Rebel 16.2: Impressive!

[peter]

The game is a beauty.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but winning a game only by opponent*s blunder out of a till then already lost position, I don't see the great achievement of. Winning by gaining advantage of one's own during game looks differently to me, regards

[Eelco de Groot]

Do you remember that game of CS Tal you posted in Selective Search, back in the 1990s? It beat Genius by putting its king on e2 and doing a (for then) unusual king-side attack?

Sorry, not. I didn't pay much attention to that and had zero control over what got posted in it. Maybe the game that Thorsten occasionally re-posts(?), was it an ICGA tournament where CSTal sacced the exchange, but I don't recollect anything specific about a king on e2.

I'm sure you'll remember it. The interview was called "The looking glass paradigm". Here's the game:

White: CS Tal
Black: Chess Genius 2
Christmas 1994

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 Bxg5 7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nf3 Qd8 9. Bd3 h6 10. Qd2 c5? 11. Nb5! O-O? 12. Rxh6! a6 13. Bh7+ Kh8 14. Rh5 axb5 15. Ke2! Nf6 16. exf6 Qxf6 17. Rah1 g6 18. Bxg6+ Kg8 19. Rh8+ Qxh8 20. Rxh8+ Kg7 21. Rh7+ Kxg6 22. Qh6+ 1-0

http://www.chesscomputeruk.com/SS_55.pdf

I happened on a post by an Eric hallsworth last December, I have seen that name before I thought. So Eric is still here, almost thirty years later after this issue of Selective Search, well on Open-chess he was: https://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.ph ... 454#p26366

[Ajedrecista]

Hello Chris:

Do you remember that game of CS Tal you posted in Selective Search, back in the 1990s? It beat Genius by putting its king on e2 and doing a (for then) unusual king-side attack?

Sorry, not. I didn't pay much attention to that and had zero control over what got posted in it. Maybe the game that Thorsten occasionally re-posts(?), was it an ICGA tournament where CSTal sacced the exchange, but I don't recollect anything specific about a king on e2.

I'm sure you'll remember it. The interview was called "The looking glass paradigm". Here's the game:

White: CS Tal
Black: Chess Genius 2
Christmas 1994

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 Bxg5 7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nf3 Qd8 9. Bd3 h6 10. Qd2 c5? 11. Nb5! O-O? 12. Rxh6! a6 13. Bh7+ Kh8 14. Rh5 axb5 15. Ke2! Nf6 16. exf6 Qxf6 17. Rah1 g6 18. Bxg6+ Kg8 19. Rh8+ Qxh8 20. Rxh8+ Kg7 21. Rh7+ Kxg6 22. Qh6+ 1-0

I can vaguely remember the article, but not the game, probably Alzheimers or something. Yes, those sorts of king attacks were beyond the technology of the time, and a major big deal once got to work. I remember being endlessly put down because if it didn't win then it was useless, etc, etc. Also chess is tactics (they said), search was going to solve everything, all that counted was winning, etc. etc.

The game (1 minute/move) and the article can be found from page 17 onwards of Computer Chess NEWS SHEET 55 (Dec 1994-Jan 1995):

http://www.chesscomputeruk.com/SS_55.pdf

P.S.: Eelco won the race.

Regards from Spain.

Ajedrecista.

[chrisw]

The game is a beauty.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but winning a game only by opponent*s blunder out of a till then already lost position, I don't see the great achievement of. Winning by gaining advantage of one's own during game looks differently to me, regards

Overlooking that the opponent has to be played into positions where she starts making mistakes. I don't take it very well that you are trying hard to imply that my work is just a random engine doing nothing special and just taking advantage of random blunders. Did I offend you sometime in the past or something, because your "glass half-empty" negativity seems to be protesting a bit too much for some random internet guy to be insisting on. Anyway, not my job to please everybody. Have a nice day.

[peter]

The game is a beauty.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but winning a game only by opponent*s blunder out of a till then already lost position, I don't see the great achievement of. Winning by gaining advantage of one's own during game looks differently to me, regards

Overlooking that the opponent has to be played into positions where she starts making mistakes. I don't take it very well that you are trying hard to imply that my work is just a random engine doing nothing special and just taking advantage of random blunders. Did I offend you sometime in the past or something, because your "glass half-empty" negativity seems to be protesting a bit too much for some random internet guy to be insisting on. Anyway, not my job to please everybody. Have a nice day.

