Here is an unusual checkmate in Janus chess where the Janus checkmates alone. Has anyone seen a similar case?

http://brainking.com/es/ArchivedGame?g=1486931

There seems to be two discussion going on here but only one belongs on BrainKing.

Further discussion on how different computer game engines work, the approaches they adopt and their strenghts and weaknesses is encouraged.

Discussions about a competition which would not be uneertaken at BrainKing are not, along with any allegations as to what one person or another has said, will do or whatever. It would be a moot process to go back and delete all the posts which relate to this so they will stand. Any future discussion about or which reference these will be deleted, irrespective of how much effort has gone into their drafting. If you want to pursue it take it elsewhere.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

Caissus: Known as the Devil's Advocate in these parts.

It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

Pythagoras: old faultfinder....

Caissus: .
.
.
A Player, who is playing only one game and has finished only 3 8x10 chessgames.But he is discussing about 10x8 chess as he is the world`s greatest expert in this theme.

That is irrelevant! The number of games HalfPawn is playing on this site or it has played doesn't have nothing to do with the knoweldge he may have in the subject.....!

Caissus: "... But he is discussing about 10x8 chess as he is the world`s greatest expert in this theme. ..." - Maybe he is exploited by another one.

SMIRF Engine: A Player, who is playing only one game and has finished only 3 8x10 chessgames.But he is discussing about 10x8 chess as he is the world`s greatest expert in this theme.

Generally I think it is not necessary to quote again and again large statements by a person who is banned at all BK-db`s. And his game is banned also.

One last quote ( by Trice) : "Caissus gets a free Gothic Chess set for coming in second place. Contact me at GothicChessInfo@aol.com to send me the address to send your prizes." It was on 07/13/2005 and I am waiting until today for the second prize.

HalfPawn: "I don't understand." That is explaining a lot.

"You say SMIRF is the best." Where did I?

"You say SMIRF fears no 10x8 program." A program is a piece of software. To compare software efficiency, the technologie of used hardware should be at a comparable level. Moreover 10x8 is not only Gothic Chess. Do not mix up Ed Trice with his program. How can I trust a person, who does not care on his announcement to send me a maximum license? Why should I help a person to promote its top product, whereas I am multiply banned and attacked?

"But you won't play against the new version of Vortex." Where did I have taken that position? Who are you, to try driving me to a decision?

HalfPawn: I hope the readers of this board find this to be of interest.

I don't.

First it should be clear, that it has been HalfPawn, which introduced that question here, to provoke a matching discussion and probably to raise traffic in the GC forum.

The goals of Gothic Vortex and SMIRF are very different. While Vortex is trying to accumulate everything like information and hardware power to maximize its GC ability, SMIRF is trying to cover a lot of functionality with as few means as possible. This reflects a different philosophy on how a chess program should work.

Now to ask simply, which program would play better Gothic Chess, stems out of Ed Trice's world. Whereas I would like to also focus on SMIRF's playing multivariant ability.

Thus my conclusion is, it seems to be a very central point for Ed to have the NUMBER ONE Gothic Chess program. According to that he is interested to prove that from time to time, to use it as an additional marketing argument. But one problem is then, that there is a lack of relevant opponents to make Vortex' victory as big as possible. So he is inside a dilemma to make GC attractive for other programmers but not to make his 'patent' on it less important.

The current discussion is a result of the wish to celebrate such a show down again. HalfPawn does his job here as an agent provocateur. It is on me to decide whether to participate in that spectacle or not. In any way it could be no motivation for me to simply serve Ed's vanity.

panzerschiff: Interesting ways for it to go. I'll try the gambit in future games. If you'd like to play a game of both colors starting both games this way, let me know and we'll give it a go.

Pythagoras: After reading my own post I'm thinking that perhaps I have it wrong. Winning the games is still important. Still, the goal of the programmer is also something to judge his result by.

Pythagoras: You have completely missed my point. The elegance of the solution. If we say that table look up and the use of books isn't allowed, then I say SMIRF is the superior program. You are being a results merchant. If every move in a game was known, the table look up method would work to perfection. Yes, yes, you've already proved there's less atoms in the universe than possible moves so there'd be little chance of having a way to store or access such a table. But supposing it was possible to have such a book of every move. Now compare this to a bunch of rules that tell when where to move that has maybe a 100,000 lines of instruction. Which would you say is the better solution? This is what I'm getting at. To me, anybody can use these table look up methods, opening, middle, or end game. To have a program not do this and still play well is to me an amazing thing and it is a program that I'd rather play against. What's the point of playing some machine that just looks up its moves? I might as well go get a book and look up for my moves too. It just becomes a matter of who has the better or larger data base. What's the point except that you'll win every time? When that happens it is no longer a game that is being played.

Programs that use an opening book is indeed a very helpful thing. I think that if all bits used or available to be used are counted, the program that uses the least is the best. Reinhard says 60,000 bytes. Both of you say Vortex has 7,000,000 for its program, another 7,000,000 positions for its opening book, and 10,000,000,000 for its endgame table. By my way of looking at it, SMIRF is the better program if it could play as well as Vortex. So maybe it can't play blitz Chess, but how about Embassy Chess at tournament time controls. What's that you say? Vortex can't play Embassy Chess? Or it's opening book is useless in Embassy Chess? Then SMIRF is by far the better program just by being versatile. I know which of the two I'd rather have. Can Vortex play the CRC as well as SMIRF? This is what I mean, SMIRF is able to play these games equally well without the use of books.

Sure, if the goal of the problem is to devise the best playing program by whatever means at one's disposal, then yes, the program that wins the most is the better program. It was my understanding of SMIRF that Reinhard purposely did not work with that goal in mind, but instead wanted to create a program that played as it does.

Walter Montego: .
.
.
Yes you are confused....

-Endgame tablebases with 3,4,5,6 for example pieces(these are the endgame tablebases that have been generated until now, although i believe that 6 piece tablebases haven't been completed yet(for Gothic Chess)) are tables that programs look in their search and get perfect information about the position.
For example if they end one moment in their search to have a position with 5 piece and they have/support endgame tablebases, then instead of wasting time to evaluate the position(that means with not sure results since their evaluation maybe wrong sometimes) they will have the perfect information (win,draw,loss) immediately!
BUT in order these positions to occur in Gothic Chess or CRC we have to go to many captures so only few pieces to remain. But mooooost times the game is decided much earlier..... So if a program uses them at Gothic Chess i believe that only in 1 out of 400+ games there could be an advantage....
So we are speaking about zero advantage by using 3,4,5 or even 6 piece endgame tablebases....


