At http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html there is a free SMIRF version to be downloaded, which might work also under Linux Wine or Mac Crossover. Maybe some are interested to get some experiences. Feedback at best to my email address.

cpaul_d2004: SMIRF pages and more at http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html

mahavrilla: O-O (two "O" symbols) will bring the King on the second square from the right side.
O-O-O (three "O" symbols) will bring the King on the third square from the left side.
The involved Rook will be placed then at the King's inner neighbour square.
This is similar to how castling is performed in traditional chess or in Chess960.

mahavrilla: there is no identified K-side. As in traditional chess the King is moving to the c-file when castling O-O-O (three squares from a-side) or he is moving to the i-file when casting O-O (two squares from j-side). The involved rook will be placed upon the kings' inner neighbour square. Thus the resulting castling positions of K and R are identical (seen from outer sides) as known from traditional chess or from Chess960 / FRC.

Walter Montego: You wrote: "It's way too much trouble for me to try to play through it at home without a 10 × 8 board and pieces."

You could download a Donationware version of SMIRF from http://www.10x8.net/down/SmNewSetup.exe. This will give you the cance to cut and paste the PGN and to replay it at the SMIRF GUI then.

Walter Montego: Well, SMIRF won that game, this has it been in PGN:

[Event "Longtime 10x8 Game"]
[Site "GothicChess.BlogSpot.com"]
[Date "2007.10.07"]
[Time "00:25:48"]
[Round "Blog-Game-1"]
[White "Gothic Vortex"]
[Black "Smirf MS-168i"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "RS"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNBQCKABNR w KQkq - 0 1"]

1. Nh3 g6 2. d4 Nh6 3. g3 c6 4. Bf3 Na6 5. Bf4 f6 6. Be3 Qb6 7. Nc3 Qxb2 8. Cd3
Qa3 9. Ne4 Qa5 10. d5 Qxd5 11. Cxd5 Axd5 12. Bxh6+ ixh6 13. Nd6 Cxd6 14. Bxd5
Cxd5 15. Qxd5 cxd5 16. Af3 e6 17. O-O b6 18. Ah4 j5 19. Ni5 hxi5 20. Axi5+ Ke7
21. Axh7 Rj6 22. h4 Nc5 23. h5 g5 24. h6 Ba6 25. Ag6+ Kd6 26. e3 Be2 27. a4 Bf3
28. Rh2 Be4 29. Ah5 Bxc2 30. a5 Rb8 31. axb6 axb6 32. f4 Bh7 33. fxg5 fxg5 34.
Af7+ Kc6 35. Rc1 g4 36. Ag5 Rj7 37. Af4 Rg8 38. Ah5 Rj8 39. Af7 Ra8 40. Rd2 j4
41. Ag5 Be4 42. Rg1 j3 43. i3 Be5 44. Ai4 b5 45. Ah5 b4 46. Axg4 d6 47. Rdd1 b3
48. Ah5 b2 49. i4 Rji8 50. Kh2 Rah8 51. Af7 Bf6 52. Axh8 Rxh8 53. i5 Ri8 54.
Ri1 Bxj2 55. Rj1 Bg5 56. Rxj3 Rxi5 57. g4 Ri6 58. Rjj1 Rxh6+ 59. Ki2 Bf3 60.
Rb1 Bxg4+ 61. Ki1 Ri6+ 62. Kh1 Ri2 63. Rj4 Bf5 64. Rb4 Ne4 65. Rxe4 Re2 66. Rb4
Bxb1 67. e4 Bxe4+ 68. Kg1 b1=Q+ 69. Rxb1 Be3+ 70. Kf1 Rf2+ 71. Ke1 Bxb1 72. Kd1
Bd3 73. Ke1 Rf1# 0-1

That game is still running. It might be interesting to read about it at:
http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/2007/09/vortex-vs-smirf-blog-game.html

Walter Montego: Hi Walter, before executing 24.Nxe5 SMIRF calculated in 08 min 28.4 sec on level 13 with the first to be tested move (intermediate best candidate) within this level an advanrtage of 2.496 pawn units, if White would proceed with this suggested move. But the question concerning a move 29 is unclear to me.

