Note:
Dragon by Bruno LUCAS (France) was in the past a partner program from Arena Chess GUI.
At this time I had many contacts to french programmers and Bruno is really a very nice guy.
Dragon by Bruno is a very positional program with around 2350 Elo.
Last available UCi Dragon is v4.6.
After I remember I wrote the readme file.
Program are a long time available on my Arena site as partner program with SOS for Arena, the French program's AnMon, Nejmet and others.
To have now a second program with the name "Dragon" isn't a good idea.
Such a situation we have with Nightmare in the past.
The German Nightmare and the Dutch Nightmare.
The Dutch Nightmare programmer selling his program to an other programmer. This programmer made around the year 2000 first experience with ideas around self "learning" and used the sources from Nighmare for his experiments. This programmer wrote a chess book about it and gave it programmers played the Dutch-open for free. Don Daily played this year the Dutch-ch in Leiden and got the book too (after all I know). I gave my book Dr. Ulrich Türke (Comet). Years later many of that ideas are available in Leela and so one.
Not the topic!
But 2 times the same name isn't a good idea!
In my opinion better to give your "Dragon" an other name!
Best
Frank
Regarding the name, the formal name would be "Dragon by Komodo". Obviously we picked the name Dragon because the Komodo giant lizard is called the "Komodo Dragon". You are welcome to refer to it as Dragon by Komodo, or Komodo Dragon; I expect that most people will simply call it Dragon since the other dragon engines are no longer under development I believe. I guess it's like my name being Larry Kaufman; there are plenty of other Larrys, some better known than I am, but if someone mentions "Larry" on talkchess they are probably referring to me.
To avoid all confusion, let's call it Tatsu.
Tatsu is japaneese for dragon, a mythical animal from Japan.
The road to chaos is filled with political correctness.
― Tadros
Werewolf wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:59 am
Strange.
For ages the marketing line / general understanding is that SF has the better search, and Komodo the better EF.
That changed when Stockfish adopted neural networks for its evaluation function earlier this year. Then all of a sudden Stockfish had a much superior evaluation function over Komodo and still its much better search. However, Stockfish's own neural network is extremely unoptimised, so there is still a possibility that if Komodo Dragon trained its neural network well enough it would be able to surpass Stockfish with a better evaluation function again.
Stockfish's classical eval has been much superior to Komodo's classical eval for a long time.
How much of SF's advantage came from search was overestimated and how much came from eval was underestimated by many.
Werewolf wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:59 am
Strange.
For ages the marketing line / general understanding is that SF has the better search, and Komodo the better EF.
That changed when Stockfish adopted neural networks for its evaluation function earlier this year. Then all of a sudden Stockfish had a much superior evaluation function over Komodo and still its much better search. However, Stockfish's own neural network is extremely unoptimised, so there is still a possibility that if Komodo Dragon trained its neural network well enough it would be able to surpass Stockfish with a better evaluation function again.
Stockfish's classical eval has been much superior to Komodo's classical eval for a long time.
How much of SF's advantage came from search was overestimated and how much came from eval was underestimated by many.
To the contrary - if you put a put plain vanilla search function and test it again against a plain vanilla evaluate function - by far most most of the Elo is from the search function - not the evaluate function - the evaluate function is very good and I'm not comparing it to K evaluate - but that is the strength of SF and it is why it is so adaptable to so many other games. Don't take my word for it , test it yourself.
A Distel wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:43 pm
To avoid all confusion, let's call it Tatsu.
Tatsu is japaneese for dragon, a mythical animal from Japan.
Only in English and Romance languages do they call the animal a Komodo dragon. In most other languages, it is known as the Komodo monitor lizard, which is more accurate as the Komodo dragon is a type of monitor lizard, rather than a dragon.
Werewolf wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:59 am
Strange.
For ages the marketing line / general understanding is that SF has the better search, and Komodo the better EF.
That changed when Stockfish adopted neural networks for its evaluation function earlier this year. Then all of a sudden Stockfish had a much superior evaluation function over Komodo and still its much better search. However, Stockfish's own neural network is extremely unoptimised, so there is still a possibility that if Komodo Dragon trained its neural network well enough it would be able to surpass Stockfish with a better evaluation function again.
Stockfish's classical eval has been much superior to Komodo's classical eval for a long time.
How much of SF's advantage came from search was overestimated and how much came from eval was underestimated by many.