-Opening books are tables that programs look at the beginning of the game and they represend knowledge gathered by millions of games around history. So they are priceless!

So when i speak about bases i speak about "opening books" and "endgame tablebases". The first help a lot the latter doesn't.


Take these opening books away from Vortex or the others that use them, will they beat SMIRF?

It doesn't matter! The fact that Smirf doesn't use them, why should make other programs to adjust to what Smirf uses and what not?
Every program uses what its author managed to give it as supplies to make it play better....!

Pythagoras: You're confusing me. You say the bases don't matter and thenyou say they're very important to a program's success a couple sentences later? Which is it?

"Yes of course opening books is a whole different matter. Opening books help a program VERY VERY much to achieve good results..... "

and

"We have that Gothic Vortex is 7 MB (many of these MB are just unused) and that its opening book is another 7 MB and its tablebases are 10 GB. So if you believe that all these 10GB - 14MB of tablebases do make a difference then you ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG!"

To me end table bases are the same as opening ones. They're just tables to look up the moves. They're not an example of the computer thinking. Just because a very large portion of these books aren't used during doesn't mean they are not a part of the program's strength. Take these opening books away from Vortex or the others that use them, will they beat SMIRF?

Reinhard: .
.
.
Personally I think, that huge engame tablebases would not significantly decide the outcome of a game.

Of course! You are right. That's what i believe too.... But i'm speaking about 5-6 piece tablebases. But if it is proven that having tablebases makes no harm to the program's strength, then any positive influence due to tablebases is welcome....


Maybe 0.1% of all games could benefit.

Hmmmm at Chess i think this 0.001 is a small guess. It must be higher. But at Gothic Chess and CRC games i think it might be correct..... From the Chess games i've seen, i can roughly calculate that in 1 out of 120 games programs have a profit from endgame tablebases....


But to demonstrately use them is an indicator of panic.

I don't believe this is the reason! Ed Trice is obsessed with tablebases:-) Remember his huge work on the endgame tablebases for his Checkers program. Now that Checkers' interest is decreasing (the game is "close" enough to be solved- for example to determine the winner between 2 of the best today programs they needed 624 games and the score ended with 4 only wins and 620 draws!!!!!!!!!) Ed couldn't forget his obsession with tablebases and started to generate the Gothic Chess tablebases.... I believe that tablebases hide a brilliant mystery inside them (i'm always amazed when i see a perfect mate in 30,40 or more) but i believe that the time spent to them could be used more productively if it was used to improve the program's evaluation or search....


Contrary to that big opening books normaly have a huge influence on chess games.
Actually I have an idea, where the difference in SMIRF's playing strength concerning 8x8 and 10x8 could be caused.

Yes of course opening books is a whole different matter. Opening books help a program VERY VERY much to achieve good results.....



Walter Mantego You're wrong if you don't think that's amazing to have such a big difference.

It depends on how do you mean the amazing.....


Take those data bases away from those machines and get the program down to SMIRF's size. Which machine is going to win?

The endgame tablebases doesn't determine the strength difference at all! Period!!!!!!!!!
The opening book is a huge factor that influences the strength diefference by much!
The size of the EXEcutable of a (CRC) Chess program/engine doesn't matter! (Fritz 8 for example is 480 KB while Fritz 9 is 436 KB but Fritz 9 is way superior).

We have that Gothic Vortex is 7 MB (many of these MB are just unused) and that its opening book is another 7 MB and its tablebases are 10 GB. So if you believe that all these 10GB - 14MB of tablebases do make a difference then you ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

Also why someone has to go down to Smirf size to compare against it? If someone has done all this work and if he has created for example a huuuuuuge opening book then why do we have to erase all these and test it without all these....?

If you speak about _pure_ engine strength without endgame tablebases(althouth these don't add to strength at all at 10x8 variants) and without opening books, then yes we have to test the engines without endgame tablebases and without opening books!
But if you speak about engine strength generally that means to compare 2 engines, then no we have to test the engines with endgame tablebases and with opening books and with whatever else their authors have thought about increasing their strength!


How do you know that's not the reason? I was just speculating as to why it doesn't seem to play blitz games well, but you say it as if you're an authority on it.

I know because i've observed its evaluations countless times and i have understood that it's one of these "slow searchers".....


This other program is not SMIRF, so why should it's weakness in blitz games have anything to do with SMIRF's? It the author's note telling you that SMIRF works in the identical manner?

I didn't say that it has anything to do with Smirf! I just gave it as an example that there are other engines that can't play good at blitz while they CAN play good at longer time controls....

Pythagoras: Personally I think, that huge engame tablebases would not significantly decide the outcome of a game. Maybe 0.1% of all games could benefit. But to demonstrately use them is an indicator of panic.

Contrary to that big opening books normaly have a huge influence on chess games. But listen, it is very important to first develop a kind of intelligent playing program, relying on its own. Chess knowlegde should be the (timely) last thing to be added to a chess engine. SMIRF is not at all in a final development stage. Thus it would be much too early to implement such moves. Programs, which play badly without opening books, have been "completed" too early.

Actually I have an idea, where the difference in SMIRF's playing strength concerning 8x8 and 10x8 could be caused. It has to do with the method I reuse cached data in SMIRF. So I have some ideas how to improve SMIRF one more time - so I hope.

Pythagoras: You're wrong if you don't think that's amazing to have such a big difference. Take those data bases away from the those machines and get the program down to SMIRF's size. Which machine is going to win?

How do you know that's not the reason? I was just speculating as to why it doesn't seem to play blitz games well, but you say it as if you're an authority on it.

This other program is not SMIRF, so why should it's weakness in blitz games have anything to do with SMIRF's? It the author's note telling you that SMIRF works in the identical manner?

Walter Montego: .
.
.
Those size differences are truly amazing!

Actually they aren't! All these GB huge data are endgame tablebases.....


I have always wondered why you didn't add an opening book, but I like the fact that you didn't.

I don't like the fact that he didn't, since he could add an opening book with an option to use it or not....


