Why no thinker talk?

[Graham Banks]

Maybe Thinker is not interesting to the people of CCC because it is not a clone of something else? Junior is interesting because it is the first UCI version but that interest will soon fade. A thread about Strelka however would be 12 pages within days. This is defiantly not the same CCC that I stumbled upon 7 years ago when I was getting interested in computer chess. I am happy that some people at least enjoy the new direction.

I think that the fact that Thinker 5.1c doesn't display either thinking lines or thinking depth might be deterring some from using it.

[Tony Thomas]

Maybe Thinker is not interesting to the people of CCC because it is not a clone of something else? Junior is interesting because it is the first UCI version but that interest will soon fade. A thread about Strelka however would be 12 pages within days. This is defiantly not the same CCC that I stumbled upon 7 years ago when I was getting interested in computer chess. I am happy that some people at least enjoy the new direction.

I think that the fact that Thinker 5.1c doesn't display either thinking lines or thinking depth might be deterring some from using it.

I can see it under arena...

[Ovyron]

I think that the fact that Thinker 5.1c doesn't display either thinking lines or thinking depth might be deterring some from using it.

After I finish my clone tourney, I'll clone it again and restart it, including Thinker. After all, Frenzee Feb08 doesn't display any information correctly under ChessPartner (ERT) and I still am testing it.

(NOTE - The clone tourney has nothing to do with clone engines, but it's a clone of Ray's tourney. I have to think for a better name for my next tourney.)

[Graham Banks]

Maybe Thinker is not interesting to the people of CCC because it is not a clone of something else? Junior is interesting because it is the first UCI version but that interest will soon fade. A thread about Strelka however would be 12 pages within days. This is defiantly not the same CCC that I stumbled upon 7 years ago when I was getting interested in computer chess. I am happy that some people at least enjoy the new direction.

I think that the fact that Thinker 5.1c doesn't display either thinking lines or thinking depth might be deterring some from using it.

I can see it under arena...

64-bit or 32-bit Tony?

[Tony Thomas]

Maybe Thinker is not interesting to the people of CCC because it is not a clone of something else? Junior is interesting because it is the first UCI version but that interest will soon fade. A thread about Strelka however would be 12 pages within days. This is defiantly not the same CCC that I stumbled upon 7 years ago when I was getting interested in computer chess. I am happy that some people at least enjoy the new direction.

I think that the fact that Thinker 5.1c doesn't display either thinking lines or thinking depth might be deterring some from using it.

I can see it under arena...

64-bit or 32-bit Tony?

32bit, it doesnt show extensive second by second info like other engines. However, it does show the total nodes searched, the depth reached, and the main line right at the same time its making a move. May be he used Uri's idea of not printing PV.

[Werner]

Hi,
the 1st match was not bad:

Code: Select all

1   (Passive) Thinker 64-bit  +17/-14/=19 53.00%   26.5/50
2   Glaurung 2.01 w32 1CPU    +14/-17/=19 47.00%   23.5/50

Difference to (active) Thinker is small, around +35 in this match.
Next opponent Frenzee Feb 08

[genorb]

I am surprised that no one is raving about this engine, I noticed that there is a 4 page thread about Junior, but nothing about an engine that's almost as strong and free at the same time.

May be noone has the same results as you?

I get similar results (40 moves/5 min). This is still very preliminary as I started to test it. It is only 10 points behind Fruit 2.3.1 which is the first free engine on my list (followed closely by Rybka 1.0 beta and Toga II 1.3.4). More on my website soon

