Since i'm a poor Pawn and can't edit my post please instead of the wrong </b> that destroys the appearance of my post, put a </i> instead....

After some time that i had to concentrate on some reading/studies i'm free to post again:-)

Some short notes:
ChessCarpenter:
M_TAL on GothicChessLive.com beat the new Vortex 2 times (after losing a few games).

A few = 1 :-)
Against the new G.Vortex i have 2 wins and one loss, yet i have the feeling that i will lose every single game i will play against it....
It has become VERY strong indeed!


You will remember he was ChessMaster1000 on here, as well as WhiteTower, ChicagoBulls, and maybe 1 or 2 others.

I was never WhiteTower....
Just Chessmaster1000->Pythagoras->Chicago Bulls
while initially when i came here, as a pawn, with a restricted number of games i could play, i played the Gothic Chess games of my father's account (WhiteShark).....


WalterMontego:
What's a Chancellor and Archbishop?

Chancellor=One meaning:the chief minister of state in certain parliamentary governments, as in Germany; prime minister; premier.
Archbishop=a bishop of the highest rank who presides over an archbishopric or archdiocese.

LOL! :-) Nice to see you again.....

Marfitalu: I will do a calculation at night of "safe-Check" pieces values and also for Reinhard's approach pieces values for Grand Chess.....
Later....

JinkyOng:
Just a straight question:
You pretend to be or you are actually Robert Fischer?

Calling someone a weakie(a well known characteristic of the great R.Fischer that called his weaker opponents that way) and having this hyper-secrecy along with suspicions about everything (another known characteristic of the great R.Fischer) and responding with that way in my private message, means that either you are the legend or you are a great actor.....

I wonder which is true?!?!?

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.....!

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....!

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....

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: .
.
.
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

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

.
.
.
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

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....

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....

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

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!

Oops i meant FRC and not CRC of course.....

A big number of fans unfortunatelly, come after a success of a program....

But the MOST DISCOURAGING factor that prevents Smirf to come in the front of the stage is:
The lack of UCI ability! I understand your reasons and i somewhat agree. That's why i wish ARENA to support 10x8 Chess variants. If that would happen i guess you immediately implement UCI support for Smirf. But.....
On the other hand, although making a UCI Smirf for Chess only, would hide it's ability to play 10x8 CRC too, it would give the opportunity to people to make tests with it and the result would be to become well-known....

.
.
.
The prize it's a Fencer's gift and not mine. But since i had the right to create such a tournament i did it.

The winner will receive a 6 months Rook membership. It's an Embassy Chess tournament.
The tournament.

SMIRF Engine: .
.
.
I have watched the Smirf progress at 10x8 variants all these years and i've said, as you know, that i'm just impressed! You are doing a hell of a job with it that's why i wish you to continue with it and forget all these GO-thing.
The most interesting thing about Smirf for me is its ability to play, always speaking about 10x8 Chess, the opening with a non-computeristic way! It doesn't play the openings like a human but not like computer too. If you leave a computer alone in the opening it will screw up the game. Not Smirf! I guess this has to do with your approach.... Of course many many weaknesses are there in the opening play too but not as many as in all the other 10x8 programs i know....

I guess that Smirf's strength (that was the case in the latest Smirf beta i can play with) at 10x8 variants is sufficient for having no fear against the other programs. But i'm sure you don't speak about 8x8 Chess variants, right?
For example and since you are the only one that can test it, how it can do against Spike 1.1 at FRC?

About GO: Yes the GO-programming world is still unexplored and many innovative ideas can be implement. This obviously will give to the GO programmers the sense of a mystery, that they're swimming into uncharted places with many discoveries waiting them. And this is true. But considering the difficulty of GO-programming i don't think it's a good idea to abandon a successful project like Smirf and dive into the unknown......

SMIRF Engine: .
.
.
I don't understand nothing from what you said!
Anyway i have the feeling that you believe i've said that Smirf plays dumb trades. It wasn't me that said that. But anyway if you want my opinion Smirf makes bad trades. Very bad ones. Of course i don't claim it is doing them often or not i just say it does them from time to time. And i believe that it would be stronger if it didn't make that bad trades....

SMIRF Engine:
How this game is conclusive i don't understand!?!
Conclusive about what? About piece values? I don't see the point....

