AlphaZero No Castling Chess

[Laskos]

The PGN end looks like that: 48. Rc3+ {-4.56/19 1.3} Kf2 {+5.97/19 0.6}
{XBoard adjudication: repetition draw} 1/2-1/2

@Laskos
Looks like the incorrect adjucation comes not from the engine SFLarry, but is an Xboard adjucation by the GUI

Please try the following:
1) In Winboard's menu Options/Adjucations uncheck the points, where Winboard adjucates itself insufficient material, trivial draws,
and verifies engine claims
2) In Winboard Options/General uncheck the "test legality" by Winboard
3) Chose New variant/larry
4) In Edit/Paste position from clipboard copy-paste the position
4b1NK/3pPp1N/3P1PpP/6Pk/6p1/6p1/6P1/8 w - - 0 1
(in this position, Black ist the side that has by Zugzwang to make the first repetition
5.) Chose Mode/Analysis mode. SFLarry should (correctly) anounce a mate

Thanks, seems to work now. Will check for some properties, interesting. Does the engine know something how to play it, or it plays as usual, only discovering that it lost/won at the last move? I have no time looking at PGNs and games.

I mean, the eval has to be changed due to such adjudication rules, otherwise it will play dumb, unrepresentative games. I don't have time to look at the code, games and PGNs, just left it play 40 games at 2:1 time odds, to see the sensitivity of the game to strength.

[lkaufman]

The PGN end looks like that: 48. Rc3+ {-4.56/19 1.3} Kf2 {+5.97/19 0.6}
{XBoard adjudication: repetition draw} 1/2-1/2

@Laskos
Looks like the incorrect adjucation comes not from the engine SFLarry, but is an Xboard adjucation by the GUI

Please try the following:
1) In Winboard's menu Options/Adjucations uncheck the points, where Winboard adjucates itself insufficient material, trivial draws,
and verifies engine claims
2) In Winboard Options/General uncheck the "test legality" by Winboard
3) Chose New variant/larry
4) In Edit/Paste position from clipboard copy-paste the position
4b1NK/3pPp1N/3P1PpP/6Pk/6p1/6p1/6P1/8 w - - 0 1
(in this position, Black ist the side that has by Zugzwang to make the first repetition
5.) Chose Mode/Analysis mode. SFLarry should (correctly) anounce a mate

@Larry:

Wow, I had no idea this would be so easy, thanks!

To make the pure engine was easy, but now we need a GUI that support this variant...
The Fritz GUI you mentioned is the wrong way, because the GUI itself decides repetition/stalemate/bare king as draw.
I thought that Winboard would be OK, but this seems to work only for analysis. In engine matches, it seems the unchecking
of the draw-adjucations by Winboard is not sufficient, WInboard continues to adjucate as it wants.
Have not tested other versions of the Winboard GUI yet (may be Winboard Alien works?), I hope H.G. Muller will give advise here

Wish you success in the tournament this weekend!

Thanks, but what I don't understand is that when I tried it out in the Fritz GUI, doing analysis or just playing against it, it showed PVs and scores that implied a belief that these three results were all draws, not wins. Regardless of the GUI, shouldn't it choose the stalemating move or the capture of the last enemy unit ahead of some random move, and shouldn't it show a winning score until the move is actually made and the game ended?

[lkaufman]

I have an even simpler modification, but with a scoring modification in addition. Only Black is not allowed to castle and the Draws are adjudicated as Black wins.

You have an even simpler modification? That is my NBC-Armageddon openings idea. Not yours. I released it in August 2019, with 4 openings-sets. And announced it here on talkchess.

https://www.sp-cc.de/armageddon-openings.htm

From my website:
Level 2: NBC (= No Black Castling): White can castle to both sides, black is not allowed to castle. Line: 1. Na3 Nh6 2. Nb1 Rg8 3. Na3 Rh8 4. Nb1 Ng8 5. Nc3 Na6 6. Nb1 Rb8 7. Na3 Ra8 8. Nb1 Nb8

Level 2 (NBC) testing:

NBC_Armageddon_IM_4moves:
White Wins: 296 (59.2 %), Black Wins: 204 (40.8 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %) White Score: 59.2 %, Black Score: 40.8 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3477 500 (+304,= 0,-196), 60.8 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+196,= 0,-304), 39.2 % (Elo-spreading: 77 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_SuperGM_4moves:
White Wins: 284 (56.8 %), Black Wins: 216 (43.2 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %), White Score: 56.8 %, Black Score: 43.2 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3451 500 (+286,= 0,-214), 57.2 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+214,= 0,-286), 42.8 % (Elo-spreading: 51 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_FEOBOS:
White Wins: 287 (57.4 %), Black Wins: 213 (42.6 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %)m, White Score: 57.4 %, Black Score: 42.6 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3490 500 (+313,= 0,-187), 62.6 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+187,= 0,-313), 37.4 % (Elo-spreading: 90 Elo)

