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

SMIRF Engine: .
.
.
LOL!

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

Until now with time controls 10 sec/move:

█████████████████████████████

████SMIRF - List = 0-2█████████████

█████████████████████████████

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

█████████████████████████████

████SMIRF - Comet = 0-2████████████

█████████████████████████████

Upcoming with time controls 30 sec/move:

█████████████████████████████

████SMIRF 156 - Arasan 8.4██████████

█████████████████████████████



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The matter will be reviewed in due course.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not correct.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

SMIRF evaluates for your side as follows:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HalfPawn: As far as I know I am no longer welcomed at gothicchesslive. During the last big GC event there end of 2005 there have been difficulties to rebuild broken games, if both players would not sufficiently cooperate. I preferred to resign then instead to play endless kindergarden games. My attempt to make a proposal how to fairly handle such unlikely situations had been ignored. Instead I have been called someone, who would leave tournaments, if it would not go his way. 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.

My SMIRF has been available unrestrictedly until end of March. Everybody was able to test and compare it with his own program. That has not been possible for me. No actual 2006 version of ChessV or Gothic Vortex could be used by me for testing purposes. This is showing to everybody, where the fear is residing.

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....

Pythagoras: "For example and since you are the only one that can test it, how it can do against Spike 1.1 at CRC?"

P.S.: Everyone could download SMIRF and test it, it is not restricted until the end of this month.

Actually I do not play much 8x8 games against other programs. But because of the results from some special test sets, SMIRF's 8x8 strength seems to be somewhere around 2600 Elo.

Actually SMIRF has come to a stage, where a complete redesign would make sense. But there are very few fans supporting the SMIRF project but much more critics. So I am unsure to take that task.

.
.
.
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......

Pythagoras: Indeed SMIRF still is a beta. Because it is my first playing serious Chess program, there still a lot of weaknesses are within it. Watching the SMIRF project one easily could notice that progresses will be made. But SMIRF's strength actually is already sufficient to fear no 10x8 opponent program. Thus it is not on SMIRF to change its evaluation model.

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....

Pythagoras: Sometimes captions will give you a hint. Here: if "dumb" moves are sufficient to start a discussion on piece values, it would obviously make more sense to discuss other programs instead of SMIRF, discovering SMIRF being that superior.

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

HalfPawn: Let's watch again average piece value proposals. There are two known relevant number sets: a) within SMIRF, b) within Gothic Vortex.

For me it seems to be better implemented acually within SMIRF, watching such games like: http://www.exactachess.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=498#498

Walter Montego:

Returning to that gambit and this time thinking Embassy Chess. :-) After 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 c5 3.dc5 d4 maybe 4.Md2 putting a little pressure on the advance pawn. If 4...Nc6 5.g3 g6 6.Nb5 Qa5 black may hold things together as perhaps would the more natural/risky(?) 6...Md7 7.Bxc6 bc6 8.Cf3 cb5 9.Cxa8 Bb7.

Entertaining, but maybe only for speed chess might be 3.Bf4 cd4 4.Qxd4 Me6 5.Cf3 Mxd4 6.Cxd4 with the threat of Cb5+, or in the real realm of jokes 3.dc5 d4 4.Bf4 dc3 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.0-0

Also on the material discussion below, we chess players tend to be a little too materialistic. Those values are only guidelines and not absolutes and a piece's ultimate value is how well it is placed for the developing battle and how quickly it can be used. That was always the tricky part in computer programming, coming up with the proper algorithms for valuing space and time and many other intangibles. Anybody out there as old as I am remember how dumb and greedy those first chess playing computer were that you could buy? Fritz 9.0 has come a long way from that!

HalfPawn: There are different opinions to piece average exchange values. Current SMIRF values will equalize: R+B+P/3 == Q, so it will depend on additional positional effects, whether such a trade will be recommended or not. To call such trades "dumb" is without any argument. Normally such a trade is not deciding the outcome of a 10x8 game.

P.S.: Another proof for the experts being here. If you really should be interested in testing the real SMIRF, you simply should play serious games with it.