SMIRF Engine: If you really would be able to clearly win as you claim, you should do it in a fair way. Else nobody will understand your strange behaviour.
1st: I don't understand the "fair way". Why i wasn't fair?
2nd: Also it was not my fault that we would not know the result of these games as it was not me that resigned.....
3nd: Why my behaviour is strange....?

Fwiffo: Yeah, but don't hope for a fight to start between Reinhard and me! I'm a huge fan of Smirf and i fully support Reinhard in what he does(at computer game programming) and there is not even a tiny chance to start fighting with him.....
I just disagree with him sometimes....

SMIRF Engine:
Huge advantage????? In what game are you refering to? Black one or white one?
In white game i would win clearly. In black game i had the small advantage although the game was definitely complicated....!
If you say huge advantage due to Smirf's evalutions i have proven before that Smirf's evaluations and generally computer's evaluations in that kind of games i create in 10x8 Chess variations, are worthless.
Remember that in our first black game Smirf believed it had even a +5.000 or more points advantage, but i knew clearly that i will win like i did....

They were very interesting and i wanted to attack to Smirf's King.....

Because i played with a low time frequency.... I've had around 5 days to move if i recall correctly so Smirf resigned....
It's my fault and it's not my fault! I play slowly and i feel sorry about that (and i can't do nothing for that) but i don't feel responsible about the decisions of others....
Smirf wants to play quick, i was playing quick at the most part of the match, but from a period and then when i started to be very busy, i was playing like a turtle for 2-3 moves and for my last move i've made 5-7 days to move and Smird didn't like that so he quited.....

Since you won you did OK:-) And since you won from a much inferior position after the late middlegame you did better than OK....:-)

A very interesting interview of Reinhard Scharnagl is available! Unfortunatelly this is only in German for now, although it has been stated that an English translation will follow soon....

For all of you that don't know, Reinhard is the author of Smirf engine and you see one of his posts immediately below my post....

Walter Montego: Nicely done....! Great Pawn wall.... If you don't do any mistake Smirf can't do nothing to penetrate....
Yet this wall you created, corresponds to a drawish plan, while although i also create closed positions, they are for attacking purposes and only to win. Of course as you said you made a mistake giving some material. But in fact when you play with this system for a draw it's good to give a Rook for a Bishop since Rooks are totally incapable of penetrating in that kind of positions due to their lack of diagonal play.....

HalfPawn: I think you need to be 'brave' because you basically said Ed's 161-0 was 'not as good' as the Smirfengine's 32-5,

No! I didn't say that....!
I repeat what i said: "The rating someone has depends on the definition of the rating system and the ratings the opponents had. And that it is possible and very logical that someone with even 876 wins and no loses can have lower rating than someone with 18 wins and 5 loses...."
I didn't make any statement about if the 32-5 is superior or not from the 161-0. It may be it may not....



and from the crosstables that were posted, Smirf played some weak players and Ed played the best of the best.

Again that proves nothing! You have to be more analytical.....
For example I play and win 2 strong players and 712 monkeys. And have 714-0.
You play 4 weak players and 28 strong players and have 28-4 with 4 loses from the strong players.
The conclusion? Is 714-0 better than 28-4? No.
I don't say that happened in any way! I just prove that your quoted statement is false.

Yet if you said: "and from the crosstables that were posted, Smirf played against an opposition of some level and Ed played against a higher rated opposition."
then my answer would be: "Ed's rating below Smirf's is not correct and should be above it."



And, Pythagoras, you have even told me, and showed me, some of the weak play of the Gothic Vortex program. If Ed did use that on here, wouldn't those same weaknesses be obvious?

No they need a good at anti-computer like me to exploit them and there are not many here.....




You claim to be a 'man of logic' yet you fail to make any remarks showing you can 'think outside of the box.' One of the truest tests of intelligence is intuitive improvisation. And comparing 161-0 to 32-5 really isn't that big of a stretch.

I can't think ouside of the box as i'm deliberately inside the box!
Also consider the example: "161 wins and no loses. All wins against 3-years old childs. And 32 wins and 5 loses against 2400 rated people."So here is an example that we can compare it. The fact that there are examples we can't compare it is irrelevant.....