I don't see an opponent being played into positions where it starts making mistakes, I see the opponent blunder out of an already won position. I'm not trying anything hard, not at all to diminish your work. I'm not offended, neither am I a random internet guy, and I can just hope you're not offended neither, just because somebody doesn't see a game being as good an example as you do, of whatever you want to show with, regards

[Rebel]

The game is a beauty.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but winning a game only by opponent*s blunder out of a till then already lost position, I don't see the great achievement of. Winning by gaining advantage of one's own during game looks differently to me, regards

In the game SF13 (the no.1 engine of ~2 years ago) is completely out-searched by CSTAL, just compare the scores, as an experience tester I expected you to recognize that. Now I am sooooo disappointed

[mclane]

Code: Select all

 Dynamic knowledge v. Combinational knowledge
============================================

Oxford Softworks CCS2-v9.0
White: CCS2 486/33
Black: Genius2 486/33
Venue: 1 minute per move
Comment: 1-0

1.  e4  e6
2.  d4  d5 1
3.  Nc3   Nf6 3
4.  Bg5   Be7 5
5.  e5  Nfd7 8
6.  h4  Bxg5
7.  hxg5  { CCS2's opening book ends }
    ....  Qxg5
8.  Nf3   Qd8  { Genius2's opening book ends }
9.  Bd3   h6
10. Qd2   { CCS2's dynamic knowledge - preventing O-O because
    of the threat of Rxh6 }
    ....  c5
11. Nb5   O-O  { Catastrophic - any reasonable club player can
see this move is a disaster, but Genius2 has no
dynamic knowledge, there is no immediate mate so Genius2
thinks all is ok ! }
12. Rxh6  { CCS2 needs only a few seconds thought to find this move }

  bR  bN  bB  bQ  --  bR  bK  --
  bP  bP  --  bN  --  bP  bP  --
  --  --  --  --  bP  --  --  wR
  --  wN  bP  bP  wP  --  --  --
  --  --  --  wP  --  --  --  --
  --  --  --  wB  --  wN  --  --
  wP  wP  wP  wQ  --  wP  wP  --
  wR  --  --  --  wK  --  --  --

    ....  a6   { Incredibly, Genius2 thinks the position is even ! }
13. Bh7+  Kh8
14. Rh5   axb5 { Genius2 still thinks this game is drawn ! }
15. Ke2   { CCS2 finds the killer move .... }
    ....  Nf6  { Genius2 begins to see the trouble now ... }
16. exf6  Qxf6
17. Rah1  g6
18. Bxg6+ Kg8
19. Rh8+  Qxh8
20. Rxh8+ Kg7
21. Rh7+  Kxg6
22. Qh6+  Kf5  { and mate in 2 more moves. Genius2, the classical
program, soundly defeated by dynamic knowledge.
CCS2 didn't know its attack would win material or
deliver mate, it just knew, dynamically, the the
attack was strong and worth the sacrifice of material. }

This game clearly shows the development and strength of the 'looking-glass'
paradigm. Genius2, a classical program, seemed to have no idea of what
was going on. CCS2 had dynamic knowledge of the strength of its attack from
move 12 on, CCS2 knew from its evaluation function; Genius2 only began to
see the trouble on move 15, seven half-moves later, Genius2's knowledge
was combinational, only 'known' when the search found it.

Who will be the developer ?
===========================
To answer our third question - 'who will be the developer ?', it is  necessary to look at the personality of the classical programmers and  their hangers-on. These programmers are characterised by a failure to  show their emotions (do they ever smile), fear (just watch them  operating at tournaments), refusal to discuss how their programs work  (just try talking to them) , aversion to taking risks. It has always  surprised me that the 'top' programmers are not good chess players. The  hangers-on only make a little money, they jealously support their  chosen proteges, and viciously attack their opponents. The hangers-on  know little, pretend to know much and are governed by fear and greed.
Overall the impression is of a static, non-risk taking, hostile, World  War I environment. The new paradigm will come from an unexpected  quarter. From a developer with extrovert personality, accustomed to  taking risks, a developer with chess knowledge, probably someone  unpopular with the classical paradigm supporters, certainly unpopular
with the hangers-on and computer chess entourage. This developer will  have been and certainly will be furiously attacked by the classicists.