HalfPawn: Not the SMIRF I play. It does something like that and I expect to be losing shortly.

panzerschiff: Yes, not Janus! In Embassy Chess the files A through E are the set up just like regular Chess. When I tried a Queen's Gambit with White a few weeks back it did not work as the Bishops on the courtside are shifted over. The one I'm talking about in this instance does seem to work and the courtside Bishop for Black will come in handy the moment he can move the G file Pawn forward and guard the advanced D file Pawn. Plus if White moves his Knight to E4 Black can move P F7-F5. This make White spend another move. As good as this looks, I still am not sure it's a good thing. I've noticed that pushing the Pawns out in these larger board games can come back to haunt you. Targets for your opponent. It could go like Alekhine's defense sort of, just with the colors reversed.
This opening might work in Grand Chess too. I doubt if it comes up in regular Chess as not too many people would move the Knight there on their second move with White and block the C file Pawn. I don't think it would work in Gothic Chess as the Kings are shifted one square and the check threats need to be there for Black.

Sorry, Walter my brain really misfired on this one. I read embassy chess, but was still thinking in Janus! :-) This dawned on my as I was working out on my exercise bike after posting the message below. The Gambit looks like a good way to disrupt white's game in Embassy.

Walter, do you mean 1.f2-f4 f7-f5 2.Nh1-g3 g7-g5 3.f4xg5? This would be a queen pawn opening in Embassy Chess. One nice thing about having a Gothic Chess board it is gridded and makes it easier to adapt to the larger board. Otherwise I find myself wanting to use the 8x8 chess coordinates as well! I would think that white probably should develop instead of taking the Gambit, with 3.Bg1-d4 and an interesting variation might be 3...,Nh8-g6 (removing the attacked Knight with tempo) 4.Ji1-j3 (pinning the knight and placing pressure on black's center)4...,g5xf4? (Greed) 5.Ng3-h5 e7-e5 6.Bd4xe5 Ng6xe5 7.Nh5-g7++ although this is hardly forced.

Nice to get an analytical discussion going. I wonder if this would be a good spot to try to annotate games or the blog that Fencer suggested when I wrote to him when I first became a "Rook".

It's just a couple moves into the game, but it does seem playable. It goes well for Black at first, but White doesn't seem too hurt. I haven't had an opponent not accept the gambit, but that's an option too.

1 P D2-D4_______ P D7-D5
2 N B1-C3_______ P C7-C5
3 P×P D4-C5_____ P D5-D4

Is this sound? I'll keep trying it as Black unless I get spanked as bad as when I tried a regular Queen's Gambit with the White pieces in Embassy Chess. I doubt if I'll ever have the White pieces as I don't like starting the game moving the Queen's Pawn.

HalfPawn: Maybe, what time frame? But no sorrow, current private beta version probably will not been given to download as done prior, and the spreaded version will expire end of March. Up to now only 10 Euros have been donated for my SMIRF GUI + Engine as a donationware. So there could not be a huge user crowd after this month. If SMIRF, it must have been an old version. Current SMIRF would have played much superior and surely won.

My 101 all games tournament

Beren the 32nd: I'm certainly a lot more cautious about castling. The extra diagonal moving piece (Cardinal) lessens the advantage of moving your King to the flank. Plus the Cardinal himself is a very good piece at harrassing the King, especially when he can trap him in the corner. Other times it pays to castle if you can get the Rook into play. It's hard to combine castling and getting the Rook to the file you need him on. So often times I don't castle and just move the Rook. If you survive the middle game it's good to have your King centered, so this is one reason to not castle. It can be a long walk back to the other side from castling. I go along with SMIRF Engine and also add how you think the Pawns might look later in the game. If they're going to afford some protection from an attack, then castling towards them can help the defense.

Beren the 32nd: It depends on ...

In 10x8 chess (especially in Capablanca Random Chess) there are games more often than in traditional chess, where castling could be skipped. Eventually it could be a small help to decide, by looking, where your King would have less near (developed) opponent pieces. But that will be only one hint.

Does anyone have any thoughts about which is normally the best side to castle on in Embassy chess?
In standard chess, it is much easier to castle on the king-side, so queen-side castling is more unusual. However, in Embassy chess there are more pieces on the king-side instead, but does this make queen-side castling better to aim for? Maybe it is better not to castle at all!?

Fwiffo: I'm no master at either of them. My best game is Dark Chess, and as good as I am at it I still don't consider myself a master. I do like to play them both.

I'll delete the Embassy Chess invitations and send some Grand Chess ones in their place. Is a 3 day time OK, or a Fischer clock? 1.6 14.1?