I have suggested the following revision to the record:
[d]rqr3k1/1p2bppp/3pn3/p3p1Pn/P3P3/1PNBBP2/1P1Q3P/2KR3R b - - bm Nd4; c0 "Nd4=10, Nef4=9, Nhf4=9"; id "STS: Knight Outposts/Repositioning/Centralization.100";
Both Nef4 and Nhf4 are favored by some engines after a long search (but not by Naum or Rybka).
STS (v3.0) - Knight Outposts/Centralization/Repositioning
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 12564
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: STS (v3.0) - Knight Outposts/Centralization/Repositionin
Right, but steadily dropping suggest more than just a positional issue is going on. There may well be some deeper tactics that are affecting the backed up score as well.Dann Corbit wrote:These test sets are not tactical problems that will show a win. They are intended to be strategic moves where the best choice has long term implications. Several of the problems will have small negative scores after a very long think.bob wrote:To me that looks bad. Score is steadily _dropping_....Dann Corbit wrote:This is 3 hour Rybka output. Other engines churning nowCode: Select all
Analysis from C:\tmp\question.epd 6/4/2009 5:17:08 PM Level: 10800 Seconds Analyzing engine: Rybka 3 1) Ne6d4; pv Ne6d4 Bd3c Searching move: Ne6-d4, Ne6-d4, Bd3-c2 Best move (Rybka 3): Ne6-d4 identical moves! Found in: 00:02 2 00:00 443 28.352 +0.53 Ne6d4 3 00:00 1.132 72.448 +0.31 Ne6d4 4 00:00 1.444 92.416 +0.22 Ne6d4 5 00:00 2.644 84.608 +0.12 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 6 00:00 7.162 116.410 +0.08 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Nh5f4 6 00:00 8.932 115.776 +0.10 Nh5f4 h2h4 d6d5 7 00:00 19.933 130.008 +0.02 Nh5f4 h2h4 b7b6 Bd3c4 Qb8b7 7 00:00 22.903 124.748 +0.04 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 8 00:00 31.155 127.610 0.00 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Ra8a6 Kc1b1 Ra6c6 Qc2d2 8 00:00 38.556 126.138 +0.01 Nh5f4 h2h4 d6d5 Be3xf4 Ne6xf4 e4xd5 Be7b4 Kc1b1 9 00:00 65.126 129.493 -0.07 Nh5f4 h2h4 Nf4xd3+ Qd2xd3 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8e8 Nc3d5 Be7d8 9 00:00 78.311 128.304 -0.05 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8e8 Qc2d2 10 00:01 114.232 127.007 -0.12 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 10 00:01 164.215 129.850 -0.11 Nh5f4 h2h4 Ne6c5 Bd3c2 Nf4e6 Kc1b1 Rc8c6 Nc3d5 Qb8d8 11 00:01 221.320 124.113 -0.15 Nh5f4 h2h4 Ne6c5 Bd3c2 Nc5e6 Kc1b1 b7b6 Rd1c1 Ra8a7 Nc3d5 11 00:02 278.671 126.995 -0.11 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 12 00:02 318.404 126.619 -0.08 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8h3 Nc3d5 Be7d8 Rh1g1 13 00:04 463.479 120.702 -0.10 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8h3 Nc3d5 Be7d8 Rh1g1 Ra8c8 14 00:08 934.809 115.330 -0.16 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8e6 Nc3d5 Ra8c8 Qf2h4 g7g6 Qh4g4 Be7d8 Rd1c1 15 00:12 1.418.731 113.286 -0.16 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8e6 