It plays as I do, just winging it every move. Perhaps this is why it doesn't do well in the speed and blitz matches against other programs?

Nope. This is not the reason! Some programs just can't do good at blitz games. For example Chess System Tal 2 was like its author said not capable of playing blitz Chess and the program needed some time to play decent....

Here is a quote from its author:
"Chess System Tal II is a knowledge based program. It packs many chess ideas into its evaluation function. It helps to give it some time to work up its ideas. The longer the time control the better.

CSTal II is not designed to play fast chess against other programs. It is designed to play chess against other chess players (eg humans). You can watch CSTal play, see its ideas, observe the positional and sacrifical algorithms and learn new concepts from it. Playing endless automated games against other materialistic programs is not recommended for the sake of your own sanity and the development of your own brain. Please get a tank of fish instead. "

So Smirf lost to Arasan finally 2-0. In the first game Smirf didn't show any resistance. But in the second game they went to a deep endgame which Smirf couldn't win or draw since it had a completely inferior position.
At the second game you should notice and worry about the bad move Smirf played 18...Bf5? It gave its Queen for Rook + Knight which sometimes is good but this time was a bad mistake....!
Time controls was 30 seconds per move and Smirf played the first 7 moves with an opening book(mainbook.ARENA).


[Event "SmirfGUI Computerchess Game"]
[Site "USER-403C8545D2"]
[Date "2006.03.31"]
[Time "19:07:26"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Smirf 156"]
[Black "Arasan 8.4"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Test SMIRF until 2006-03-31"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5.
Nc3 e6 6. Be3 a6 7. f3 Nbd7 8. a4 {(12.03+) +0.666} Be7 9. Be2 {(10.04) +0.770}
O-O 10. g4 {(10.17) +0.746} d5 11. g5 {(11.00) +0.973} Ne8 12. exd5 {(10.01)
+0.920} Bxg5 13. f4 {(10.01) +0.912} Bh4+ 14. Kf1 {(11.01) +0.902} Ndf6 15. Nf3
{(12.00) +0.775} Nxd5 16. Nxd5 {(13.00) -0.041} exd5 17. Nxh4 {(12.08) -0.293}
Qxh4 18. Qxd5 {(13.29) -0.357} Nf6 19. Qf3 {(12.00) -0.416} Re8 20. Bf2
{(12.01=) -0.584} Qh6 21. h3 {(11.00) -0.697} Bd7 22. Qxb7 {(11.00) -1.141}
Bxh3+ 23. Ke1 {(13.00) -2.457} Rad8 24. Qxa6 {(11.01) -2.078} Bc8 25. Rxh6
{(12.01) -6.541} 0-1

[Event "SmirfGUI Computerchess Game"]
[Site "USER-403C8545D2"]
[Date "2006.03.31"]
[Time "19:41:52"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Arasan 8.4"]
[Black "Smirf 156"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Test SMIRF until 2006-03-31"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5.
Bg2 O-O 6. O-O e4 7. Ne1 Bxc3 8. dxc3 Re8 {(13.00) +0.014} 9. Nc2 d6 {(11.00)
+0.039} 10. Bg5 h6 {(11.01=) +0.123} 11. Bxf6 Qxf6 {(11.01=) +0.098} 12. Ne3 a5
{(11.01) +0.096} 13. a4 Re5 {(10.11) +0.430} 14. Nd5 Qd8 {(11.01=) +0.428} 15.
Qc1 Bf5 {(11.00) +0.541} 16. Rd1 Qd7 {(10.03=) +0.383} 17. c5 Be6 {(11.00)
+0.293} 18. c4 Bf5 {(11.00) +0.164} 19. cxd6 Qxd6 {(12.01=) -0.500} 20. Nb6
Qxd1+ {(12.06) -0.445} 21. Qxd1 cxb6 {(13.01=) -0.514} 22. Qb3 Nb4 {(13.00)
-0.492} 23. Qe3 Rc5 {(12.01) -0.574} 24. Rc1 Re8 {(12.00) -0.543} 25. b3 Bd7
{(12.00) -0.531} 26. Rd1 Bc6 {(12.01) -0.721} 27. Rd2 h5 {(11.02) -0.793} 28.
Bh3 Na6 {(12.00) -1.033} 29. Qd4 Nc7 {(12.02+) -0.787} 30. Qd6 Ne6 {(13.02=)
-1.465} 31. Bxe6 Rxe6 {(13.00) -1.439} 32. Qd8+ Kh7 {(14.00) -1.592} 33. Qxb6
Rce5 {(12.02+) -1.641} 34. e3 h4 {(13.00) -1.670} 35. gxh4 Rh6 {(12.07) -1.398}
36. Qc7 f6 {(13.01=) -1.307} 37. Rd6 Kg6 {(13.01) -1.566} 38. Rd8 Rxh4
{(13.01=) -1.219} 39. Rf8 Rg4+ {(15.03) -0.916} 40. Kf1 Reg5 {(15.01+) -1.609}
41. Qf7+ Kh7 {(15.01) -1.986} 42. Qg8+ Kg6 {(16.00) -2.158} 43. Rf7 Kf5
{(15.00) -1.625} 44. Qh7+ Ke6 {(14.01) -1.566} 45. Rc7 Kd6 {(13.01=) -0.156}
46. Rc8 Rg1+ {(13.00) +0.000} 47. Ke2 Rb1 {(13.01=) -0.133} 48. Rd8+ Kc5
{(14.00) -0.041} 49. Rd1 Rxd1 {(15.01=) +0.061} 50. Kxd1 Kb4 {(16.00) +0.000}
51. Kc2 Rg2 {(16.01) -0.344} 52. Qf5 Ka3 {(16.01=) -0.531} 53. h4 Ka2 {(17.00)
+0.000} 54. Kc3 Kb1 {(15.15) +0.000} 55. Qxa5 Rxf2 {(15.01=) -0.484} 56. b4
Rc2+ {(14.01) +0.078} 57. Kd4 Bd7 {(14.13) -0.549} 58. Kd5 Rc3 {(13.18) -0.219}
59. Qa7 f5 {(14.01) -1.105} 60. Qxb7 Rxe3 {(14.01=) -1.555} 61. a5 Rd3+
{(14.00) -1.990} 62. Kc5 e3 {(14.01=) -2.217} 63. Qh1+ Kc2 {(14.01) -2.660} 64.
a6 Ra3 {(14.02) -2.574} 65. Qg2+ Kd1 {(14.00) -2.574} 66. Qd5+ Ke1 {(15.00)
-3.855} 67. Qxd7 f4 {(13.12=) -3.746} 68. Qg4 e2 {(14.00) -3.898} 69. Qg1+ Kd2
{(12.00?) no choice} 70. Qd4+ Ke1 {(15.00) -3.480} 71. Qxf4 Rxa6 {(14.13)
-3.385} 72. Qg3+ Kd2 {(14.02=) -3.521} 73. Qg5+ Kd1 {(14.03=) -3.299} 74. Qd5+
Kc1 {(15.00) -3.494} 75. Qe4 Kd2 {(14.02=) -3.762} 76. Qd4+ Kc1 {(15.00)
-4.256} 77. Qg1+ Kd2 {(15.00) -3.842} 78. Qg2 Ra2 {(13.20=) -2.916} 79. b5 Kc1
{(13.03=) -3.588} 80. Qg1+ Kd2 {(15.06) -3.770} 81. Qd4+ Kc2 {(15.02+) -3.838}
82. Qe4+ Kd2 {(15.00) -3.840} 83. Qd5+ Kc1 {(14.03=) -3.803} 84. Qe6 Kd1
{(13.01) -3.314} 85. Qg4 Kd2 {(14.00) -3.693} 86. Qd7+ Kc1 {(14.01) -3.314} 87.
Qe8 Kd2 {(14.00) -3.381} 88. Qd8+ Kc1 {(14.02+) -3.381} 89. Qe7 Kd1 {(14.01)
-3.258} 90. b6 e1=Q {(15.01=) -1.041} 91. Qxe1+ Kxe1 {(16.00) -1.041} 92. Kc6
Ke2 {(16.02) -0.189} 93. c5 Kd3 {(16.12) -0.037} 94. Kb7 Rc2 {(17.02=) -0.877}
95. c6 Kc4 {(17.14) -1.129} 96. c7 Kb5 {(19.12) -1.955} 97. c8=Q Rxc8 {(16.14)
-2.436} 98. Kxc8 Kxb6 {(15.01+) -4.729} 1-0