SMIRF Engine: Sorry, Walter, you have been the one with White!

Walter Montego: Hi Walter! After about ten minutes of thinking the current SMIRF Engine is regarding your opponent White to be about 2.5 pawn units better and would be expecting:

08:28.4 (13.01=) +2.496 24.Nxe5 (Bxe5) Bxd1 25.Mxd1 Ae6 26.Ng6 Mf7 27.b6 Bd8 28.Nb5 Na6 29.j4 j6

Beren the 32nd: well, I posted following to one interested person:

well, because of series of attacks against my SMIRF project
in some fora I decided to no longer publish my web site as
it has been done. May be it would be redesigned as a closed
shop site providing special users with access rights. But at
this moment it has been closed and redirected to:

=> http://web.mac.com/rescharn/

OCTOPUS is proceeding very slowly. I have not that much
time and motivation. Moreover I am actually rethinking a
combinatoric and recursive TSP solution covering more
than 30 points in all symmetric and even strange cases.

Octopus will have a different floating piece evaluation
depending on the average of empty squares and two
parts of constant individual piece values: a static part and
another part related to the board's emptiness.

It seems as if there would be a UCI engine first, which then
would be not at all Mac specific, that is, it could be compiled
for PC, too. But because I do not want to publish it because
of missing 10x8 supporting GUIs, there might be the chance
of releasing it to some selected testers then.

(It will need to also write an own 10x8 / 8x8 UCI GUI later
what I will do for the Mac then.)

There would be a note then at that blog how to contact me for
participation. But I am unsure, whether that could happen still
in 2007.

Moreover I currently do no longer provide English translated
pages at the web, because no English speaking chess pro-
grammer had followed my bilingual approach all that time.

Best regards,

Reinhard Scharnagl.

jerom: that is what I have said.

jerom: well, as I have told before, it is hard to meet there someone. There is no jour fix, where attempts to find other player could be bundled. I suggested to enter at full hours, but even you refuted such a simple proposal ...

jerom: Because it is hard to meet there someone, I would suggest to try a logon there at full hours. The chances will grow then to find there more than only yourself.

CryingLoser:
Thank you for this comment. But I simply have tried to publish a downwards compatible extension to chess to give a durable drosophila to chess programming. If it should be detected to be interesting and playable also for human players, the better it is. In any case 10x8 chess will become more and more interesting to the public, simply because Chancellor and Archbishop are the logical completion to the traditional chess piece set. This is, because the three basic piece gates of Knight, Bishop and Rook therein are completed by all their paired combinations.

CryingLoser:
Of course it is interesting to read that top players are interested in playing such 10x8 Chess games based on Capablancas extended piece set. If Mr. Fischer is remembering his own invention Chess960 (he himself has named it "Fischerandom"), he should be highly interested in playing CRC (Capablanca Random Chess). But as usual sponsors have their influence in the variant selection for attractively honoured chess match events.

ChessCarpenter: Indeed such table bases are of noticable theoretical interest, and usually a good marketing argument, too. ;-) My opinon on such tables is, that they should stay away from valued games. Moreover, most games, wherein ever table bases could be successfully used, were already decided before that stage has been reached. Nevertheless having such tables could be of remarkable productive usability for answering questions of endgame theory. Thus the place for using them should be in post game analyses only.

ChessCarpenter: Hi CC. I am not sure, what this discussion should be good for. My informations have been different to yours, but being the same concerning the multiprocessing version. The 64 Bit version nevertheless seems to be at hands as to be seen in that link to the Vortex order offer. If the speed difference (and its not mentioned big RAM size) would be without influence on the game results, then the question would be, why to use that then. If Vortex really should have gained its last six victories using a 32 Bit engine, that would find my full respect.

All that does not change the fact, that the amateur one man project of a multivariant SMIRF engine actually could not defeat current Vortex playing under those conditions. Nevertheless it is true, that the improved SMIRF has won those mentioned games against available prior versions of Vortex, where there also has been one newly installed only time limited Gold version, which has been the number one last year.