To the contrary - if you put a put plain vanilla search function and test it again against a plain vanilla evaluate function - by far most most of the Elo is from the search function - not the evaluate function - the evaluate function is very good and I'm not comparing it to K evaluate - but that is the strength of SF and it is why it is so adaptable to so many other games. Don't take my word for it , test it yourself.
He talks of relative strength SF versus Komodo, I think. And he is right, people assumed classical SF was superior to classical Komodo due to better search, while it was due to both better eval and better search.
Werewolf wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:59 am
Strange.
For ages the marketing line / general understanding is that SF has the better search, and Komodo the better EF.
That changed when Stockfish adopted neural networks for its evaluation function earlier this year. Then all of a sudden Stockfish had a much superior evaluation function over Komodo and still its much better search. However, Stockfish's own neural network is extremely unoptimised, so there is still a possibility that if Komodo Dragon trained its neural network well enough it would be able to surpass Stockfish with a better evaluation function again.
Stockfish's classical eval has been much superior to Komodo's classical eval for a long time.
How much of SF's advantage came from search was overestimated and how much came from eval was underestimated by many.
To the contrary - if you put a put plain vanilla search function and test it again against a plain vanilla evaluate function - by far most most of the Elo is from the search function - not the evaluate function - the evaluate function is very good and I'm not comparing it to K evaluate - but that is the strength of SF and it is why it is so adaptable to so many other games. Don't take my word for it , test it yourself.
This is not relevant to what I said.
My point was not about bad search + good eval vs bad eval + good search. Yes, bad eval + good search wins this one, I agree.
My point was and is that K eval + SF search wouldn't crush SF eval + K search (abstracting away some minor search/eval compatibility issues coming from different eval scaling and such), and would maybe even lose to it.
Marcus9 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:30 am
Thanks for freeing the Dragon!
Are there any Dragon vs. Human matches scheduled?
I find them so exciting
Nothing scheduled yet, but you can expect that we will indeed have such matches. In unofficial testing Dragon has performed around 2500 on chess.com in Rapid (usually 15' + 10") giving knight odds!
Marcus9 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:30 am
Thanks for freeing the Dragon!
Are there any Dragon vs. Human matches scheduled?
I find them so exciting
Nothing scheduled yet, but you can expect that we will indeed have such matches. In unofficial testing Dragon has performed around 2500 on chess.com in Rapid (usually 15' + 10") giving knight odds!
Wonderful! Is there any way to see one of these matches?
Note:
Dragon by Bruno LUCAS (France) was in the past a partner program from Arena Chess GUI.
At this time I had many contacts to french programmers and Bruno is really a very nice guy.
Dragon by Bruno is a very positional program with around 2350 Elo.
Last available UCi Dragon is v4.6.
After I remember I wrote the readme file.
Program are a long time available on my Arena site as partner program with SOS for Arena, the French program's AnMon, Nejmet and others.
To have now a second program with the name "Dragon" isn't a good idea.
Such a situation we have with Nightmare in the past.
The German Nightmare and the Dutch Nightmare.
The Dutch Nightmare programmer selling his program to an other programmer. This programmer made around the year 2000 first experience with ideas around self "learning" and used the sources from Nighmare for his experiments. This programmer wrote a chess book about it and gave it programmers played the Dutch-open for free. Don Daily played this year the Dutch-ch in Leiden and got the book too (after all I know). I gave my book Dr. Ulrich Türke (Comet). Years later many of that ideas are available in Leela and so one.
Not the topic!
But 2 times the same name isn't a good idea!
In my opinion better to give your "Dragon" an other name!
Best
Frank
Regarding the name, the formal name would be "Dragon by Komodo". Obviously we picked the name Dragon because the Komodo giant lizard is called the "Komodo Dragon". You are welcome to refer to it as Dragon by Komodo, or Komodo Dragon; I expect that most people will simply call it Dragon since the other dragon engines are no longer under development I believe. I guess it's like my name being Larry Kaufman; there are plenty of other Larrys, some better known than I am, but if someone mentions "Larry" on talkchess they are probably referring to me.
I like Komodo Dragon.
Chess.com CEO thinks it's important to have the Dragon name first, so that people will call it that, so for rating lists and such we suggest listing it as Dragon (Komodo). But of course some may call it Komodo Dragon, just as people's names can be first or last name first.
Alayan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 7:21 pm
.. My point was and is that K eval + SF search wouldn't crush SF eval + K search (abstracting away some minor search/eval compatibility issues coming from different eval scaling and such), and would maybe even lose to it.