SMIRF Engine: Those size differences are truly amazing! I have always wondered why you didn't add an opening book, but I like the fact that you didn't. It plays as I do, just winging it every move. Perhaps this is why it doesn't do well in the speed and blitz matches against other programs? Those machines don't really think up their moves in the opening, they just look up the position in a book and play the recommended move. That, to me, isn't thinking. It is impressive data retrival, but it ain't thinking.

How does SMIRF do in 15 minutes for each side games? How about tournament timed games, like 40 moves in 2 or 3 hours? How about over the internet like how SMIRF plays against me?

Walter Montego: Ed Trice actually is coquetting with his huge tables and a 64 Bit multiprocessor engine. He must have seen a real necessity to pimp up his Gothic Vortex program. The truth is, SMIRF's engine actually measures only 60 KB and Gothic Vortex's persistant data probably about 10 GB or more. That is as if in a battle one SMIRF soldier has to face about 175,000 Vortex enemies, additional CPU difference still ignored. So there must have been a tremendeous panic after being beaten one single time by SMIRF.

One thing that is missing from this discussion is the way SMIRF thinks up its moves. It plays without an opening book. I'm thinking it is equally strong in Embassy, Capablanca, Capablanca Random, Bird's, and Gothic Chess. Can the same be said for the other programs that only play one version? Does the Vortex program or those others listed play Embassy Chess or Capablanca Random Chess? The random set up version is the one that forces the computers to play without as strong of a opening book or none at all. I can see Embassy Chess eventually having an opening book if only because I'm gradually teaching myself which things to do in the opening when playing it. I'm sure others that have taken up Embassy Chess and playing it regularly are doing the same thing even if they're not taking notes or writing a computer program. You still keep things in your mind as to how it went in the opening and either try to repeat it, or if it went poorly the last time to make changes or avoid it.

Can the Vortex's or the other programs' opening book be shut off when play Gothic Chess? If so, can they still defeat SMIRF as you guys say it can? Can Vortex or the other programs' play Capablanca Random Chess? If so, how do they fare against SMIRF? If they can't do either of these things, the programs really aren't too easily comparable, though obviously the results from Gothic Chess matches are still valid for comparing how the programs play that one version.

Pythagoras: Well, Comet and Arasan seem to be well fitting opponents. Thus negative experiences using SMIRF should give hints, where it needs to be improved.

SMIRF Engine: .
.
.
LOL!

I finished the games with Comet B68 and Smirf 156 lost again both 2 games.... I guess you are correct and Smirf can't play well blitz games.... So i will not try against Fritz 5.32 or Horizon 4.1.
I think i will play 2 longer time control games against an engine i haven't decided yet.
I will choose between: Arasan 8.4(2nd division) or Kiwi 0.6(3rd division) or Horizon 4.1(4th division). I guess Arasan is too strong for Smirf but since it's one of my favourite engines i guess i will try it.....

Until now with time controls 10 sec/move:

█████████████████████████████

████SMIRF - List = 0-2█████████████

█████████████████████████████

------------------------------------

█████████████████████████████

████SMIRF - Comet = 0-2████████████

█████████████████████████████

Upcoming with time controls 30 sec/move:

