Most wanted missing features for a chess GUI

[hgm]

A feature that is missing for me is the support of CTG book, and secondly the ability to open several books in the same chessboard.
Finally unlike kibitzer's engines, something that is expected for several years.

The book thing seems understood. I was inquiring about the 'unlike kibitzer engines'.

[phenri]

A feature that is missing for me is the support of CTG book, and secondly the ability to open several books in the same chessboard.
Finally unlike kibitzer's engines, something that is expected for several years.

The book thing seems understood. I was inquiring about the 'unlike kibitzer engines'.

I used the Microsoft translator, I am deeply sorry if this is poorly translated, understood and interpreted.

Here is another translation:

Finally unlike engines kibitzer, something which is expected for several years.

[kasinp]

I am talking about automatic adjudication of games using perfect information, if available.

Well, sorry I misunderstood you, then. But you were also talking about 'getting closer to the truth' about chess positions. Which, by definition is analysis. And letting poistions being played out by weak engines is definitely not a way to get anywhere near the truth for those positions. And pefectly adjudication a position they more or less randomly arrived at, is not going improve that in any way. (In fact it is likely to make things worse, but we need to go into that now.)

So you won't learn anything useful abount non-EGT positions that way, and you also won't learn anything useful about the engines playing them. Having this kind of adjudication does not help you to achieve any of the purposes you declare, even though you might think so. Which is exactly why I think it is better not to offer such a feature in a GUI.

Using strong engines to play large number of games from a set starting position (using Monte Carlo feature) is not useless. Implying that Houdini/Stockfish arrive at endgame positions in a "more or less random way" is silly.

[hgm]

Houdini and Stockfish both support tablebases (as do most engines of similar strength). Suggesting that they would benefit from GUI tablebase adjudication is what is silly... Tablebase adjudication would only be needed when you use much weaker engines that do not support EGTs themselves.

[kasinp]

Houdini and Stockfish both support tablebases (as do most engines of similar strength). Suggesting that they would benefit from GUI tablebase adjudication is what is silly... Tablebase adjudication would only be needed when you use much weaker engines that do not support EGTs themselves.

Coming full-circle to my GUI suggestion then:

In Chessbase GUI the fact that engines reach a tablebase position does not adjudicate the game. Depending on contempt settings the game proceeds for another 50 moves (or more) as players avoid the draw. This causes the "50-move dance" in drawn endings.

Hence my suggestion to have GUI step in and adjudicate the game immediately on reaching the tablebase position.

[hgm]

Wouldn't they move instantly, then? If they don't, this seems an engine bug. If they know the position is a draw according to the EGT, they will know there is no win to find, no matter how deep they would search. So why search deep?

[ernest]

ChessGUI is still at version 0.245g.

Hi Matthias,

When I download from your BigLion site, I still get the same you called 0.245f.

a bit difficult to follow... especially since the ChessGui.exe version still appears as 1.0.0.0

[Graham Banks]

Houdini and Stockfish both support tablebases (as do most engines of similar strength). Suggesting that they would benefit from GUI tablebase adjudication is what is silly... Tablebase adjudication would only be needed when you use much weaker engines that do not support EGTs themselves.

Coming full-circle to my GUI suggestion then:

In Chessbase GUI the fact that engines reach a tablebase position does not adjudicate the game. Depending on contempt settings the game proceeds for another 50 moves (or more) as players avoid the draw. This causes the "50-move dance" in drawn endings.

Hence my suggestion to have GUI step in and adjudicate the game immediately on reaching the tablebase position.

You already have the option in ChessGUI to adjust all adjudication settings as you desire.

[hgm]

Indeed, but the point is if it would be a good or a bad thing to add this in WinBoard/XBoard.

[Edmund]

Wouldn't they move instantly, then? If they don't, this seems an engine bug. If they know the position is a draw according to the EGT, they will know there is no win to find, no matter how deep they would search. So why search deep?

Even with egtb access they will not necessarily move instantly - ie if they only have wdl information or if they are trying to lure the opponent into making an error.