Search found 59 matches

by QED
Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:38 am
Forum: Computer Chess Club: General Topics
Topic: avoid knight journey
Replies: 5
Views: 930

avoid knight journey

[d]8/6n1/3p1p1p/2pPpPr1/1pP1B1P1/1P5N/4P1P1/k1K5 w - - 0 1 My composition, white to play and draw. I was tempted to add 'testposition' to the subject, but the position is more useful to make fun of engines than to test them. :wink: The point is that after 1.Nxg5 hxg5 white is lost, because the black...
by QED
Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:17 pm
Forum: Computer Chess Club: Tournaments and Matches
Topic: The IPON BayesElo mystery solved.
Replies: 73
Views: 9090

Re: The IPON BayesElo mystery solved.

For one win and one loss the likelihood becomes F(x-h) * (1 - F(x+h)) = (F - hF')* (1 - F - hF') + O(h^2) = = F * (1-F) -hF' * (1-F) - hF' * F + O(h^2) = F * (1-F) - hF' + O(h^2) (all F and F' taken in x unless specified otherwise). Now since F * (1-F) is proportional to F' and of O(1), this means ...
by QED
Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:11 pm
Forum: Computer Chess Club: Tournaments and Matches
Topic: The IPON BayesElo mystery solved.
Replies: 73
Views: 9090

Re: The IPON BayesElo mystery solved.

Default: 4 Komodo 4 SSE42 2975 2500.0 (1892.5 : 607.5) Perf.: 100.0 ( 51.5 : 48.5) Houdini 2.0 STD 3016 3026 100.0 ( 45.0 : 55.0) Critter 1.4 SSE42 2977 2942 100.0 ( 51.5 : 48.5) Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 2956 2966 100.0 ( 53.5 : 46.5) Critter 1.2 2952 2976 100.0 ( 52.5 : 47.5...
by QED
Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:12 pm
Forum: Computer Chess Club: Tournaments and Matches
Topic: The IPON BayesElo mystery solved.
Replies: 73
Views: 9090

Re: The IPON BayesElo mystery solved.

Engine A vs Engine B (ELO 2755) 60.0-40.0 perf=2825 Engine A vs Engine C (ELO 2705) 82.0-18.0 perf=2968 Engine A vs Engine D (ELO 2815) 62.0-38.0 perf=2900 Engine A vs Engine E (ELO 2800) 65.0-35.0 perf=2908 Engine A vs Engine F (ELO 2680) 85.0-15.0 perf=2981...
by QED
Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:23 pm
Forum: Computer Chess Club: General Topics
Topic: ICCR (Independent Computer Chess Rating)
Replies: 61
Views: 9867

Re: ICCR (Independent Computer Chess Rating)

Is there some reason not to adapt also the increment? 2x Intel Xeon X5667 @ 4.60 GHz 12 28827 14m+15s 2x AMD Opteron 270 2.00 GHz 4 4581 185m+15s The way I see it, Xeon would have the number of nodes per game roughly twice as high as Opteron, and the additional nodes would come mainly from late midd...
by QED
Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:07 am
Forum: Computer Chess Club: General Topics
Topic: A new UCI engine ???
Replies: 23
Views: 6784

Re: A new UCI engine ???

Sylwy wrote:If it's an original engine - will be nice a wonderful logo !
What about this one?

*** SPOILER ALERT ***
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39579
by QED
Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:03 pm
Forum: Computer Chess Club: Programming and Technical Discussions
Topic: Stockfish 1.8 tweaks
Replies: 53
Views: 11174

Re: Stockfish 1.8 tweaks

I am back from vacation, so I can test more incrementally and thoroughly, because I have next to no time to code anything substantial. First, reacting to this older post: Another tweak. Test was unsuccessfull, bayeselo says original stockfish is better with LOS=87:12. :( But it was a lot of work, an...
by QED
Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:26 pm
Forum: Computer Chess Club: Programming and Technical Discussions
Topic: Stockfish 1.8 tweaks
Replies: 53
Views: 11174

Re: Stockfish 1.8 tweaks

All of my attempts to change the move ordering are hurting nps too much, so I decided to test another SMRC setup, this time with smaller steps. The quoted patch lost to slightly tweaked one +198 =586 -216 (LOS=27:72), where the slight tweak was just removing 'fail high' condition and nothing else t...
by QED
Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:22 pm
Forum: Computer Chess Club: Programming and Technical Discussions
Topic: Stockfish 1.8 tweaks
Replies: 53
Views: 11174

Re: Stockfish 1.8 tweaks

There was a discussion in the next singular extension test thread and I had no other good thing to test, so: Not sure I understand your point regarding SF's relaxed SE correctly. Is the following right? No, what you describe was indeed one possibility of implementing this SE thing, but you didn't no...
by QED
Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:52 pm
Forum: Computer Chess Club: Programming and Technical Discussions
Topic: Interesting tidbit
Replies: 9
Views: 1864

Re: Interesting tidbit

This one-reply-to-check extension extends on the escape, which means two consecutive plies are extended, once to give the check, and once to escape the check if there is only one legal move. The side in check and with single legal move is probably in serious danger, because "always check, it might ...