█████████████████████████████

████SMIRF 156 - Arasan 8.4██████████

█████████████████████████████



[Event "SmirfGUI Computerchess Game"]
[Site "USER-403C8545D2"]
[Date "2006.03.31"]
[Time "17:48:08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Smirf 156"]
[Black "Comet B68"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Test SMIRF until 2006-03-31"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5.
Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8. O-O-O Bd7 9. f4 b5 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. a3 {(10.04)
+0.465} Qb6 12. Bxb5 {(10.09) +1.174} axb5 13. Ndxb5 {(10.19) +0.352} Rb8 14.
b3 {(10.14) +0.572} d5 15. exd5 {(10.00) +1.990} Ne7 16. a4 {(10.27) +1.758}
Bxb5 17. axb5 {(10.17) +1.473} Rd8 18. d6 {(11.01) +2.473} Bg7 19. d7+ {(10.01)
+2.545} Kf8 20. Rhf1 {(09.18=) +2.529} f5 21. Rf3 {(10.15) +1.742} Rg8 22. Kb1
{(10.01) +2.076} Bf6 23. Rd3 {(10.01) +1.105} Qa5 24. Na4 {(11.01) +0.680} Qxb5
25. c4 {(11.00) +0.820} Qb8 26. g3 {(09.02=) +0.861} Kg7 27. Qe3 {(09.04=)
+0.797} Ng6 28. Qf3 {(09.02=) +1.025} Qb4 29. h3 {(09.02) +1.111} Qa3 30. c5
{(09.01) +1.020} Ra8 31. R1d2 {(11.01) -1.979} Rxa4 32. bxa4 {(11.08) -2.320}
Rb8+ 33. Kc2 {(13.00) -3.363} Qxa4+ 34. Rb3 {(09.01) no alternative} Nf8 35.
d8=Q {(12.01) -3.182} Bxd8 36. Rd3 {(11.30) -3.545} Nd7 37. Kb1 {(11.02=)
-3.814} Rxb3+ 38. Rxb3 {(12.01=) -3.996} Nxc5 39. Rb2 {(11.02=) -4.812} Bf6 40.
Ra2 {(11.23) -4.943} Qb5+ 41. Kc2 {(12.01) -8.977} Qc4+ 42. Kb1 {(13.00)
-11.10} 0-1

[Event "SmirfGUI Computerchess Game"]
[Site "USER-403C8545D2"]
[Date "2006.03.31"]
[Time "18:11:45"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Comet B68"]
[Black "Smirf 156"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Test SMIRF until 2006-03-31"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5.
O-O f6 6. d4 exd4 {(11.01=) -0.164} 7. Nxd4 c5 {(11.00) -0.125} 8. Ne2 Bd6
{(10.02=) -0.213} 9. Nf4 Ne7 {(10.00) -0.064} 10. Qh5+ g6 {(12.00) +0.000} 11.
Qh6 f5 {(11.01) +0.000} 12. Re1 Kf7 {(10.00) +0.125} 13. Nc3 Ng8 {(11.22)
+0.156} 14. Qh3 fxe4 {(09.12) -0.631} 15. Qe3 g5 {(10.01) -0.336} 16. Nh5 Kg6
{(10.01) -1.701} 17. Ng3 h6 {(10.01=) -1.328} 18. Qxe4+ Kf7 {(09.00) -1.184}
19. Qc4+ Kf8 {(10.01) -1.566} 20. Be3 b6 {(10.00) -1.014} 21. Nce4 Rh7 {(08.20)
-0.867} 22. Nxg5 Re7 {(09.26) -2.029} 23. Nf3 Qe8 {(09.01) -2.168} 24. Qd3 Bd7
{(09.03=) -2.285} 25. Nh4 Re6 {(09.00) -2.340} 26. Bxh6+ Nxh6 {(11.01=) -2.486}
27. Rxe6 Bxe6 {(12.00) -2.768} 28. Qh7 Qf7 {(10.09) -2.607} 29. Qxh6+ Ke8
{(11.02+) -3.188} 30. Qh8+ Qf8 {(11.00) -2.625} 31. Qxf8+ Kxf8 {(11.01) -2.578}
32. Ne4 Rd8 {(12.00) -2.537} 33. Nxd6 Rxd6 {(11.12) -2.424} 34. a3 Rd2 {(11.16)
-2.396} 35. Rc1 Bd5 {(12.02=) -2.414} 36. Nf5 Be4 {(11.14) -2.324} 37. Ne3 Bg6
{(11.02=) -2.441} 38. Kf1 Rd4 {(11.00) -2.373} 39. Ke2 Kg8 {(10.15) -2.395} 40.
Kf3 Rd2 {(11.01) -1.939} 41. Kg3 a5 {(11.01) -1.826} 42. b3 c6 {(11.01) -1.902}
43. c3 Rd3 {(11.00) -1.631} 44. b4 cxb4 {(13.00) -1.992} 45. cxb4 Be8 {(13.00)
-2.113} 46. bxa5 bxa5 {(14.01) -2.348} 47. a4 Rd4 {(13.01) -2.434} 48. Nc4 Rd5
{(13.00) -2.447} 49. Re1 Kf8 {(11.06) -2.025} 50. Re4 Rg5+ {(12.01) -2.045} 51.
Kf3 Bf7 {(13.01) -2.369} 52. Ne3 Rd5 {(12.01) -2.479} 53. Nxd5 Bxd5 {(14.08)
-3.754} 54. h3 Kf7 {(15.01) -3.820} 55. Ke3 Bxe4 {(13.09) -4.088} 56. Kxe4 Ke6
{(18.03) -6.221} 1-0

Pythagoras: after calming down, it delete my comment about splitted pawns.

WhisperzQ: .
.
.
Is this valid to complete Pawns also or only to these that have been cut in half?

Due to some recent posts the ability of pawns to post immediately to this baord has been curtailed. You may continue to post but they will need to be approved by a moderator before they are viewable by all.

The matter will be reviewed in due course.

.
.
.
I played the first 2 games against List 5.12. Time control was as before: 10 seconds per move. Hash 256 MB for each engine. I knew from before that List 5.12 is too strong for Smirf-156. So the result of 2-0 is no surprise.....
Next is the match against Fritz 5.32. Another strong opponent before we go at weaker opponents like Comet B68 and Horizon 4.1....
Finally i may run 2 matches against SOS 5.1 or another engine at a little longer time controls....