GothicInventor will play the Smirfengine a 1 game match. You get to write down who you think will win the game. If you are wrong, you will be shot and killed. If you are right, you will be paid one million dollars. To make it fair, let's say Smirf's programmer would be paid one million if it wins and GothicInventor would be paid one million if he wins, and they do not know about your situation at all. That way, everyone is properly motivated.

I will only answer this question if instead of being killed, nothing serious would happen.
Then:

Who would you pick to win?

No need to give me an explanation about how this hypothetical situation will never arise.

I just want your answer, Smirfengine, or GothicInventor.


I'm the last person on earth that would not answer on hypothetical questions! I always answer them.....

Well it depends highly on the time controls! As there are many numbers of different time controls i'm too lazy to arrange it into different time-controls categories for each case.
So please tell me in what time control the match would be......?

HalfPawn: I would be very surprised if Ed admits he did such a thing?!?!? I don't know the truth but i'm very curious what Ed he will say....

If Thad is saying that Ed told him he is using a computer to play, while Ed comes and denies it, i can't make any conclusion at all since both Thad and Ed are serious persons and i don't want to take the side of anyone....

HalfPawn: Brave enough? I didn't accuse anyone and of course i didn't accuse Ed.....
I just say the facts and combine the facts to produce logical statements....Nothing more!

Also although i won you in the 100% of the games we played Gothic Chess, i saw a very good even an amazing improvement from game to game, so i guess you may be extremely good at Gothic Chess right now.... Maybe, maybe not of course..... Also my characterization to you, as one that has evolved to a God and specifically to Hermes, maybe unfair or wrong! Don't feel offended in any way, but if you do then i trully apologize for it....!

Also about the: "And all I did was ask who Pyhagoras thought was the strongest player, and I still don't really have an answer."

I already answered....See a little above.


Walter Montego: Yes Hermes is the God i was refering. Mercury is the name of the planet that is closest to the sun and in my language Hermes=Mercury so you are right.
For your information God Hermes is the son of Zeus(the King of the 12 Olympus Gods) and Maia. He is Zeus’s messenger. He is the fastest of the gods. He wears winged sandals, a winged hat, and carries a magic wand.....

Because at the beginning of this conversation i thought HalfPawn has been evolved into one of the 12 Gods of Olympus!
The one with the winged sandals if you know....
But his last post perhaps made me to change slightly my opinion although i'm not convinced yet.....

GOD: Well Ed Trice played the highest level of Gothic Chess above all others in my opinion at Brainking, considering of course ONLY the games i have seen here....

I note again of course that this doesn't mean he should be first in the rating list. Also that this doesn't mean he shouldn't be first in the rating list. The first in the list comes from the definition and execution of the Brainking's formula.


Also note that:
If someone doesn't know to explain his moves while his moves are on a high level, this would imply cheating from his part.
But if someone does know to explain his moves while his moves are on a high level, this would NOT imply a NON-cheating from his part.
With other words: He could cheat even if he can play at a high level and explain the moves he played....
Note also that i don't speak about Ed or another specific person.....

ColonelCrockett: if you can beat the best computer programs at Gothic...why use them to cheat? that makes no sense.

And why do you think he beats the best programs at Gothic Chess? At GothicChessLive where you say he is the champion, he doesn't beat the top computer Gothic Chess programs, but only humans.....


Also 1-2 years ago he made the statement:

"I am rated 2331 at Gothic Chess, and in fast games (1 min per move or less) the program outperforms me without too much difficulty."

Note that he refers to Gothic Vortex with "the program".
Also note that at GothicChessLive the games have a time level of much less of 1 minute per move so this is an additional advantage for the computer.
So your statement that i quoted appears to be completely false....!

ColonelCrockett:
1st: What Champion of blitz time level means? Where is the data for this?

2nd: Even if someone is the champion of at a specific time level by playing on his own, that doesn't imply that he doesn't cheat at another time level by using a computer. Of course that also doesn't imply that he cheats at another time level.

Thad: Smirf was the top rated when Gothic Chess games disappeared from this site and not Grim Reaper. That of course to answer your false statement that he was rated first here. But that (that Smirf was first) doesn't mean Smirf is the strongest Gothic Chess player.

The second statement you said is quite interesting.....But i can't comment it since Grim Reaper can't answer....

Thad:
1st: How do you know he was the strongest? Did you look at ALL the games of ALL players that played this game....?
2nd: How do you know he has cheated? Did you see that with your eyes or do you have any other kind of definite proof.....?

