Komodo 9.4 was released this morning at komodochess.com. As usual, it is free for subscribers and 20% discounted for purchasers of Komodo 8 or later version. Elo gains from 9.3 are estimated at 15 on single thread (based on over 10,000 games at 2' + 1") and perhaps a bit more with MP. Gains from version 9.0 are over 50 elo based on our tests. Gains come from both search and eval, especially king safety and passed pawns. There are some new eval terms.
Komodo 9.4 has two new UCI options. "Contempt for White" allows the user to specify that contempt is just for one color (for Black just use negative sign), which is important in analysis mode. It should be left unchecked for normal play. The other new option, "Dynamism", gives the user full control over the style of Komodo; a low setting makes it prioritize static advantages like material and pawn structure, while a high setting prioritizes short-term ("dynamic") advantages like mobility and threats to the king. Although the default (100) is believed to be best for actual play, a lower value around 80 seems to produce more realistic evaluations in most positions so may be better for opening analysis.
Komodo 9.4
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 5960
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 am
- Location: Maryland USA
Komodo 9.4
Komodo rules!
-
- Posts: 1797
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:24 pm
Re: Komodo 9.4
Since I spend a lot of time analysing openings in IDeA, this interests me.lkaufman wrote:Komodo 9.4 was released this morning at komodochess.com. As usual, it is free for subscribers and 20% discounted for purchasers of Komodo 8 or later version. Elo gains from 9.3 are estimated at 15 on single thread (based on over 10,000 games at 2' + 1") and perhaps a bit more with MP. Gains from version 9.0 are over 50 elo based on our tests. Gains come from both search and eval, especially king safety and passed pawns. There are some new eval terms.
Komodo 9.4 has two new UCI options. "Contempt for White" allows the user to specify that contempt is just for one color (for Black just use negative sign), which is important in analysis mode. It should be left unchecked for normal play. The other new option, "Dynamism", gives the user full control over the style of Komodo; a low setting makes it prioritize static advantages like material and pawn structure, while a high setting prioritizes short-term ("dynamic") advantages like mobility and threats to the king. Although the default (100) is believed to be best for actual play, a lower value around 80 seems to produce more realistic evaluations in most positions so may be better for opening analysis.
It's not that I doubt you, but I don't see how there can be a discrepancy between that which gives the best results (d=100) and the most accurate value for opening analysis (d=80).
Please explain.
Thanks.
-
- Posts: 5960
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 am
- Location: Maryland USA
Re: Komodo 9.4
This issue is very important to me. I can't say that I fully understand what's going on, but I think that the evaluation can be optimized for the search without being good for actual game positions. In other words, a "proper" evaluation may not be very good for a search, because the positions arising in a search are not typical of positions arising in a real game. I welcome any informed comments on this subject.Werewolf wrote:Since I spend a lot of time analysing openings in IDeA, this interests me.lkaufman wrote:Komodo 9.4 was released this morning at komodochess.com. As usual, it is free for subscribers and 20% discounted for purchasers of Komodo 8 or later version. Elo gains from 9.3 are estimated at 15 on single thread (based on over 10,000 games at 2' + 1") and perhaps a bit more with MP. Gains from version 9.0 are over 50 elo based on our tests. Gains come from both search and eval, especially king safety and passed pawns. There are some new eval terms.
Komodo 9.4 has two new UCI options. "Contempt for White" allows the user to specify that contempt is just for one color (for Black just use negative sign), which is important in analysis mode. It should be left unchecked for normal play. The other new option, "Dynamism", gives the user full control over the style of Komodo; a low setting makes it prioritize static advantages like material and pawn structure, while a high setting prioritizes short-term ("dynamic") advantages like mobility and threats to the king. Although the default (100) is believed to be best for actual play, a lower value around 80 seems to produce more realistic evaluations in most positions so may be better for opening analysis.
It's not that I doubt you, but I don't see how there can be a discrepancy between that which gives the best results (d=100) and the most accurate value for opening analysis (d=80).
Please explain.
Thanks.
Komodo rules!
-
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:24 am
- Location: Andorra
Re: Komodo 9.4
Thanks for the new version!
You mean more realistic evaluations from human point of view? Or is consequence of some tests?lkaufman wrote:Although the default (100) is believed to be best for actual play, a lower value around 80 seems to produce more realistic evaluations in most positions so may be better for opening analysis.
Daniel José - http://www.andscacs.com
-
- Posts: 5960
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 am
- Location: Maryland USA
Re: Komodo 9.4
More realistic from human point of view, but also produces better results on very short searches (fixed depth or game in one second plus 10 ms). I'm not sure why the value needs to be higher for real game play.cdani wrote:Thanks for the new version!
You mean more realistic evaluations from human point of view? Or is consequence of some tests?lkaufman wrote:Although the default (100) is believed to be best for actual play, a lower value around 80 seems to produce more realistic evaluations in most positions so may be better for opening analysis.
Komodo rules!
-
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:24 am
- Location: Andorra
Re: Komodo 9.4
Higher values of king safety tend to be better for longer time control games. Is 100% like this for Andscacs. Don't know for mobility.lkaufman wrote: More realistic from human point of view, but also produces better results on very short searches (fixed depth or game in one second plus 10 ms). I'm not sure why the value needs to be higher for real game play.
Daniel José - http://www.andscacs.com
-
- Posts: 5960
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 am
- Location: Maryland USA
Re: Komodo 9.4
Any idea why this is so?cdani wrote:Higher values of king safety tend to be better for longer time control games. Is 100% like this for Andscacs. Don't know for mobility.lkaufman wrote: More realistic from human point of view, but also produces better results on very short searches (fixed depth or game in one second plus 10 ms). I'm not sure why the value needs to be higher for real game play.
Komodo rules!
-
- Posts: 7220
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:31 am
Re: Komodo 9.4
Sometimes you need deep searches to make use of bad king safety opponent.
-
- Posts: 334
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:42 pm
- Location: Stockholm
Re: Komodo 9.4
Hi Larry!
I think mainly the reason why more aggresive values for king's safety works for longer time controls is because it helps the search prune entire sub trees when finding draws due to three fold repitition in otherwise inferior positions or when finding wins/losses.
I think you could gain a lot from sorting the moves differently depending on the remaining depth. For example might moves that reduces the branching factor a lot like equal captures with respect to SEE might be better to sort in the front when close to the root while quiet moves if they seem to be better should be placed before some of the captures close to the leaves. You could do the same with agressive king threatening moves as well. Killer moves might be better to do close to the leaves but not close to the root since they do not reduce the branching factor.
Best Regards
Pio
I think mainly the reason why more aggresive values for king's safety works for longer time controls is because it helps the search prune entire sub trees when finding draws due to three fold repitition in otherwise inferior positions or when finding wins/losses.
I think you could gain a lot from sorting the moves differently depending on the remaining depth. For example might moves that reduces the branching factor a lot like equal captures with respect to SEE might be better to sort in the front when close to the root while quiet moves if they seem to be better should be placed before some of the captures close to the leaves. You could do the same with agressive king threatening moves as well. Killer moves might be better to do close to the leaves but not close to the root since they do not reduce the branching factor.
Best Regards
Pio
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 5:58 pm
Komodo 9.4 subscription model
LK:
Thanks to Mark and LK for standing by 12-month subscription model.
Thanks to Mark and LK for standing by 12-month subscription model.