[Event "SmirfGUI Computerchess Game"]
[Site "USER-403C8545D2"]
[Date "2006.03.31"]
[Time "14:01:58"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Smirf 156"]
[Black "List 5.12"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Test SMIRF until 2006-03-31"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. e4 g6 2. d4 d6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Be3 c6 5. Qd2
b5 6. Nf3 {(10.05) +0.936} Nf6 7. e5 {(09.03=) +0.752} Ng4 8. exd6 {(09.30)
+1.105} Nxe3 9. Qxe3 {(11.00) +0.783} Qxd6 10. a4 {(09.01) +0.943} Qb4 11. axb5
{(09.21) +1.316} O-O 12. O-O-O {(09.01) +1.779} a6 13. bxc6 {(09.01) +1.814}
Nxc6 14. Nd5 {(08.23) +1.830} Qa5 15. Bc4 {(09.01) +1.350} Bg4 16. Kb1 {(09.20)
+1.361} e6 17. Nf4 {(09.00) +1.277} Rab8 18. Ne2 {(08.02=) +0.943} Rfd8 19. b3
{(08.23) +0.641} Qa4 20. Kc1 {(09.09) +0.000} Qa1+ 21. Kd2 {(07.00?) no choice}
Qa5+ 22. Kc1 {(11.01) -1.348} Bxf3 23. Qxf3 {(11.20) -1.566} Nxd4 24. Nxd4
{(10.01) -2.994} Bxd4 25. c3 {(09.06=) -3.676} Bxc3 26. Kc2 {(11.00) -5.600}
Be5 27. b4 {(11.01) -8.641} *

[Event "SmirfGUI Computerchess Game"]
[Site "USER-403C8545D2"]
[Date "2006.03.31"]
[Time "14:16:10"]
[Round "?"]
[White "List 5.12"]
[Black "Smirf 156"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Test SMIRF until 2006-03-31"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3 c5 5. Nf3
cxd4 6. Nxd4 Nc6 {(10.03) -0.115} 7. Nxc6 bxc6 {(11.00) +0.027} 8. Bd2 Ba6
{(09.00) +0.100} 9. e4 Qb6 {(09.16) +0.193} 10. e5 Bxc3 {(10.01) -0.072} 11.
Bxc3 Ne4 {(12.00) -0.314} 12. Qc2 Nxc3 {(11.11) -0.063} 13. Qxc3 Rb8 {(11.00)
-0.137} 14. b3 Qc5 {(10.30) -0.109} 15. Bg2 f5 {(10.00) +0.172} 16. Rd1 Rb6
{(09.15=) -0.139} 17. f4 g5 {(09.00) -0.133} 18. Rd3 gxf4 {(09.02) +0.033} 19.
gxf4 Rg8 {(09.01) -0.098} 20. Rg3 Rg6 {(09.26) -0.184} 21. Bf3 Qa3 {(11.01)
-0.801} 22. Bh5 Qxa2 {(11.17) -1.928} 23. O-O Qa3 {(12.00) -1.695} 24. Bxg6+
hxg6 {(12.01) -2.504} 25. Ra1 Qc5+ {(12.15) -2.783} 26. Qe3 Qxe3+ {(14.00)
-2.063} 27. Rxe3 c5 {(14.00) -2.270} 28. Rd3 Bb7 {(12.03) -2.199} 29. Rxa7 Bc6
{(13.02=) -2.482} 30. Ra5 Rb8 {(12.02) -2.137} 31. Rg3 Kf7 {(13.00) -2.176} 32.
Rxc5 Ra8 {(13.00) -2.027} 33. b4 Ra1+ {(13.00) -2.260} 34. Kf2 Rb1 {(13.00)
-2.311} 35. b5 Be4 {(13.01) -2.980} 36. Rc7 Rb2+ {(13.08) -4.002} 37. Ke1 Rb1+
{(13.03) -4.445} 38. Kd2 Ke7 {(13.04=) -5.436} 39. Rxg6 Kd8 {(14.00) -5.514}
40. Ra7 Rb2+ {(13.01) -6.158} 1-0

Pythagoras: "Halfpawn: ... There is only one way to tell which program is the best. ..."

Because he wanted to find out, which program would be best, I suggested CRC. Of course alternatively every variant, one program of both is able to play, could be examined one after the other.

So get well, Pythagoras, I hope for you to be ok soon!

SMIRF Engine: To investigate, which 10x8 program is playing best, thus playing CRC would be the ideal method.

Not correct.

To investigate which program is playing better Capablanca Random Chess, we will need to match the programs at CRC!

To investigate which program is playing better Gothic Chess, we will need to match the programs at Gothic Chess!


as long as the reasons for the terminating of those games exist, it would make no sense to start new such games.

Correct. I don't have much time now again. So i can't play quick for now. Thankfully i have today the whole day free. I'm injured as i have wrenched my ankle lightly, so i have to stay today inside home. That's why i will play with Smirf some Chess games as i've already said....


HalfPawn: There is only one way to tell which program is the best. Play a match. You can say all the things you want, the results speak louder than words.

Correct at the last statement, unclear of what you mean in the first.

To be able to determine which program is better(at a certain time control) you need at least 80-100 games _to have an indication_ and more than 200 to start being confident about that....

pawnme: as long as the reasons for the terminating of those games exist, it would make no sense to start new such games.

HalfPawn: There is only one way to tell which program is the best. Play a match.

If you will inspect Chessvariants.com, you will notice, that nearly all accepted 10x8 Chess variants based on Capablancas extended piece set could be regarded as a direct or mirrored CRC starting array, even Gothic Chess and Embassy. To investigate, which 10x8 program is playing best, thus playing CRC would be the ideal method.

Despite Ed Trice has announced half a year ago in his GC forum to send me a maximum time frame license for Gothic Chess, until now nothing such has ever reached me. So who could benefit from SMIRF only playing GC?

Ed has tried to convince other programmers to establish a common protocol to enable 10x8 chess programs to play automatically games. But he ignored some proposals to specify it in a more general way to make it usable for all 10x8 variants, not only for Gothic Chess. It has been obvious, that he was fearing his Vortex to be challenged within a playground without his huge opening library at hands.

Facing an already strong SMIRF he changed the conditions of his tournament, no longer offering a big price money. Even if a possible Iranian participant would have played then, he as a winner could have spent the money e.g. to the US Red Cross, obeying the rule, that the money has not been allowed to go to the Iran.

Well, perhaps Smirf should continue its game against Pythagoras (where they left off before resignation). Since both players seem to think they had the tactical advantage, let's see who comes out the wiser.

Pythagoras: Well, my current SMIRF MS-158 is again noticable stronger than the still to be download version MS-156. Real fans could make a serious project donation e.g. via PayPal to get a permanent key, of course valid also for coming versions. So additional testing is not at all absolutely impossible. I would suggest a testing at least with SMIRF's preset "rapid" timing. Playing Chess960 games would be a fair approach.

SMIRF Engine: .
.
.
LOL! Such advantages would definitely mean a win at 8x8 Chess for Smirf against me, but at 10x8 where material is less important than having an attack, i can plan better than Smirf so even +5.000 evaluations can't be trusted....