Nc3d5 Ra8c8 Qf2h4 g7g6 Qh4g4 Be7d8 Rd1c1 16 00:23 2.629.125 115.511 -0.15 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8e6 Nc3d5 Be7d8 Qf2h4 g7g6 Qh4f2 Ra8c8 Rd1c1 Qe6d7 17 00:43 4.873.045 117.425 -0.19 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8e6 Nc3d5 Be7d8 Qf2g2 Ra8c8 Qg2g4 g7g6 Rd1d2 f7f5 18 01:44 12.059.702 118.557 -0.22 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 h2h4 Qc8e6 Rd1d5 b7b6 Rh1d1 Ra8c8 Qc2f2 f7f6 Nc3b5 Qe6f7 19 02:31 17.360.643 117.516 -0.22 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 h2h4 Qc8e6 Rd1d5 b7b6 Rh1d1 Ra8c8 Qc2f2 f7f6 Nc3b5 Qe6f7 20 06:59 49.364.289 126.047 -0.29 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 f7f6 g5xf6 Nh5xf6 Qc2d3 Qb8e8 Qd3b5 Be7f8 Rh1f1 Qe8f7 Kb1a2 Rc6c8 Rd1c1 g7g6 Rf1d1 Rc8c6 Rc1c2 21 17:56 140.434.366 133.562 -0.42 Ne6d4 Kc1b1 Nd4xb3 Qd2g2 Nh5f4 Be3xf4 Rc8xc3 b2xc3 e5xf4 Bd3b5 Qb8c7 Qg2a2 Nb3c5 h2h4 Ra8c8 Qa2c4 Qc7d8 e4e5 Nc5e6 Qc4d5 d6xe5 Qd5xd8+ Rc8xd8 Rd1xd8+ Be7xd8 Kb1c2 Ne6c5 Rh1d1 22 49:59 410.550.987 140.148 -0.43 Ne6d4 Kc1b1 Nd4xb3 Qd2g2 Nh5f4 Be3xf4 Rc8xc3 b2xc3 e5xf4 Bd3b5 Qb8c7 Qg2a2 Nb3c5 h2h4 Ra8c8 Qa2c4 Qc7d8 e4e5 Nc5e6 Qc4d5 d6xe5 Qd5xd8+ Rc8xd8 Rd1xd8+ Be7xd8 Kb1c2 Ne6c5 Rh1d1 23 1:35:24 782.530.785 139.984 -0.43 Ne6d4 Kc1b1 Nd4xb3 Qd2g2 Nh5f4 Be3xf4 Rc8xc3 b2xc3 e5xf4 Bd3b5 Qb8c7 Qg2a2 Nb3c5 h2h4 Ra8c8 Qa2c4 Qc7d8 e4e5 Nc5e6 Qc4d5 d6xe5 Qd5xd8+ Rc8xd8 Rd1xd8+ Be7xd8 Kb1c2 Ne6c5 Rh1d1 24 2:27:36 1.234.938.892 142.779 -0.42 Ne6d4 Kc1b1 Nd4xb3 Qd2g2 Nh5f4 Be3xf4 Rc8xc3 b2xc3 e5xf4 Bd3b5 Qb8c7 Qg2a2 Nb3c5 h2h4 Ra8c8 Qa2c4 Be7f8 Rh1h2 Qc7d8 Qc4d5 Qd8e7 Rh2b2 g7g6 Rb2d2 6/4/2009 8:17:15 PM, Time for this analysis: 03:00:00, Rated time: 00:02 1 of 1 matching moves 6/4/2009 8:17:16 PM, Total time: 3:00:07 AM Rated time: 00:02 = 2 Seconds
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: STS (v3.0) - Knight Outposts/Centralization/Repositionin
Right, but steadily dropping suggests more than just a positional issue is going on. There may well be some deeper tactics that are affecting the backed up score as well.Dann Corbit wrote:These test sets are not tactical problems that will show a win. They are intended to be strategic moves where the best choice has long term implications. Several of the problems will have small negative scores after a very long think.bob wrote:To me that looks bad. Score is steadily _dropping_....Dann Corbit wrote:This is 3 hour Rybka output. Other engines churning nowCode: Select all
Analysis from C:\tmp\question.epd 6/4/2009 5:17:08 PM Level: 10800 Seconds Analyzing engine: Rybka 3 1) Ne6d4; pv Ne6d4 Bd3c Searching move: Ne6-d4, Ne6-d4, Bd3-c2 Best move (Rybka 3): Ne6-d4 identical moves! Found in: 00:02 2 00:00 443 28.352 +0.53 Ne6d4 3 00:00 1.132 72.448 +0.31 Ne6d4 4 00:00 1.444 92.416 +0.22 Ne6d4 5 00:00 2.644 84.608 +0.12 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 6 00:00 7.162 116.410 +0.08 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Nh5f4 6 00:00 