Search - the lazy programmer's way to avoid evaluating a position.
==================================================================
The new paradigm differs from the classical by one simple conceptual switch.
The classical paradigm makes fast and simple evaluation at each node and generates intelligence from the search tree. The classical programmer looks for ways to make his search more efficient and his evaluation function simpler and faster. The 'looking-glass' paradigm makes slow and complex evaluations at each node and prefers to prune the search tree by use of this evaluation function. In this model search is to be avoided
unless absolutely necessary. Thus the search tree is not central to the new paradigm, rather the search tree is used to find details overlooked, or mistakes made, by the evaluation function. The 'looking-glass' paradigm has the components of human thought - detailed, intuitive evaluation, with search carried out to ensure that the program is not
falling into any traps. I estimate that the difference in nodes per second between and extreme classical program and a 'looking-glass' program will be of the order of 20-30 times, sufficient to give the classical program an extra two plies of search (albeit with reduced knowledge at the nodes). Thus the increased knowledge of the 'looking-glass' program has to compensate for this apparently reduced search depth. The looking-glass strategy necessitates much programming effort, and requires the programmer to have an exceptionally good knowledge of chess strategy and tactics. When such a program is first
being developed it will constantly be outplayed by classical programs, for classical programs see everything within their horizon and the newly developing 'looking-glass' program cannot yet hope to know sufficient tactical and positional themes to compete, but our experience shows that once breakthrough (a knowledge o f sufficient chess themes to compensate for reduced search depth) occurs the looking-glass program begins to
consistently outplay the classical programs. Further advantages emerge from the high level of chess knowledge in the evaluation function - better move selection and move sorting, resulting in more efficient search - more possibilities of accurate forward pruning, resulting in smaller search trees. With increases in tree size (from faster hardware), these advantages are geometric.

B-Search or A-B-Search? - NO! Evaluation based or search based!
===============================================================
The classicists maintain the computer chess dichotomy of B-search (which I understand means pruning occurs at all levels of the tree) or A-B Search (which apparently means that part of the search is full width).
The looking-glass programmer condemns this dichotomy as meaningless.
The new paradigm makes the issue clear: chess programs either have simple evaluation and generate intelligence through search, or have complex evaluations and use limited search as a backup to cover oversights and mistakes. All chess programs prune in one way or another, but looking-glass programs, with complex evaluation, are able to prune more.

Of course, the issue is not so black and white. There is a grey scale between the extreme looking-glass (human play style) and extreme classical style. At the classical end of the scale the B or A-B dichotomy tries to position the program on the scale, but basically classicists believe in search. At the looking-glass end of the scale the issue is how much does the evaluation function allow us to prune or extend - how many risks can we take based on our evaluation function ? Basically looking-glass programmers believe in evaluation.

Von Manstein
============
If, as is said, chess is war, then there must be lessons to be learnt from military history. I have already alluded to the static, boring First World War style of the classical programs (and their programmers !). The opposite style can be found in several histories, Rommel in North Africa, Alexander the Great against Darius, Von Manstein in Russia. Alexander, despite being outnumbered many times, concentrated the powerful mobile part of his army, attacked the stronger Persians, cut through and went straight for Darius himself. The bulk of Darius's army was not engaged, but the battle was decisively won - a classic king attack. Von Manstein (and Rommel) both understood that the power of the outnumbered German army lay in superior staff work, concentration of forces, striking blows to knock the enemy off balance. The looking-glass chess program must contain knowledge of these dynamic elements; and it is only the looking-glass program that has the knowledge and evaluation time available to calculate such ephemerals.