But those wins have been mentioned not to claim SMIRF now to be the number one program, but to underline its made progresses and also to provoke the releasing of a free testing version of the new Gothic Vortex program, which I still have not at hands, whereas SMIRF indeed is available in a free basic donationware version to everybody, which program could be used for testing and comparing purposes simply by giving it a plus of actually about 60% time.

As long as there is nothing comparable from Vortex to be downloaded, nobody but the purchasers of the new Vortex program would be able to test both engines playing Gothic Chess under equal conditions. But a test also should include a competition on 10x8 Capablanca Random Chess, Janus and Embassy. To focus merely on Gothic Chess is not appreciating SMIRF's 8x8 and 10x8 multivariant abilities.

swordswisher: "Same program?" Put that question to those, who could answer it, because that seems to be highly relevant for you. I myself do neither own the current Gothic Vortex program offered there nor the one, which has been used at the matching online server. Moreover, even a 60GB table base size could be called huge. Table bases always are growing, so it is recommended to characterize their size rather by their logarithms. Thus from 32GB upwards their log is nearer to 1TB than to 1GB, and thus it makes sense to talk of Terabyte sizes.

ChessCarpenter: SMIRF has been improved as shown in its game against the renewed ChessV http://www.gothicchesslive.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=1606 . Despite of playing some interesting games there against the rewritten Gothic Vortex, its actually betas seem to be unable to dominate therein. Vortex currently has been rebuilt as a 64 Bit program and uses a matching high speed hardware. This and the lack of a freely available Gothic Vortex program, which would be reflecting its new abilities, make it difficult to compare those programs under equal conditions.

Despite of that Gothic Vortex relaunch done by a professional team and those used different technology, my first written amateur chess engine SMIRF clearly has shown its underlying intelligence. Be aware, that in those games a 60KB sized SMIRF multivariant engine without any opening library was facing a huge specialized system consisting of a nearly 8MB big program and an almost Terabyte sized set of looking up tables.

Now SMIRF needs to leave its first extemporized structures and to be rewritten in a second rethought amateur approach, which will need a lot of my rare spare time. Actually an X-UCI engine twin of SMIRF is planned to be written for to enhance SMIRF's testability using common 8x8 UCI GUIs.

Remember, there is a free download possibility of SMIRF's basic donationware version at: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html , showing that SMIRF just has won a main prize in the latest C++ programming contest sponsored by Borland.

Beren the 32nd:
a) I did the analysis from an already passed starting position, where the suggested 'best' move moreover has not been selected. Thus I have not seen any problem to post it now.
b) When SMIRF is playing here, the selected time depends on what I intend to test. That also means, that always changing releases and betas are playing. But normally SMIRF is not thinking longer than two minutes for a move. Nevertheless, if opponents take some days a move, SMIRF also will get the chance to think about up to 15 minutes.
c) SMIRF has become a donationware in its basic version according to the rules to a Borland sponsored programming contest, where it just has won one of the prices. It still will be improved, but it needs to be rewritten completely - it is my first playing chessprogram yet. But first I try to finish a UCI engine twin to SMIRF, hoping, there will be a matching UCI GUI supporting 10x8 chess too one day. Download at: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html

Beren the 32nd:
In your mentioned case there is no significant advantage (SMIRF's opinion), it seems to be quite regular (at the starting position):