NBC_Armageddon_6pawnplies:
White Wins: 277 (55.4 %), Black Wins: 223 (44.6 %), Draws: 0 (0.0 %), White Score: 55.4 %, Black Score: 44.6 %
1 SF 190728 (half time) : 3473 500 (+301,= 0,-199), 60.2 %
2 Komodo 13.01 : 3400 500 (+199,= 0,-301), 39.8 % (Elo-spreading: 73 Elo)

Ah, sorry, I didn't know. So, I re-discovered this morning meddling about handicaps your proposal. Seeing your results, it seems a viable proposal, if Kramnik thinks no castling at all is a viable proposal. I am not sure how many top GMs share Kramnik's view.

Thanks for opening suites too! These are from normal human and computer games? I guess the openings will be somewhat different if one side doesn't castle, maybe I will build with Lc0 and Komodo some short opening suites which are played for this variant.

I was involved with this idea too at the time, along with variants of it such as Black can only castle long, or white can only castle short while Black can only castle long. The pure version you tested seems to favor White too much even with Black winning draws. A more aesthetic version that might be more balanced (perhaps a bit in Black's favor between engines) would be that White can castle normally, but neither player can castle on the same side as his opponent has done. But this requires new programming, not so trivial to test. My subjective opinion as a GM is that the pure version you tested would be seen as too favorable for White (even with the Armageddon rule) for human play.

[MTaktikos]

The PGN end looks like that: 48. Rc3+ {-4.56/19 1.3} Kf2 {+5.97/19 0.6}
{XBoard adjudication: repetition draw} 1/2-1/2

@Laskos
Looks like the incorrect adjucation comes not from the engine SFLarry, but is an Xboard adjucation by the GUI

Please try the following:
1) In Winboard's menu Options/Adjucations uncheck the points, where Winboard adjucates itself insufficient material, trivial draws,
and verifies engine claims
2) In Winboard Options/General uncheck the "test legality" by Winboard
3) Chose New variant/larry
4) In Edit/Paste position from clipboard copy-paste the position
4b1NK/3pPp1N/3P1PpP/6Pk/6p1/6p1/6P1/8 w - - 0 1
(in this position, Black ist the side that has by Zugzwang to make the first repetition
5.) Chose Mode/Analysis mode. SFLarry should (correctly) anounce a mate

@Larry:

Wow, I had no idea this would be so easy, thanks!

Thanks, but what I don't understand is that when I tried it out in the Fritz GUI, doing analysis or just playing against it, it showed PVs and scores that implied a belief that these three results were all draws, not wins. Regardless of the GUI, shouldn't it choose the stalemating move or the capture of the last enemy unit ahead of some random move, and shouldn't it show a winning score until the move is actually made and the game ended?

Larry, I had not in mind that it will be used as UCI engine, so I didn't wrote an UCI_variant option where you can chose the larry variant. That means, if you install it in Fritz, it plays just chess. Even if this were implemented and the larry variant chosen, the engine would stop calculating after the first repetition of the contrahent and claim a win. But the Fritz GUI would expect the game to continue according to the chess rules. So the engine would be declared as defeated, either because it made a wrong claim, or by time loss.

[MTaktikos]

Thanks, seems to work now. Will check for some properties, interesting. Does the engine know something how to play it, or it plays as usual, only discovering that it lost/won at the last move? I have no time looking at PGNs and games.

I mean, the eval has to be changed due to such adjudication rules, otherwise it will play dumb, unrepresentative games. I don't have time to look at the code, games and PGNs, just left it play 40 games at 2:1 time odds, to see the sensitivity of the game to strength.

No the eval is not specially tweaked for this variant.
But I have seen Fairy Stockfish playing other 8x8 variants without tweaked eval, and nevertheless it plays much stronger (> 400 Elo) than known variant engines, which themselves play at superhuman level. Therefore I don't assume that it will play dumb

P.S. After this weekend I will try to change variants.cpp so that Fairy Stockfish can be tested also for Armageddon chess

[Laskos]

Thanks, seems to work now. Will check for some properties, interesting. Does the engine know something how to play it, or it plays as usual, only discovering that it lost/won at the last move? I have no time looking at PGNs and games.

I mean, the eval has to be changed due to such adjudication rules, otherwise it will play dumb, unrepresentative games. I don't have time to look at the code, games and PGNs, just left it play 40 games at 2:1 time odds, to see the sensitivity of the game to strength.

