JinkyOng: was undefeated in 10x8 chess.

http://brainking.com/de/Profile?u=3629

The last games he lost on time because he was banned.
But it has to say nothing because have not the strongest players here.

I told the site owner I didn't like ALL of my games to be public. I think I've got that right. I saw someone posting something about Trice and I posted that I beat him. What the hell's wrong with making that statement? And why do YOU think he is so good that I can't beat him????????? I sent them permission to show all of my blitz games.

JinkyOng: Perhaps you can give your permission? Much as I'd like to believe you beat GothicInventor at his own game, I have trouble believing you did. Plus it'd be easy for me to replay the game on that site and see how the game played out.

You're confusing me too. If you wanted your game private, why'd you post it here and draw attention to it?

There is one game I played with some other weakie posted. None of my other games will be posted without my permission.

JinkyOng: You say the game is publicly posted? I'd like to see it so that I might replay it. That site has a replay section and I'll be able to follow the game better. I could put the descriptive notation you posted in a window next to the game as the moves are made.

I think in descriptive. I typed the game out from memory and I can always do this in descriptive. When I found out all games were recorded without my permission I was furious! I said I wouldn't be back unless all my games were private and unable to be viewed without my permission. I saw the post about him and just posted the game. So far we've played 5 times with another game being played later. That site is buggy as hell and has real problems.

SMIRF Engine:
You beat me to it. I was about to sit down and do a translation after eating breakfast. However lucky I checked again before starting the task! :-)

JinkyOng: Probably : 20...P-R4, then it could look like following:

[Event "Game in 3/0"]
[Site "GothicChessLive.vom"]
[Date "2006.04.06"]
[Round "?"]
[White "JinkyOng"]
[Black "GothicInventor"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "RS using SMIRF"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/ PPPPPPPPPP/RNBQCKABNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nh3 Nc6 3. i3 g6 4. c3 Bf6 5. Na3 Ng7 6. Af3 h5 7. Qb3 Aj5 8. Bi2
O-O 9. Qxd5 Cd6 10. Qb3 Be6 11. Qc2 Bxd4 $1 12. Bf4 Cd7 13. Rd1 Bxa2 14. cxd4
Nxd4 15. Rxd4 Cxd4 16. Axd4 Qxd4 17. b3 Ne6 18. Bc1 Bxb3 19. Qxb3 Rhb8 20. O-O
a5 21. Nc2 Qe4 22. Qf3 Qxf3 23. Cxf3 f6 24. Nd4 Nf8 25. Ba3 Ag8 26. Rc1 c6 27.
Nf4 e5 28. Bxf8 Rxf8 29. Nxg6 Rf7 30. Ne6 a4 31. Ch4 Ah6 32. Cxh5 Axc1 33. Ng7+
Rxg7 34. Cxg7+ Kj8 35. Nf8 j5 36. Cg8+ Kj7 37. Ch8+ Kj6 38. Nh7# 1-0

Can anybody perhaps translate this game in algebraic notation? Thanks.

JinkyOng:
Actually a nice conclusion especially for a game nearing the end of a 3-0 speed chess time control. Also surprisingly not too bad to follow in Descriptive notation, although 20...P-R5 probably should have been 20...P-R4. I am one of those players old enough to have first learned with that type of notation. Has Ed been keeping the record of games up to date? It doesn't seem like anything more recent than March is on the link that Caissus supplied below.

JinkyOng: I knew that you would win! But why do I not find the game here : http://www.gothicchesslive.com/players-games.php ?

JinkyOng: This is the first time I've seen descriptive notation used for a 10 × 8 board. Is this game on the Gothic Chess site?

Caissus: I don't know why people say he's so good. I crushed him easily.

JinkyOng vs. GothicInventor
GothicChessLive.com
Game in 3/0
April 6, 2006

1. P-Q4 P-Q4
2. N-KB3 N-QB3
3. P-KN3 P-A3
4. P-QB3 B-K3
5. N-QR3 N-A2
6. A-K3 P-KB4
7. Q-N3 A-R4
8. B-N2 O-O
9. QxP C-Q3
10. Q-N3 B-C3
11. Q-B2 BxQP!
12. B-K4 C-Q2
13. R-Q1 BxRP
14. PxB NxP
15. RxN CxR
16. AxC QxA
17. P-N3 N-C3
18. B-QB1 BxP
19. QxB KR-N1
20. O-O P-R5
21. N-B2 Q-C5
22. Q-K3 QxQ
23. CxQ P-K3
24. N-Q4 N-K1
25. B-QR3 A-A1
26. R-B1 P-B3
27. N-K4 P-C4
28. BxN RxB
29. NxAP R-K2
30. N-C6 P-R5
31. C-B4 A-B3
32. CxP AxR
33. N-A7ch RxN
34. CxRch K-R1
35. N-K8 P-R4
36. C-A8ch K-R2
37. C-B8ch K-R3
38. N-B7 checkmate

I have to announce that I have received a Gothic chesset by Ed Trice today.

It was the second prize of a tournement (GC) and I have to thank him.

SMIRF Engine: Sorry, have to answer in German at the German board.

Caissus: Exactly as Beren the 32nd already has stated, there have been some positions, where a pair of Bishops was targeting the opposite King and King's Pawn. Actually I have not stored the numbers, sorry.

But I did not understand your second question.

SMIRF Engine: Can you give an example for such a position, please?

And why should there be an additional advantage for W in a mirrored position?

Beren the 32nd: Well, the advantage exceeded 1/2 pawn unit, but still sank, when calculating longer and deeper. Normally the advantage should be around 1/4 pawn unit, which seems quite normal and acceptable.

Because it is too risky to move Queen or Archbishop that early cross the whole board, it seems to be sufficient to separate the bishops. Moreover there have been only few such extreme starting arrays, so the added rule hopefully should be sufficient to limit possible starting advantages. Now there still are 12118 different starting arrays.

Thus the current SMIRF download also gives now the modified SMIRF beta with engine 1.59.

SMIRF Engine: An interesting conclusion. I would tend to agree, especially if the Bishops start out pointing at the opposing King.
This raises some questions though. How can you decide if the advantage is too great? Are we talking about a SMIRF position evaluation of more than 0.3 for example? What about other positions, like where the Cardinal is next to a Bishop?

After experimenting with CRC for several months I detected that there could be some special positions, which might be too advantageous for white. They belong to a subclass of positions, where the pair of bishops is neighboured. Thus I as the author have decided to add the following selection rule: 'positions with neighboured bishops have to be avoided.' There 12118 positions still are remaining.

2006 Second Quarter Open Number 1 Janus Chess

3 day time limit standard vacation

WhisperzQ: I think not . . . Black was dominating the game after hxg. certainly avoiding the mate in two was necessary but the open file will be dominated by Black . . . controlling a rook file near the opponents king is usually winning.

andreas: Wonder if it would have been any different if the pawn capture used the i pawn?

PhatPlaya: Even nicer example (Capablanca random chess):
Black to move and checkmate in 2 moves

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.