Of course, Black (Houdini) lost the game.What sense does this thing?
Stockfish did not lose playing black with the same opening against Houdini.
I guess that the target of the openings is to help the stronger program to win.
With balanced opening there is a danger that we get 100 draws(and even if it is only 95 draws then it will be a disappointment for the spectators) so using unbalanced position may be the only way to see which engine is stronger because engines are almost unbeatable in balanced opening and I guess in some years we are going to have 100% draws in long time control games between top engines unless you choose opening like that opening when it is not clear if white win or if it is a draw.
any 300-elo-stronger engine than current tops will score something like +65 =32 -3 in TCEC, no matter the opening lines.
we just got too accustomed to very equal competition (elo within 20-30 points) in last couple of eiditions.
look at early editions, the winning rate is much higher.
Modern Times wrote:Time control is way too long for me to even think about watching any games. Increasing the number of cores was a good opportunity to shorten the time control in my opinion. However you can look at the games afterwards if that is an issue I suppose.
What they have done with TCEC is incredibly impressive though, all credit to those involved.
I agree with you Ray and with Graham, that thx must go out to those involved with TCEC
On the other hand I share your criticism on the way too long time control
The opening choice i find interesting and varied enough, but the treshold for first move out of book could imo have been set slightly lower e.g. <0,6
To Ljudmil I wonna say be realistic, we have these two amazingly strong engines and we don't have any 300 ELO stronger other engine for now or within 6-8 years
Of course, Black (Houdini) lost the game.What sense does this thing?
Stockfish did not lose playing black with the same opening against Houdini.
I guess that the target of the openings is to help the stronger program to win.
With balanced opening there is a danger that we get 100 draws(and even if it is only 95 draws then it will be a disappointment for the spectators) so using unbalanced position may be the only way to see which engine is stronger because engines are almost unbeatable in balanced opening and I guess in some years we are going to have 100% draws in long time control games between top engines unless you choose opening like that opening when it is not clear if white win or if it is a draw.
Uri, in my opinion, the ideal solution would limit the opening book in two or three moves. The current engines (also seen the super-hardware used in TCEC) are able to deal with the first phase of the game autonomously.
Best solution for me:
a) Book composed of two or three moves;
c) limited time to 1 hour for each engine;
d) the presence of a human expert (IM or GM) who comments on moves and games.
Modern Times wrote:Time control is way too long for me to even think about watching any games. Increasing the number of cores was a good opportunity to shorten the time control in my opinion. However you can look at the games afterwards if that is an issue I suppose.
What they have done with TCEC is incredibly impressive though, all credit to those involved.
I agree with you Ray and with Graham, that thx must go out to those involved with TCEC
On the other hand I share your criticism on the way too long time control
The opening choice i find interesting and varied enough, but the treshold for first move out of book could imo have been set slightly lower e.g. <0,6
To Ljudmil I wonna say be realistic, we have these two amazingly strong engines and we don't have any 300 ELO stronger other engine for now or within 6-8 years
what do you mean will not have within 6-8 years?
SF 8 is 300 elo stronger than SF 3, that took just 4 years.
whether one engine is going to overwhelmingly leave behind current tops or we will be witnessing the same dull almost-parity for another decade is debatable, of course, no one knows what the future hides.
TCEC openings are spicy, I grant that freely, but variety is not good, only 1.d4 and 1.e4 lines. Certainly this does not quite exhaust chess opening variety.
A reasonable suggesstion for next edition would be to use Clemens' Harry Schnaps book: excellent variety, very interesting starting positions, relatively short, non-biassed.