Komodo 3 release

[Don]

We are working on the next Komodo release now.

Already available are Komodo 3 for Android and Komodo 3 for 64 bit Linux. Hopefully we will have Komodo 3 for windows in the next day or two.

You can get it here:

http://komodochess.com


We believe we have approximately 30 ELO of improvement and more at non-fischer time controls which we were deficient in. However it's difficult to say for sure how much we have gained as this depends on how it scales to time controls we don't test at.

The majority of the gain has come from evaluation improvements.

[Jim Collins]

Excellent! Thanks Don

[perejaslav]

Komodo is VERY weak in tactics. Do you plan to change this state of things?

[Don]

Komodo is VERY weak in tactics. Do you plan to change this state of things?

Komodo is only weak in tactics if you compare it to other chess programs - but realistically that is not an issue for any good program. The reason programs lose chess games is almost solely because of bad positional or strategic decisions, not because of tactics. And we are much more interested in distinguishing Komodo by its positional play and not for tactics.

It would be ok with me of course if Komodo were stronger tactically as long as it was still a good chess player but it's not really where our focus is right now.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Don,

that's fully OK, because we must not have 10 programs with the same strengths and weaknesses. I believe in the very late middlegame Komodo is a bit stronger as all others, as Houdini too. It would be nice if Komodo can hold it, will give your engine an own face. Very important ... think so!

THANKS for your new version.

Best
Frank

[M ANSARI]

Tactics will be less of a weakness for Komodo once it ramps up to MP.

[Frank Quisinsky]

MP ...
Not very important ... for Hardware freaks and persons which cann't wait of a good analyzes, correspondence players for a good example. Or people which buy each year a new system for a little advantage on a chess server or in his correspondence games

More cores are a time factor only. A faster result, not more not less, not important I think. The chess program is important and I think it's more complicated to create a Komodo (with the strengths Komodo have) as a tactical monster. Not sure, not a programmer but after my information I believe it's much more difficult ... perhaps more chess knowledge needed. Don can more write about it.

Better results in analyzes you can get on quad if you load four completly different engines (each with 1 core) with a bit on time more.

1. Spark (for the first 15 moves after the openings, switch after that to Houdini)
2. Junior (endgame I switched to Shredder, with Shredderbases)
3. Stockfish PHQ
4. Komodo

My absolute favorite combination.

Best
Frank

[Thomas Lagershausen]

Komodo is VERY weak in tactics. Do you plan to change this state of things?

Komodo is only weak in tactics if you compare it to other chess programs - but realistically that is not an issue for any good program. The reason programs lose chess games is almost solely because of bad positional or strategic decisions, not because of tactics. And we are much more interested in distinguishing Komodo by its positional play and not for tactics.

It would be ok with me of course if Komodo were stronger tactically as long as it was still a good chess player but it's not really where our focus is right now.

This statement give me reason furthermore to be interested in computerchess.

I have waited so long to hear this words from an programmer.

Now the party can be started.

[noctiferus]

I'm mostly (only) interested in it.
TXS a lot for sharing your recipe .

[Don]

Komodo is VERY weak in tactics. Do you plan to change this state of things?

Komodo is only weak in tactics if you compare it to other chess programs - but realistically that is not an issue for any good program. The reason programs lose chess games is almost solely because of bad positional or strategic decisions, not because of tactics. And we are much more interested in distinguishing Komodo by its positional play and not for tactics.

It would be ok with me of course if Komodo were stronger tactically as long as it was still a good chess player but it's not really where our focus is right now.

This statement give me reason furthermore to be interested in computerchess.

I have waited so long to hear this words from an programmer.

Now the party can be started.

It's my belief that positional play is the next breakthrough in computer chess. We have studied many games of Komodo and and tried to determine why it wins and loses. That was the basis of some of the improvements in Komodo 3. You never win a game due to a flashy combination - it has to be because the opponent made an error that allowed you to win. Of course you can lose a won or drawn game by failing to see a tactic and thus making the wrong move that loses tactically, but that is actually extremely rare. In most of the tactics where you win for tactical reasons you win anyway even if you miss the tactics because you have a won position. Or you play the right move even though you do not yet see the tactics. Of course from time to time you can throw the win away - but again - that's not the big problem in computer chess.

When I did the similarity tester last year it was an eye opener for me. Not because of the clone issues or anything like that, but because it showed that a lot of decisions a program makes are "baked in" to each chess program. You can call it a stylistic preference and there is nothing wrong with that, but comparing any program against itself at a much deeper level doesn't change it's playing style and it's "baked in" preferences.

That is all well and good, but a percentage of those preferences can be considered biases that hurt the program and cause bad strategic decisions. In one case that we identified, Komodo plays a "weak" move and a super deep search does not correct it because it's not a tactical issue and it does not reveal anything that changes Komodo's mind. It might not have been a losing move technically but it turns the game from a possible win to a sure (and perhaps even difficult) draw.

That's why I believe this will be the next big thing that we must learn how to deal with and improve upon. Systematic error and misconceptions if you want to call it that. Of course knowing that and fixing it are two different things - but we are trying to attack the problem.

It's a little tricky because sometimes you see the odd move that no human would make that looks rather ugly - but the more you analyze it the more you see that it may not be so bad or even that it's good and YOU are the one that is wrong - the computer was not as stupid as you thought. But every program will occasionally plays the odd move that constitutes a bad decision point.

Another way to see this, and something that is along the same lines, is trying to win more games when you have an advantage. As programs get stronger you see more and more draws and that is how it should be. However, it's my belief that in some cases the advantage may have been enough for a win but it required an understanding of the position that the program did not possess. So we are looking into that too.