8.932 115.776 +0.10 Nh5f4 h2h4 d6d5 7 00:00 19.933 130.008 +0.02 Nh5f4 h2h4 b7b6 Bd3c4 Qb8b7 7 00:00 22.903 124.748 +0.04 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 8 00:00 31.155 127.610 0.00 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Ra8a6 Kc1b1 Ra6c6 Qc2d2 8 00:00 38.556 126.138 +0.01 Nh5f4 h2h4 d6d5 Be3xf4 Ne6xf4 e4xd5 Be7b4 Kc1b1 9 00:00 65.126 129.493 -0.07 Nh5f4 h2h4 Nf4xd3+ Qd2xd3 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8e8 Nc3d5 Be7d8 9 00:00 78.311 128.304 -0.05 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8e8 Qc2d2 10 00:01 114.232 127.007 -0.12 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 10 00:01 164.215 129.850 -0.11 Nh5f4 h2h4 Ne6c5 Bd3c2 Nf4e6 Kc1b1 Rc8c6 Nc3d5 Qb8d8 11 00:01 221.320 124.113 -0.15 Nh5f4 h2h4 Ne6c5 Bd3c2 Nc5e6 Kc1b1 b7b6 Rd1c1 Ra8a7 Nc3d5 11 00:02 278.671 126.995 -0.11 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 12 00:02 318.404 126.619 -0.08 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8h3 Nc3d5 Be7d8 Rh1g1 13 00:04 463.479 120.702 -0.10 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8h3 Nc3d5 Be7d8 Rh1g1 Ra8c8 14 00:08 934.809 115.330 -0.16 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8e6 Nc3d5 Ra8c8 Qf2h4 g7g6 Qh4g4 Be7d8 Rd1c1 15 00:12 1.418.731 113.286 -0.16 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8e6 Nc3d5 Ra8c8 Qf2h4 g7g6 Qh4g4 Be7d8 Rd1c1 16 00:23 2.629.125 115.511 -0.15 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8e6 Nc3d5 Be7d8 Qf2h4 g7g6 Qh4f2 Ra8c8 Rd1c1 Qe6d7 17 00:43 4.873.045 117.425 -0.19 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 Qc2f2 Qc8e6 Nc3d5 Be7d8 Qf2g2 Ra8c8 Qg2g4 g7g6 Rd1d2 f7f5 18 01:44 12.059.702 118.557 -0.22 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 h2h4 Qc8e6 Rd1d5 b7b6 Rh1d1 Ra8c8 Qc2f2 f7f6 Nc3b5 Qe6f7 19 02:31 17.360.643 117.516 -0.22 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 Qb8c8 h2h4 Qc8e6 Rd1d5 b7b6 Rh1d1 Ra8c8 Qc2f2 f7f6 Nc3b5 Qe6f7 20 06:59 49.364.289 126.047 -0.29 Ne6d4 Bd3c2 Nd4xc2 Qd2xc2 Rc8c6 Kc1b1 f7f6 g5xf6 Nh5xf6 Qc2d3 Qb8e8 Qd3b5 Be7f8 Rh1f1 Qe8f7 Kb1a2 Rc6c8 Rd1c1 g7g6 Rf1d1 Rc8c6 Rc1c2 21 17:56 140.434.366 133.562 -0.42 Ne6d4 Kc1b1 Nd4xb3 Qd2g2 Nh5f4 Be3xf4 Rc8xc3 b2xc3 e5xf4 Bd3b5 Qb8c7 Qg2a2 Nb3c5 h2h4 Ra8c8 Qa2c4 Qc7d8 e4e5 Nc5e6 Qc4d5 d6xe5 Qd5xd8+ Rc8xd8 Rd1xd8+ Be7xd8 Kb1c2 Ne6c5 Rh1d1 22 49:59 410.550.987 140.148 -0.43 Ne6d4 Kc1b1 Nd4xb3 Qd2g2 Nh5f4 Be3xf4 Rc8xc3 b2xc3 e5xf4 Bd3b5 Qb8c7 Qg2a2 Nb3c5 h2h4 Ra8c8 Qa2c4 Qc7d8 e4e5 Nc5e6 Qc4d5 d6xe5 Qd5xd8+ Rc8xd8 Rd1xd8+ Be7xd8 Kb1c2 Ne6c5 Rh1d1 23 1:35:24 782.530.785 139.984 -0.43 Ne6d4 Kc1b1 Nd4xb3 Qd2g2 Nh5f4 Be3xf4 Rc8xc3 b2xc3 e5xf4 Bd3b5 Qb8c7 Qg2a2 Nb3c5 h2h4 Ra8c8 Qa2c4 Qc7d8 e4e5 Nc5e6 Qc4d5 d6xe5 Qd5xd8+ Rc8xd8 Rd1xd8+ Be7xd8 Kb1c2 Ne6c5 Rh1d1 24 2:27:36 1.234.938.892 142.779 -0.42 Ne6d4 Kc1b1 Nd4xb3 Qd2g2 Nh5f4 Be3xf4 Rc8xc3 b2xc3 e5xf4 Bd3b5 Qb8c7 Qg2a2 Nb3c5 h2h4 Ra8c8 Qa2c4 Be7f8 Rh1h2 Qc7d8 Qc4d5 Qd8e7 Rh2b2 g7g6 Rb2d2 6/4/2009 8:17:15 PM, Time for this analysis: 03:00:00, Rated time: 00:02 1 of 1 matching moves 6/4/2009 8:17:16 PM, Total time: 3:00:07 AM Rated time: 00:02 = 2 Seconds
