426 or 2450 rating.

[pgn][Event "KnightOdds"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.01.15"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Dragon-2.6.1-64bit-avx2"]
[Black "Dragon 4.6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2405"]
[WhiteElo "2450"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[WhiteType "program"]
[BlackType "program"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. g3 Nc6 7. Nf3 f5 8. Nh4
Qa5+ 9. Bd2 Qb6 10. Qh5+ Kd8 11. O-O-O Qa6 12. Kb1 Nb6 13. Ng6 hxg6 14.
Qxh8 Ke8 15. h4 Bd7 16. h5 Na4 17. h6 gxh6 18. Rxh6 Nxb2 19. Kxb2 Qb6+ 20.
Kc1 Qa6 21. Bc3 Nb4 22. Qg8 Nxa2+ 23. Kd2 Nxc3 24. Rh8 Ke7 25. Rh7+ Kd8 26.
Qf7 Qb5 27. Qxf8+ Kc7 28. Qd6+ Kc8 29. Rh8+ Be8 30. Qxe6+ Kd8 31. Qf6+ Kc8
32. Qxg6 Kc7 33. Qd6+ Kc8 34. Qe7 Qd7 35. Rxe8+ Kc7 36. Qxc5+ Qc6 37. Qxc6+
bxc6 38. Rxa8 Kb7 39. Kxc3 d4+ 40. Kc4 Kxa8 41. Rb1 a6 {Black resigns} *[/pgn]

If Magnus Carlsen played you a game on the internet at knight or rook odds, would they list his rating at 2865 or at something like 2000 or whatever they expected his result to be at the handicap? Surely 2865. If someone asks what his performance rating when giving knight odds, then the lower figure is correct, but if a rating is listed without explanation it should be the real strength of the player.

You are definitively correct, but it shoud also give an estimated rating at Knight Odds.

Do you believe that these players are weaker than GM Ben Finegold and more even with Komodo Dragon 2.6.x at Knight Odds

GM Khachiyan, Melikset rated 2446 https://ratings.fide.com/profile/13300512

GM Yermolinsky, Alex rated 2448 https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2005492

GM Fishbein, Alexander rated 2458 https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2000377

[lkaufman]

Dragon2.6.1 used 7 cores with contempt 100 and won easily against Dragon4.6 with knight odds in the only game that I tried at time control of 15+10.

Of course one game proves nothing but I see no reason to believe that Dragon4.6 is better in these conditions.

I believe that Mr. Kaufman only use 1 core against humans, In the previous game that I posted I also used 1 core for both but I used MCTS and it lost, now I used the standard version which is suppose to be stronger when paired against other engines . This is from game 4 between Komodo Dragon vs GM Finegold up to move 8 at the end of the opening. The T/C is still 15'+10' for both. I do NOT know why in the actual match when playing versus humans Komodo Dragon is listed rated as 3400 when it is playing at Knight Odds it should be listed rated 2426 or 2450. Most viewer kept writing WOW GM Finegold is beating an engine rated 3400. Mr. Kaufman, please for the next Match at Knight Odds list Komodo Dragon 2.6.x with either 2426 or 2450 rating.

[pgn][Event "KnightOdds"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.01.15"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Dragon-2.6.1-64bit-avx2"]
[Black "Dragon 4.6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2405"]
[WhiteElo "2450"]
[TimeControl "900+10"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[WhiteType "program"]
[BlackType "program"]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. g3 Nc6 7. Nf3 f5 8. Nh4
Qa5+ 9. Bd2 Qb6 10. Qh5+ Kd8 11. O-O-O Qa6 12. Kb1 Nb6 13. Ng6 hxg6 14.
Qxh8 Ke8 15. h4 Bd7 16. h5 Na4 17. h6 gxh6 18. Rxh6 Nxb2 19. Kxb2 Qb6+ 20.
Kc1 Qa6 21. Bc3 Nb4 22. Qg8 Nxa2+ 23. Kd2 Nxc3 24. Rh8 Ke7 25. Rh7+ Kd8 26.
Qf7 Qb5 27. Qxf8+ Kc7 28. Qd6+ Kc8 29. Rh8+ Be8 30. Qxe6+ Kd8 31. Qf6+ Kc8
32. Qxg6 Kc7 33. Qd6+ Kc8 34. Qe7 Qd7 35. Rxe8+ Kc7 36. Qxc5+ Qc6 37. Qxc6+
bxc6 38. Rxa8 Kb7 39. Kxc3 d4+ 40. Kc4 Kxa8 41. Rb1 a6 {Black resigns} *[/pgn]

If Magnus Carlsen played you a game on the internet at knight or rook odds, would they list his rating at 2865 or at something like 2000 or whatever they expected his result to be at the handicap? Surely 2865. If someone asks what his performance rating when giving knight odds, then the lower figure is correct, but if a rating is listed without explanation it should be the real strength of the player.

You are definitively correct, but it shoud also give an estimated rating at Knight Odds.

Do you believe that these players are weaker than GM Ben Finegold and more even with Komodo Dragon 2.6.x at Knight Odds

GM Khachiyan, Melikset rated 2446 https://ratings.fide.com/profile/13300512

GM Yermolinsky, Alex rated 2448 https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2005492

GM Fishbein, Alexander rated 2458 https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2000377

Ben is probably stronger at blitz with a 2800+ chess.com blitz rating, I don't know if these GMs have chess.com blitz ratings to compare. For Rapid, if you subtract 200 from chess.com blitz and average that number with standard FIDE rating, you should have a good estimate of FIDE standard scale strength at Rapid, I think. So for Ben that would give 2524 estimated FIDE strength in Rapid. In general I'm reluctant to choose older players unless they are clearly still strong in fast chess, as people might say they aren't really GM level in Rapid anymore otherwise.