Code: Select all

Rank Name                       Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws 
   1 Rybka 2.3.2a              2789   32   31   440   78%  2560   21% 
   2 Naum 3.0                  2729   47   45   196   76%  2526   23% 
   3 Shredder 11               2709   43   42   224   70%  2551   23% 
   4 Loop 13.6                 2671   28   28   454   64%  2567   29% 
   5 Fruit 2.3.1               2658   37   36   282   65%  2544   25% 
   6 Rybka 1.0                 2654   27   27   474   63%  2559   30% 
   7 Toga II 1.3.4             2653   44   43   192   67%  2522   30% 
   8 Hiarcs 11.2               2652   30   30   390   62%  2564   32% 
   9 Thinker 5.1c              2648   63   60    96   71%  2495   31%
  10 Zappa Mexico II           2639   42   41   202   65%  2530   32% 
  11 Spike 1.2                 2607   28   28   432   58%  2553   31% 
  12 Gambit Fruit 1.0          2600   28   27   432   57%  2551   34% 
  13 Deep Sjeng 2.7            2591   36   36   272   53%  2568   29% 
  14 Glaurung 2.0.1            2567   49   48   152   57%  2515   24% 
  15 Bright 0.2c               2544   54   54   120   54%  2506   25% 
  16 Naum 2.0                  2542   28   28   432   48%  2550   33% 
  17 Alaric 707                2531   36   36   258   53%  2510   29% 
  18 Alfil 8.1.1               2519   56   56   112   51%  2510   23% 
  19 Booot 4.14                2512   56   56   114   50%  2506   23% 
  20 Movei 08.438              2510   46   46   164   51%  2502   27% 
  21 Wildcat 7.0               2506   28   28   432   50%  2503   28% 
  22 Pharaon 3.5.1             2486   28   28   432   48%  2504   27% 
  23 Pro Deo 1.5               2485   28   29   432   48%  2501   24% 
  24 Slow Chess Blitz WV2.1    2472   28   28   432   46%  2499   30% 
  25 List 5.12                 2469   28   28   432   47%  2492   28% 
  26 Ruffian 1.0.5             2468   28   28   432   45%  2506   31% 
  27 Colossus 2007d            2466   46   47   160   45%  2504   27% 
  28 Pseudo 0.7c               2460   28   28   422   46%  2488   31% 
  29 The King 3.33             2457   35   36   306   34%  2578   24% 
  30 Deep Frenzee 3.0          2447   29   29   422   45%  2484   24% 
  31 Hamsters 0.6              2439   55   56   114   43%  2497   25% 
  32 Delfi 5.2                 2438   47   48   158   42%  2499   26% 
  33 Scorpio 2.0               2435   48   49   154   41%  2503   25% 
  34 SOS 5.1                   2435   28   28   432   41%  2498   28% 
  35 SmarThink 0.17a           2428   29   29   422   42%  2490   23% 
  36 Aristarch 4.50            2417   28   29   432   41%  2485   26% 
  37 Jonny 2.83                2416   29   29   434   44%  2465   22% 
  38 Zappa 1.1                 2409   28   28   436   42%  2472   29% 
  39 Baron 1.8.1               2407   29   29   424   40%  2483   26% 
  40 Ufim 8.02                 2405   29   29   422   42%  2466   28% 
  41 AnMon 5.60                2384   29   29   422   39%  2464   27% 
  42 Green Light Chess 3.01    2379   29   30   392   39%  2459   29% 
  43 Ktulu 4.2                 2372   36   37   284   38%  2472   22% 
  44 Petir 4.999999            2365   57   60   116   33%  2499   18% 
  45 Crafty 21.6               2357   60   63   108   33%  2497   18% 
  46 Yace Paderborn            2351   46   47   172   35%  2466   25% 
  47 Little Goliath Evolution  2328   55   58   130   28%  2502   19% 
  48 Quark 2.35                2319   46   48   170   30%  2471   31% 
  49 Tao 5.6                   2295   51   53   160   25%  2503   19% 

http://www.ordichec.net

[genorb]

Maybe Thinker is not interesting to the people of CCC because it is not a clone of something else? Junior is interesting because it is the first UCI version but that interest will soon fade. A thread about Strelka however would be 12 pages within days. This is defiantly not the same CCC that I stumbled upon 7 years ago when I was getting interested in computer chess. I am happy that some people at least enjoy the new direction.

I think that the fact that Thinker 5.1c doesn't display either thinking lines or thinking depth might be deterring some from using it.

I can see it under arena...

64-bit or 32-bit Tony?

32bit, it doesnt show extensive second by second info like other engines. However, it does show the total nodes searched, the depth reached, and the main line right at the same time its making a move. May be he used Uri's idea of not printing PV.

I am using Arena 1.99 beta4 (for me beta5 has bugs which makes engine losing on time, at least on my system..). Indeed, Thinker shows some information when it makes its move, but the main line is not correct (it is certainly at low depth). Have you looked at the move contained in the line displayed by Thinker when it makes its move? This is non sense, the first opponent reply is always really bad...

[Tony Thomas]

Hi,
the 1st match was not bad:

Code: Select all

1   (Passive) Thinker 64-bit  +17/-14/=19 53.00%   26.5/50
2   Glaurung 2.01 w32 1CPU    +14/-17/=19 47.00%   23.5/50

Difference to (active) Thinker is small, around +35 in this match.
Next opponent Frenzee Feb 08

I did say that you cant expect a 100 point improvement after seeing that you saw a 150 or so improvement with the active version.

[Tony Thomas]

Maybe Thinker is not interesting to the people of CCC because it is not a clone of something else? Junior is interesting because it is the first UCI version but that interest will soon fade. A thread about Strelka however would be 12 pages within days. This is defiantly not the same CCC that I stumbled upon 7 years ago when I was getting interested in computer chess. I am happy that some people at least enjoy the new direction.

I think that the fact that Thinker 5.1c doesn't display either thinking lines or thinking depth might be deterring some from using it.

I can see it under arena...

64-bit or 32-bit Tony?

32bit, it doesnt show extensive second by second info like other engines. However, it does show the total nodes searched, the depth reached, and the main line right at the same time its making a move. May be he used Uri's idea of not printing PV.

I am using Arena 1.99 beta4 (for me beta5 has bugs which makes engine losing on time, at least on my system..). Indeed, Thinker shows some information when it makes its move, but the main line is not correct (it is certainly at low depth). Have you looked at the move contained in the line displayed by Thinker when it makes its move? This is non sense, the first opponent reply is always really bad...

The once that I have seen are at high depth. However, I did get the feeling that Thinker was doing something wrong as far as winboard protocol goes.