-
- Posts: 6647
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:21 am
Re: STS (v3.0) - Knight Outposts/Centralization/Repositionin
Yes, I always take positions from the 'winning' side. I never took positions from the 'losing' side. You're probably right that this game was from Hiarcs vs Zappa. Since I've more than once mentioned that I have databases of free games from CCRL,CEGT, SSDF, Correspondence games, and GM games.Dann Corbit wrote:The positions are taken from games where both players were formidable and the chosen move was found in a game that was won by the player making the move. So the moves definitely have winning chances. I do not know what game Swami took the move from. I have only one game with that position, the key move was chosen in that game, and the player making that move won the game.
This position seems a rare exception, in that winning side that played Nd4, despite being slightly minus and a transformation from plus to slight minus, actually won against very strong opposition.
Last edited by swami on Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 6647
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:21 am
Re: STS (v3.0) - Knight Outposts/Centralization/Repositionin
That said, I have no problem if this particular problem has to be replaced with something else that brings positive scoring for the winning side. After all that is what bugfixing is for.swami wrote:Yes, I always take positions from the 'winning' side. I never took positions from the 'losing' side. You're probably right that this game was from Hiarcs. Since I've more than once mentioned that I have databases of games from CCRL, Correspondence games, and GM games.Dann Corbit wrote:The positions are taken from games where both players were formidable and the chosen move was found in a game that was won by the player making the move. So the moves definitely have winning chances. I do not know what game Swami took the move from. I have only one game with that position, the key move was chosen in that game, and the player making that move won the game.
This position seems a rare exception, in that winning side that played Nd4, despite being slightly minus and a transformation from plus to slight minus, actually won against very strong opposition.
-
- Posts: 6647
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:21 am
Re: STS (v3.0) - Knight Outposts/Centralization/Repositionin
Ok, the file in the download section is now updated with:Dann Corbit wrote:I have suggested the following revision to the record:
[d]rqr3k1/1p2bppp/3pn3/p3p1Pn/P3P3/1PNBBP2/1P1Q3P/2KR3R b - - bm Nd4; c0 "Nd4=10, Nef4=9, Nhf4=9"; id "STS: Knight Outposts/Repositioning/Centralization.100";
Both Nef4 and Nhf4 are favored by some engines after a long search (but not by Naum or Rybka).