[lkaufman]

It occurred to me that thirty years ago, the program with the best results against human grandmasters in Rapid was getting performance ratings of roughly the same 2426 figure as I calculated for Dragon. Only difference: thirty years ago the games were played on equal terms, now they are knight handicap! Further curiosity: the engine was Socrates, which just like the original Komodo was a collaboration between Don Dailey and myself, and then as now it couldn't quite match the best program of its day in direct play, but did better against humans!

[Chessqueen]

It occurred to me that thirty years ago, the program with the best results against human grandmasters in Rapid was getting performance ratings of roughly the same 2426 figure as I calculated for Dragon. Only difference: thirty years ago the games were played on equal terms, now they are knight handicap! Further curiosity: the engine was Socrates, which just like the original Komodo was a collaboration between Don Dailey and myself, and then as now it couldn't quite match the best program of its day in direct play, but did better against humans!

I just wonder if your old Socrates can defeat Komodo Dragon 2.6.1 at Knight Odds

[lkaufman]

It occurred to me that thirty years ago, the program with the best results against human grandmasters in Rapid was getting performance ratings of roughly the same 2426 figure as I calculated for Dragon. Only difference: thirty years ago the games were played on equal terms, now they are knight handicap! Further curiosity: the engine was Socrates, which just like the original Komodo was a collaboration between Don Dailey and myself, and then as now it couldn't quite match the best program of its day in direct play, but did better against humans!

I just wonder if your old Socrates can defeat Komodo Dragon 2.6.1 at Knight Odds

Of course Socrates 30 years ago was running on 30 year old hardware, early Pentiums I think. I'm sure that Socrates running on an I7 would get a much higher rating than 2426 in human Rapid, maybe something like 2700 or so I imagine. Even so, I think it would come out behind at knight odds vs. Dragon. Even if they understand the principle of trading pieces when winning, engines don't understand the principle of avoiding tactical complications and unclear variations when winning. At least not normal A/B engines. I did find that it was very hard for Dragon to give knight odds to weakened versions Lc0 that looked at very few nodes; presumably they know that a simple position a piece up is better than a messy one.

[Chessqueen]

It occurred to me that thirty years ago, the program with the best results against human grandmasters in Rapid was getting performance ratings of roughly the same 2426 figure as I calculated for Dragon. Only difference: thirty years ago the games were played on equal terms, now they are knight handicap! Further curiosity: the engine was Socrates, which just like the original Komodo was a collaboration between Don Dailey and myself, and then as now it couldn't quite match the best program of its day in direct play, but did better against humans!

I just wonder if your old Socrates can defeat Komodo Dragon 2.6.1 at Knight Odds

Of course Socrates 30 years ago was running on 30 year old hardware, early Pentiums I think. I'm sure that Socrates running on an I7 would get a much higher rating than 2426 in human Rapid, maybe something like 2700 or so I imagine. Even so, I think it would come out behind at knight odds vs. Dragon. Even if they understand the principle of trading pieces when winning, engines don't understand the principle of avoiding tactical complications and unclear variations when winning. At least not normal A/B engines. I did find that it was very hard for Dragon to give knight odds to weakened versions Lc0 that looked at very few nodes; presumably they know that a simple position a piece up is better than a messy one.

Probably if you remember which version of Socrates that was somebody will have a version and test them out, another thing is that a human rated 2426 back in 1992 is only about a 2350 nowadays in comparison, so that might make up for the hardware difference

[lkaufman]

It occurred to me that thirty years ago, the program with the best results against human grandmasters in Rapid was getting performance ratings of roughly the same 2426 figure as I calculated for Dragon. Only difference: thirty years ago the games were played on equal terms, now they are knight handicap! Further curiosity: the engine was Socrates, which just like the original Komodo was a collaboration between Don Dailey and myself, and then as now it couldn't quite match the best program of its day in direct play, but did better against humans!

I just wonder if your old Socrates can defeat Komodo Dragon 2.6.1 at Knight Odds

Of course Socrates 30 years ago was running on 30 year old hardware, early Pentiums I think. I'm sure that Socrates running on an I7 would get a much higher rating than 2426 in human Rapid, maybe something like 2700 or so I imagine. Even so, I think it would come out behind at knight odds vs. Dragon. Even if they understand the principle of trading pieces when winning, engines don't understand the principle of avoiding tactical complications and unclear variations when winning. At least not normal A/B engines. I did find that it was very hard for Dragon to give knight odds to weakened versions Lc0 that looked at very few nodes; presumably they know that a simple position a piece up is better than a messy one.

Probably if you remember which version of Socrates that was somebody will have a version and test them out, another thing is that a human rated 2426 back in 1992 is only about a 2350 nowadays in comparison, so that might make up for the hardware difference

Even if the drop in elo levels is 100, as I believe from the data I've seen, the hardware advance over the last 30 years is far more than that. I don't remember the specific version of Socrates, but if anyone has "Kasparov's Gambit", which was based on Socrates around that time, that should be close enough.