01:51.7 (11.01=) +0.176 1.Nh3 (d3) Nc6 2.Nc3 Nh6 3.d3 d6 4.e4 g6 5.Bxh6 Axh6 6.Bxj7 Rxj7 7.Cb3
00:55.1 (10.07=) +0.281 1.Nh3 (d3) Nc6 2.Nc3 Nh6 3.e4 e5 4.g3 d6 5.d3 g6 6.Be3 Bxh3 7.Axh3 Bxj2 8.Rxj2 Nd4
00:46.5 (10.03=) +0.281 1.Nh3 (Nc3) Nc6 2.Nc3 Nh6 3.e4 e5 4.g3 d6 5.d3 g6 6.Be3 Bxh3 7.Axh3 Bxj2 8.Rxj2 Nd4
00:42.7 (10.03+) +0.178 1.Nh3 (Nc3) Nc6 2.Nc3 Nh6 3.e4 e5 4.g3 d6 5.d3 g6 6.Be3 Bxh3 7.Axh3 Bxj2 8.Rxj2 Nd4
00:29.1 (10.01=) +0.176 1.Nc3 (e4) Nh6 2.Nh3 e5 3.e4 Nc6 4.g3 d6 5.d3 g6 6.Be3 Bxh3 7.Axh3 Bxj2 8.Rxj2 Nd4
00:07.7 (09.01=) +0.281 1.Nc3 (e4) Nh6 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.h3 e5 4.e3 f5 5.d3 Bf6 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.Axe5 Rxe5 8.Bxj7
00:02.6 (08.04=) +0.375 1.Nc3 (e4) Nh6 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.h3 e5 4.e3 Bf6 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Axe5 Rxe5 7.Bxj7
00:02.4 (08.03=) +0.375 1.Nc3 (Nh3) Nh6 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.h3 e5 4.e3 Bf6 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.Axe5 Rxe5 7.Bxj7
00:00.6 (07.01=) +0.434 1.Nh3 (e3) Nc6 2.Nc3 Nh6 3.e3 e6 4.d4 Cb6 5.Bxj7 Rxj7 6.d5
00:00.2 (06.06=) +0.518 1.Nh3 (e3) Nc6 2.Nc3 Nh6 3.e3 e6 4.Bi6
00:00.1 (06.01=) +0.518 1.Nh3 (Nc3) Nc6 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.d3 e5 4.Bxi7+ Kxi7 5.Ne4
00:00.0 (05.01=) +0.469 1.Nc3 (e4) Nc6 2.Nf3 d6 3.h3 Bg4
00:00.0 (03.03=) +0.377 1.d4 (d3) Nc6 2.e3 Nxd4 3.exd4 Nh6

Bwild: If you really would like to play a game against my beta engine SMIRF, do it. I myself do not challenge anybody, to avoid discussions.

To where http://www.gothicchess.de has recently moved? Who knows about the things behind? http://www.gothicchess.co.uk/ also is dead. Is there a virus badly infecting GC related page hosters?

JinkyOng: I don't know, who you are. I am someone of actually few, who still are respecting R.J.Fischer. As an example I wrote a book on FRC in my German language, promoting his ideas. Who ever you might be, acting like a stealth bomber, you will have to live with being misunderstood.

Are you still talking about the Marble Roll Contest, MRC? What is the whole peekaboo good for? And why starting an 8x8 discussion in a 10x8 variant forum? Is that a promising way to find a real strong blitz opponent in a 10x8 slow chess department? Nothing but humbug!

Walter Montego: Walter, the current speculation seems to be to regard "Jinky Ong" to be Bobby Fischer. In opposite to that I tried to stop that speculation, giving hints, why I cannot agree with that presumption.

Walter Montego: Actually I regard "Jinky Ong" to be a parallel identity of someone well known. If it would be someone else than Fischer, who would benefit from such a speculative discussion?

If it would be Bobby Fischer, he would be intelligent enough to hide any associations between that artificial person and himself. But here there are too many obvious 'evidences':

a) Jinky Ong locates himself at Island;
b) his pseudonym could directly be related to R.J.Fischer;
c) he is imitating parts of Fischer's behaviour and vocabulary;
d) he is declaring to be the GothicChess No. One, defeating 'weaky' Ed Trice.

If I had to decide, who would act like that - Fischer or Trice - I rather would chose Ed.

Caissus: To your Smirf link I suggest, that it probably should better address to http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf.html now.

Pythagoras: In any case "Jinky Ong" is by no means a randomly chosen name.

P.S.: 'Jinky Ong' is the name of a Philippine girl, who had been supposed to be Robert J. Fischer's daugther, which has been reported as denied by her mother.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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. ;-)

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++.

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.

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.