Anyway i will play tomorrow with some weaker opponents like Fritz 5.32, Comet B68, List 504 and Horizon 4.1 in order to find out of where approximately is its strength.
Considering the limited time i will have for this small test, what time controls do you suggest for this? I want to use the _shortest_ time controls possible that you believe Smirf will play best(as it is not a blitzer as you said).
Since tomorrow is the last day i can use Smirf i want to at least explore it a bit better....

HalfPawn: You can't declare that you are the winner of a game because at the break it has a better score. Did I? All I said was, that SMIRF has no need to fear such programs.

You lost every game to Gothic Vortex except for one So what? And have you ever noticed, that Gothic Vortex had used up to the 5 fold amount of time compared to SMIRF in the two GC forum games? And have you compared the development time being put into those programs?

Pythagoras: Time control was 10 seconds per move with 256 Hash for both

Well, SMIRF is not a blitzer by design. Nevertheless it cannot stand against such 8x8 programs yet, even version MS-158. Remember, it is my first approach. I am already happy to gain such advantages as against you. ;-)

SMIRF Engine: .
.
.
Yes Smirf shows an advantage for itself but as i already said and "proved" (remember the last game i was black and Smirf believed it was winning with even +5.000 scores but finally lost) this doesn't mean nothing! Smirf simply can't see the inevitable.... It's far away from its horizon!


While we were speaking about Smirf, i took the chance and played just for fun 2 games against Rybka 1.1. Yeah i know the test against the monster is not fair but anyway.
Time control was 10 seconds per move with 256 Hash for both. In the first game i played the first 4 opening moves for Smirf according to mainbook.Arena while in the second game Smirf played the opening by itself. Result of course 2-0 and i didn't do that for any other reason just for fun....


[Event "SmirfGUI Computerchess Game"]
[Site "USER-403C8545D2"]
[Date "2006.03.31"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Smirf 146"]
[Black "Rybka 1.1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Test SMIRF until 2006-03-31"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 d6 5.
Nc3 {(11.02=) +0.773} Nf6 6. Be3 {(10.01) +0.684} a6 7. a4 {(09.00) +1.047} Be7
8. h3 {(09.02+) +0.906} O-O 9. Bd3 {(09.00) +0.936} Bd7 10. Qf3 {(10.00)
+0.805} Nc6 11. Nxc6 {(09.01) +0.715} Bxc6 12. O-O {(08.18=) +0.850} Nd7 13.
Qh5 {(08.01) +0.717} Ne5 14. f4 {(08.18=) +0.469} Nxd3 15. cxd3 {(10.00)
-0.084} g6 16. Qg4 {(09.01) +0.062} d5 17. exd5 {(10.00) -0.125} Bxd5 18. a5
{(09.01) -0.105} Rc8 19. Bb6 {(09.01) -0.014} Bc5+ 20. Bxc5 {(11.01=) -0.693}
Rxc5 21. f5 {(10.21) -0.838} Bc6 22. fxg6 {(09.29) -0.881} Rg5 23. gxh7+
{(11.01) -2.066} Kh8 24. Qe2 {(11.01) -2.508} Rxg2+ 25. Qxg2 {(12.00) -2.586}
Bxg2 26. Kxg2 {(12.00) -2.693} Qxd3 27. Ra4 {(11.05) -2.602} Qxh7 28. Rf3
{(11.00) -2.703} Rd8 29. Kh1 {(11.00) -2.541} Rd3 30. Rxd3 {(13.00) -3.557}
Qxd3 31. Rh4+ {(12.01) -3.973} Kg7 32. Rg4+ {(11.01) -3.973} Kf8 33. Kh2
{(12.00) -3.996} Qf5 34. Rg3 {(12.01) -4.250} Qxa5 35. Rg2 {(11.01) -4.404}
Qe5+ 36. Kh1 {(12.01) -5.215} b5 37. Rg4 {(11.23=) -5.377} a5 38. Rg1 {(12.25)
-5.646} b4 39. Na4 {(11.21=) -6.848} Qd5+ 40. Kh2 {(13.00) -7.980} Qa2 41. Rg3
{(12.05=) -8.289} 0-1


[Event "SmirfGUI Computerchess Game"]
[Site "USER-403C8545D2"]
[Date "2006.03.31"]
[Time "01:01:16"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Rybka 1.1"]
[Black "Smirf 146"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Test SMIRF until 2006-03-31"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. d4 d5 {(10.03=) -0.195} 2. c4 dxc4
{(10.01) +0.039} 3. e4 Nc6 {(10.01) +0.420} 4. Nf3 Nf6 {(10.03) +0.242} 5. Nc3
Bg4 {(10.08) +0.047} 6. Be3 e5 {(10.12) +0.211} 7. d5 Bxf3 {(10.15=) -0.289} 8.
gxf3 Na5 {(10.00) -0.383} 9. Qa4+ c6 {(10.01) -0.766} 10. b4 b5 {(11.01=)
-0.160} 11. Qxa5 Qxa5 {(12.00) -0.432} 12. bxa5 Bb4 {(11.01) -0.662} 13. Bd2
cxd5 {(12.01=) -0.842} 14. Nxb5 Bxd2+ {(12.26) -1.191} 15. Kxd2 Rd8 {(12.00)
-1.191} 16. Nxa7 dxe4+ {(11.00) -1.598} 17. Kc2 Rd5 {(12.01) -0.969} 18. a6 Rc5
{(12.00) -0.418} 19. Rb1 O-O {(12.08) -0.123} 20. fxe4 Nxe4 {(12.02) -0.436}
21. Bg2 f5 {(12.01) -0.658} 22. Rb5 Rc7 {(13.01) -0.957} 23. Rb7 Rc5 {(13.00)
-1.312} 24. Nb5 Nxf2 {(12.00) -1.131} 25. Rg1 Kh8 {(11.01) -1.746} 26. a7 e4
{(10.07=) -3.311} 27. Rb1 Rcc8 {(11.05) -4.039} 28. Nd6 Ra8 {(11.19) -4.559}
29. Rb8 g6 {(11.01) -10.23} 1-0

Pythagoras: One example of resigned (you know the reason) games:
http://brainking.com/de/ArchivedGame?g=1370112

SMIRF evaluates for your side as follows:

02:48.1 (10.01=) -2.000 18...Nd7 (Be6) 19.Bf4 Ne5 20.exf5 Bxf5 21.Ne4 Bxe4 22.Cxe4 Qe6 23.Bxe5 Bxe5 24.bxa5 O-O-O
01:44.5 (09.02=) -2.014 18...Nd7 (Be6) 19.Bf4 Ne5 20.Qxa5 Rxa5 21.bxa5
01:43.2 (09.02+) -2.129 18...Nd7 (Be6) 19.Bf4 Ne5 20.Qxa5 Rxa5 21.bxa5
01:36.3 (09.01=) -2.131 18...Be6 (Nd7) 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.f4 Ng4 21.Ne4 Bxe4 22.Cxe4 axb4 23.Cxd6+ cxd6
01:13.9 (08.47=) -1.910 18...Be6 (Nd7) 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.f4 Ng4 21.Nb7 Qd7 22.Nxa5 Me6 23.Nxc6 Rxa4 24.Nxe7
00:41.7 (08.05=) -1.910 18...Be6 (Ng4) 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.f4 Ng4 21.Nb7 Qd7 22.Nxa5 Me6 23.Nxc6 Rxa4 24.Nxe7
00:29.2 (08.03=) -1.910 18...Be6 (Bd7) 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.f4 Ng4 21.Nb7 Qd7 22.Nxa5 Me6 23.Nxc6 Rxa4 24.Nxe7
00:25.1 (08.01=) -1.910 18...Be6 (d3) 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.f4 Ng4 21.Nb7 Qd7 22.Nxa5 Me6 23.Cd5
00:09.6 (07.02=) -1.926 18...Be6 (d3) 19.Bf4 Bd7 20.Bxe5 Bxe5 21.Nxd7 Mxd7 22.exf5 gxf5 23.Cxc6 Cxc6 24.Qxc6 Qxc6 25.bxa5
00:09.1 (07.02+) -2.000 18...Be6 (d3) 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.Bxh6 ixh6 21.Cxc6+ Nxc6 22.Qxc6+ Qxc6 23.bxa5
00:07.0 (07.01=) -2.002 18...d3 (Be6) 19.Nxd3 Nxd3+ 20.exd3 Qxd3 21.exf5 Bxf5 22.Cxc6+ Cxc6 23.Qxc6+ Kf7 24.Qxc7+ Md7
00:03.0 (06.01=) -1.934 18...d3 (Be6) 19.exd3 axb4 20.Qxa8 Qxc5 21.Cf4 Nf3+ 22.Kd1 Bc3
00:02.6 (05.03=) -1.875 18...d3 (Be6) 19.exd3 Nxd3+ 20.Nxd3 Qxd3 21.exf5 Qxf1+ 22.Rxf1 axb4 23.Qxa8 gxf5
00:01.2 (05.01=) -1.875 18...d3 (Bd7) 19.exd3 Nxd3+ 20.Nxd3 Qxd3 21.exf5 Qxf1+ 22.Rxf1 axb4 23.Qxa8 gxf5
00:01.0 (04.18=) -1.875 18...d3 (Bd7) 19.exd3 Nxd3+ 20.Nxd3 Qxd3 21.exf5 Be6
00:00.9 (04.03=) -1.875 18...d3 (Ra7) 19.exd3 Nxd3+ 20.Nxd3 Qxd3 21.exf5 Be6
00:00.6 (04.01=) -1.875 18...d3 (Ng4) 19.exd3 Nxd3+ 20.Nxd3 Qxd3 21.exf5 Be6
00:00.3 (03.01=) -1.875 18...d3 (Ng4) 19.exd3 Nxd3+ 20.Nxd3 fxe4
00:00.2 (02.25=) -1.875 18...d3 (Ra7) 19.Nxd3 Nxd3+ 20.exd3 Qxd3 21.exf5 Me6+
00:00.0 (02.20=) -1.875 18...d3 (=/=) 19.Nxd3 Nxd3+ 20.exd3 Qxd3 21.exf5 Me6+
00:00.0 (02.00?) -1.621 18...Qxc5 (=/=)

SMIRF+UCI: Already I have so much ideas and improvements in my head, that I would not yet need help for that. Nevertheless I could use extern experiences and strength estimations. It seems more important (if I would do anything big at all), to make SMIRF 64 Bit aware. That is not easy because its GUI is built with Borland Builder, which is still not supporting 64 Bit for C++.

SMIRF Engine: The truth is, that any victory or loss is losing any worth, if not gained fairly. That is also the reason, why I have resigned some games here at brainking, even though mostly having advantage.

And i say again:
Why you propose that i didn't play fair.....?
Why you still insist on the wrong statement that Smirf had the advantage at these games....?


Yes seeing SMIRF's 8x8 abilities seperatedly would do harm to its new concept, but i prefer this than having to test games manually to see its strength. After an UCI implementation you will see Smirf appear in many Chess rating lists and tests. I believe this is more important from the possible aforementioned harm..... A massive number of games will help exponentialy you, to improve Smirf!

HalfPawn: "Since you "ran away" from the tournament, ..." No, it has been no tournament, because its rules were not sufficient to cover the raised problems. Instead of completing the rules, pressure has been put on me. So the only method for me to end this chaos had been to resign.

... you should challenge either ChessV ... so is it still alive? On its sourceforge site forum posts will not been answered at all.

... or Vortex ... As a reaction of a current posting of Ed: "You are mentally ill"? Well, the world is obviously strange.

... it was announced that there is a 64-bit parallel processing version of Gothic Vortex ... Well, so much power seems to be necessary to beat a new born single CPU 32-Bit amateur program SMIRF.

HalfPawn: Why do you do nothing here but taunt players?

SMIRF, I assume you have already decided to ignore HalfPawn. He seems to be here just to stir up trouble.

Pythagoras: Most programs playing Winboard or UCI base on open source activities of many years by many people. Thus the level to be noticed as a relevant program is very high now. Nevertheless SMIRF is a completly genuine approach it probably would reach a level of about 2600 Elo now after 3/2 years of serious development, divided between GUI and engine. The whole scene currently is talking about rybka, so no interest is left for 8x8 and 10x8 combining approaches. Seeing SMIRF's 8x8 abilities seperatedly would do harm to its new concept.

I have not the time, to develop a competitive UCI GUI covering 8x8 and 10x8 chess, moreover seeing no other writers intending to release GUI-less 10x8 engines.