Code: Select all
rqr3k1/1p2bppp/3pn3/p3p1Pn/P3P3/1PNBBP2/1P1Q3P/2KR3R b - - bm Nd4; c0 "Nd4=10, Nef4=9, Nhf4=9"; id "STS: Knight Outposts/Repositioning/Centralization.100";
-
- Posts: 6647
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:21 am
Re: STS (v3.0) - complete data (3 tests)
If you liked "My System", I'm sure Battle Royale 1924 and Alexei Bartanishkov's Principles of chess Strategies are worth checking out. They've list of rules outlined for several conditions.bob wrote:For your last question first, no, other than what is in the comments. I have tried to include all the "normal" ideas into the evaluation. pawn structure, piece placement, etc. But there is a long way to go, since the knowledge/speed tradeoff is ever-present.swami wrote:Interesting. Makes me wonder if all programmers of >2600 engines have good understanding of advanced rules in chess strategies that's required of a IM or other strong chess players? Did you study a lot of strategical books in chess, Bob, to be able to determine some sort of importances for certain concepts? If so, that's impressive.bob wrote:1. piece/square table to centralize knights.
2. outpost knights, with a bonus for no enemy pawn that can attack the knight and another bonus if no enemy knight or bishop can attack the knight.
3. Mobility with mobility to central squares being worth more than mobility to edge squares.
Maybe you heard of these rules over years of experience discussing chess with IM's, and that they gave you some sort of rules on Do's/Don'ts in strategies, and you just implemented them promtly as you go along?
perhaps its all too simple and common knowledge for all programmers, and that I'm just not expecting much and holding on to my belief that they are all secret and difficult to obtain knowledge?
Am I right in thinking that there's too much principles and values to implement on a strong playing chess program, so that it wouldn't make any positional errors?
Do you have the complete details of whatever inputs related to values, bonuses, principles and strategies, you've so far given to Crafty? I'd be interested in such a documentation.
I think our mobility is done "right", although it is not as good as what we had in the last versions of Cray Blitz that were lost. I do not believe that mobility, just for the sake of mobility is very good. we currently weight squares based on centrality (for knights). In Cray Blitz we weighted squares by computing the weights as we did the eval, so that we had an idea of which squares were weak, which pawns were weak, etc, and mobility factored in those weights that could be different for every square (cute vector merge instruction let us get away with this for zero cost). In any case, knights are not magic in what we do, attract them toward the center, evaluate outposts as I mentioned previously, and then factor in mobility. The knight's position is factored into king safety, but not in the code that evaluates knights, this is done in the EvaluateKing() code.
As far as "where did the ideas come from?" I've read most books that others read over the years, and probably some that have been missed. "Point count chess" appeared to be a perfect one for computer chess, but although the ideas were good, it was unusable as an evaluation model. "My System" was my favorite for improving my own play and many of his ideas therefore influenced Crafty's evaluation. Other ideas came from prodding by Roman Dzhindi (candidate pawn evaluation, as one example).
You'd find high quality stuffs from those books that you can implement them to Crafty.
-
- Posts: 6647
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:21 am
Re: STS (v3.0) - complete data (3 tests)
Test - 10 seconds per Position.
Hardware: Core 2 Quad Q6600 2 GM RAM
Grade A: (80% +)
Grade B: (70%+)
Grade C: (60% +)
Grade D: (50% +)
Grade E (40% +) (Many more engines yet to be tested)
Hardware: Core 2 Quad Q6600 2 GM RAM
Grade A: (80% +)
Code: Select all
Rybka
Code: Select all
Pro Deo - 76
Pharaon - 73
TwistedLogic - 73
Fruit - 72
Spike - 72
The King TrailBlazer - 71
Bright - 71
ETChess - 71
Glaurung - 70
Code: Select all
Baron - 68
NOW - 68
Scorpio - 68
Cerebro - 68
Alfil - 67
Knight Dreamer - 67
Bug Chess - 67
Movei - 67
Chiron - 66
Pepito - 66
Hamsters - 66
Lambchop - 66
Slowchess - 65
Delfi - 64
WildCat - 64
Arasan - 64
Green Light chess - 62
Gromit - 62
Alaric - 61
Delphil -61
Abrok - 60
Horizon - 60
Muse - 60
Gaia - 60
Code: Select all
Learning Lemming 59
Natwarlal - 59
Aristarch - 58
Little Thought - 58
Knightx - 58
Rotor - 58
Asterisk - 58
Der Bringer - 58
Little Goliath Revival - 58
Flux - 57
Phalanx - 56
Trace - 56
Dorky - 55
Nejmet - 55
Yace Paderborn - 54
Eve Ann - 54
Djinn - 50
Code: Select all
Beowulf - 44
Lodocase - 43