Tal function
============
To find a chess player who understood the king attack, the concentration of forces, the striking of blows to unbalance the opponent, one need look no further than Michael Tal, Russian grandmaster, and player of such romantic and swashbuckling style that his games continue to thrill all lovers of chess. For the developers of the Complete Chess System 2 it was an emotional, and unexpected, experience to find their program playing, sacrificing, in the style of Tal. Opposing programs, well respected, began to fall like dominoes, they appeared to have absolutely no understanding of CCS2's style. We
were almost able to guarantee exciting games against all our opponents.

We believe that the progress we have made with our program, the looking-glass algorithm which we have developed gives us the justification to call our program the Complete Chess System 2 - TAL.

[Eduard]

Rebel 16.2:
A chess program programmed by grandfathers for grandfathers.

Have a nice day!

[Andre van Ark]

...............try this game for Tal Attack. I've not see a Stockfish so comprehensively smashed in so few moves without any idea of what was happening. Look at the evaluation discrepancies .....

Fast Game UHO openings, TC=20+0.05


[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2023.02.22"]
[Round "126"]
[White "Stockfish_13"]
[Black "Chess-System-Tal-1.59"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A40"]
[Opening "Queen's pawn"]
[TimeControl "20+0.05"]
[Termination "adjudication"]
[PlyCount "55"]
[GameDuration "00:00:18"]
[GameEndTime "2023-02-22T20:17:41.373 W. Europe Standard Time"]
[GameStartTime "2023-02-22T20:17:22.467 W. Europe Standard Time"]

1. d4 { book } 1... e6 { book } 2. Bf4 { book } 2... b6 { book } 3. e3 {
book } 3... Bb7 { book } 4. Nf3 { book } 4... d6 { book } 5. h3 { book }
5... Nd7 { book } 6. Bh2 { book } 6... f5 { book } 7. c4 { book } 7... g6 {
book } 8. Nc3 { book } 8... Bg7 { book } 9. a4 { +0.91/22 2.3s } 9... Ngf6
{ -1.41/13 0.75s } 10. Ng5 { +1.01/16 0.23s } 10... Qe7 { -2.25/15 0.52s }
11. Nb5 { +1.36/17 0.35s } 11... O-O { -1.92/16 0.81s } 12. Nxc7 { +1.31/17
0.46s } 12... f4 { -1.69/16 0.70s } 13. Nxa8 { +1.86/17 0.23s } 13... fxe3
{ -1.30/15 0.64s } 14. fxe3 { +2.11/17 0.30s } 14... e5 { -1.89/16 0.70s }
15. Nc7 { +3.93/17 0.25s } 15... exd4 { -1.68/15 0.69s } 16. Nge6 {
+4.15/16 0.23s } 16... Ne4 { +1.34/14 0.41s } 17. Nxf8 { +4.40/17 0.27s }
17... Qh4+ { +0.25/14 0.52s } 18. g3 { +6.62/17 0.30s } 18... Qf6 {
+2.08/15 0.34s } 19. Qe2 { +6.90/18 0.26s } 19... Ndc5 { +3.52/14 0.45s }
20. O-O-O { +3.25/24 1.7s } 20... d3 { +12.61/16 0.75s } 21. Nd7 { +3.25/21
0.31s } 21... Nb3+ { +M19/33 0.30s } 22. Kb1 { -M18/20 0.69s } 22... Nc3+ {
+M17/38 0.43s } 23. bxc3 { -M16/32 0.24s } 23... Qxc3 { +M15/42 0.33s } 24.
Nf6+ { -M14/34 0.26s } 24... Bxf6 { +M13/40 0.28s } 25. Qa2 { -M12/38 0.26s
} 25... d2 { +M11/41 0.36s } 26. Bd3 { -M10/43 0.23s } 26... Bxh1 { +M9/44
0.30s } 27. Bc2 { -M8/65 0.23s } 27... Be4 { +M7/54 0.28s } 28. Rxd2 {
-M6/245 0.17s, Black wins by adjudication } 0-1[/pgn]

Excellent game!

Very nice game!! And I recognise the playingstyle off CSTall 2 from zillion years ago. Good to see that it is still / again in development.

[Eduard]

Oh guys depth 16 from Stockfish (and maybe Ponder OFF) - that's a joke. How can you get excited about games like this? You live on another planet!