GOD: Well if this just a question with NO CONNECTION of which should be first in the rating lists, then my anwer is this:
Sorry but i can't answer this question since i haven't examined ALL the Gothic Chess games played on Brainking.....
Tell me if you want to answer your question for the games i have seen only....

GOD: .
.
.
My opinion or yours or Fencer's or Reinhards or anyone else's doesn't matter. It's the way the ratings are calculated and the opinion of the numbers that decide!
You or i may think that we deserve a better ranking but the numbers state otherwise. That's the point!

The way Fencer has defined the formula for the ratings, Smirf was first!
I, you, he, she, were in X,T,U,I place! That's what the numbers said! On this site.
If someone doesn't agree with that then he should complain! If his complaints don't have a result then he should stop complaining and accept it or stop playing here.....Simple!

HalfPawn: So you are saying 32 wins and 5 losses should be rated higher than someone with 161 wins and 0 losses?

It depends on the definition of the rating system and the ratings the opponents had. Period!
So yes it is possible and very logical that someone with even 876 wins and no loses can have lower rating than someone with 18 wins and 5 loses....

Also we have 2 facts here:
Smirf Engine was rated higher than GrimReaper with the Brainking formula while with the formula it is used on the page you gave, it is rated lower....
This is indisputable!


If that is math that makes sense, no wonder Smirfengine lost to ChessV!

This is completely irrelevant as far as i can see.....!


Prove to me the BK system make sense based on what I have just shown you.

I highly disagree with how the Brainking system works, but that doesn't mean your use of the word "LOOK" was correct.... You've put the subjective factor of a human's opinion/instinct about if a list makes more sense than another, and that is what i criticize here.....

HalfPawn: and you have to admit those ratings look more accurate

LOOK MORE ACCURATE???????????????????
Why oh why?
Can you give one or more reasons about the "LOOK"....?

I know from a statistical point of view that the Glicko2 system i suppose it is used on the ratings you gave, is better than the Brainking's, but the word "LOOK" you used means what looks better to us.
And the opinion of any person can't be by any means a criterion of which list is more accurate!!!!

No, i think he was 1900 according to Brainking rating system. The page you gave shows the ratings according to another system.....

HalfPawn: Looks like Pedro was rated 1783 at Gothic Chess.

Yeah, so....?

WhiteTower:.
.
.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Walter Montego: Not time to reply to all other but the last was goooood! "By the way, you are going to start moving next Monday? You can't develope them if you don't move them. :)"
<----Some smileys here/just enable emoticons to see them, i know you hate emoticons and have them disabled but anyway.....

HalfPawn: Why are some games balanced while others aren't?

Because in some games there is a line that makes a player(1st or 2nd player, usually the 1st due to the tempo advantage) to have the advantage. Another reason or actually a definition to the word balanced, is the symmetry a game has. Another one is the ability to develop easily the pieces. Another is the variety of opening lines available to black after white plays. For example at Bird's Chess, after white's Ch3 black is restricted to play only 3 moves or else it would lose....
Embassy Chess somes close to Gothic Chess in all these areas but fails in the ease of developing the pieces. With this i don't say that at Embassy Chess is difficult to develop the pieces, but only that at Gothic it is easier.....

HalfPawn: I had no idea there were so many variants! It appears from cv.org that there are thousands?? How can this be possible?

How can be possible that there are so many ants? LOL!


The term SMIRF is in that post as I see someone with that in their name here. Same person/program/thing or something different?

Smirf is a program that plays 8x8 Chess and Fischer Random Chess as also 10x8 Capablanca Random Chess. Smirf plays here also with the name SMIRF ENGINE.


And why all the fuss over which variant is better?? That makes no sense! There are so many to play just pick what you like and play what you want!

Instead of wasting time by playing inferior variants we must decide which are better in order to play them.....

If you give the reasons for that, i can argue about it a bit.....:-)

tedbarber: of the more inferior 8x8 regular boring and drawish game 8x8 has become;due to overstudy and overplay.

No,no,no....Just a little more respect for the game of the games would be appreciated.....!
I agree that Gothic Chess is an excellent game too, and i like it almost as i like Chess or better, but in order to replace Chess many things have to happen and many many years have to pass, if ever of course.....