No the eval is not specially tweaked for this variant.
But I have seen Fairy Stockfish playing other 8x8 variants without tweaked eval, and nevertheless it plays much stronger (> 400 Elo) than known variant engines, which themselves play at superhuman level. Therefore I don't assume that it will play dumb

P.S. After this weekend I will try to change variants.cpp so that Fairy Stockfish can be tested also for Armageddon chess

Thanks, seems to be playing relatively fine, but I saw only 2-3 games. In 40 games 2 min + 2 s versus 1 min + 1 s the score was 27:13 (only wins and losses, as it should be), in line with the Elo gain for doubling time control of the Standard Chess. So, the game is playable and is sensitive to the strength.

[lkaufman]

Thanks, seems to work now. Will check for some properties, interesting. Does the engine know something how to play it, or it plays as usual, only discovering that it lost/won at the last move? I have no time looking at PGNs and games.

I mean, the eval has to be changed due to such adjudication rules, otherwise it will play dumb, unrepresentative games. I don't have time to look at the code, games and PGNs, just left it play 40 games at 2:1 time odds, to see the sensitivity of the game to strength.

No the eval is not specially tweaked for this variant.
But I have seen Fairy Stockfish playing other 8x8 variants without tweaked eval, and nevertheless it plays much stronger (> 400 Elo) than known variant engines, which themselves play at superhuman level. Therefore I don't assume that it will play dumb

P.S. After this weekend I will try to change variants.cpp so that Fairy Stockfish can be tested also for Armageddon chess

Thanks, seems to be playing relatively fine, but I saw only 2-3 games. In 40 games 2 min + 2 s versus 1 min + 1 s the score was 27:13 (only wins and losses, as it should be), in line with the Elo gain for doubling time control of the Standard Chess. So, the game is playable and is sensitive to the strength.

Wait a minute, no draws? I thought this version eliminated draws by stalemate, bare king, and rep, but not fifty move rule. Surely there should be some fifty move rule draws in forty games? Unless the engine was just forfeiting players for repeating, rather than forcing them to play moves that did not repeat. It would be just incredible if my three rule changes reduced the draw percentage to less than 2%, rather I should say unbelievable. Or is this version calling fifty move rule draws wins for Black (my alternate proposal)?

[pohl4711]

Thanks for opening suites too! These are from normal human and computer games? I guess the openings will be somewhat different if one side doesn't castle, maybe I will build with Lc0 and Komodo some short opening suites which are played for this variant.

? IM_4moves and SuperGM_4moves are filtered out of the Megabase. What else? The Tags with player-names are still included in the pgn-file.
FEOBOS was not built by me, but by F.Quisinsky and K.Wlotzka.
I added the NBC-line and filtered bad or illegal move-sequences out.
6pawn-plies is (of course) artifical. 6pawn-plies. What else should I say?

But this is not so important anymore. I-am working on complete new openings, which will end all these problems ( too much draws and balancing) - the next and final step of my openings-development beyond SALC-> Drawkiller-> Armageddon. The work is almost done and the test-results are just amazing!
Stay tuned

[lkaufman]

Thanks for opening suites too! These are from normal human and computer games? I guess the openings will be somewhat different if one side doesn't castle, maybe I will build with Lc0 and Komodo some short opening suites which are played for this variant.

? IM_4moves and SuperGM_4moves are filtered out of the Megabase. What else? The Tags with player-names are still included in the pgn-file.
FEOBOS was not built by me, but by F.Quisinsky and K.Wlotzka.
I added the NBC-line and filtered bad or illegal move-sequences out.
6pawn-plies is (of course) artifical. 6pawn-plies. What else should I say?

But this is not so important anymore. I-am working on complete new openings, which will end all these problems ( too much draws and balancing) - the next and final step of my openings-development beyond SALC-> Drawkiller-> Armageddon. The work is almost done and the test-results are just amazing!
Stay tuned

I think that Kai meant that openings from normal chess are not appropriate for NBC chess, they need to have their own openings analyzed by engines that are aware of the rule. But perhaps that is irrelevant to your currrent work.

[MTaktikos]

Wait a minute, no draws? I thought this version eliminated draws by stalemate, bare king, and rep, but not fifty move rule. Surely there should be some fifty move rule draws in forty games? Unless the engine was just forfeiting players for repeating, rather than forcing them to play moves that did not repeat. It would be just incredible if my three rule changes reduced the draw percentage to less than 2%, rather I should say unbelievable. Or is this version calling fifty move rule draws wins for Black (my alternate proposal)?

No, the 50 move rule draws remain possible.
But: a single repetition is a loss, this rule may become decisive. I think about a scenario where the stronger side builds a fortress and presses the weaker side in a smaller area, where it is forced to make a repetition before it's 50 moves are over. Would be a very interesting Zugzwang scenario, wouldn't it?
(My hardware, an older AMD 8350, is not fast enough to make serious tests with the engine)

P.S. Cann't wait to see Stefan Pohl's new work. After the weekend I will have the time to implement something for his Armageddon variant. Hope some day there will exist also a "Fairy Leela" project, through Stefan's advices I learned how to use the Lc0 engine with my GPU