I just released ChessMind 0.82.
Changes to ChessMind 0.80:
- better at tactics, this at the cost of lower search depth
- improvements in evaluation, does not sacrifice pawns without any reason as often as 0.80
- some more UCI options (explained in the readme file)
- improvements in time management
- smaller aspiration windows (also adjustable)
The strength should be around 2100 CCRL now (at least I hope so ).
Download
ChessMind 0.82
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 6640
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:21 am
Re: ChessMind 0.82
Thanks, Luca. I believe it's about 2150. Decent engine suitable for most National Masters.
0.82 has improved +12 points over the previous version.
0.82 has improved +12 points over the previous version.
-
- Posts: 41473
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Something appears to be wrong
Hi Luca,metax wrote:I just released ChessMind 0.82.
Changes to ChessMind 0.80:
- better at tactics, this at the cost of lower search depth
- improvements in evaluation, does not sacrifice pawns without any reason as often as 0.80
- some more UCI options (explained in the readme file)
- improvements in time management
- smaller aspiration windows (also adjustable)
The strength should be around 2100 CCRL now (at least I hope so ).
Download
it appears here that something is not right with this version. It comes straight out of book thinking it's over 2 pawns ahead in every game!
As a result, it's performing poorly as one would expect in this tournament I'm running:
http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/discuss ... f=7&t=5255
Cheers,
Graham.
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 9773
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:44 pm
- Location: Amman,Jordan
Re: Something appears to be wrong
It's good to have a high level of self-confidence GrahamGraham Banks wrote:Hi Luca,metax wrote:I just released ChessMind 0.82.
Changes to ChessMind 0.80:
- better at tactics, this at the cost of lower search depth
- improvements in evaluation, does not sacrifice pawns without any reason as often as 0.80
- some more UCI options (explained in the readme file)
- improvements in time management
- smaller aspiration windows (also adjustable)
The strength should be around 2100 CCRL now (at least I hope so ).
Download
it appears here that something is not right with this version. It comes straight out of book thinking it's over 2 pawns ahead in every game!
As a result, it's performing poorly as one would expect in this tournament I'm running:
http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/discuss ... f=7&t=5255
Cheers,
Graham.
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
-
- Posts: 41473
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Something appears to be wrong
Indeed, but to be over confident?Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:It's good to have a high level of self-confidence GrahamGraham Banks wrote:Hi Luca,metax wrote:I just released ChessMind 0.82.
Changes to ChessMind 0.80:
- better at tactics, this at the cost of lower search depth
- improvements in evaluation, does not sacrifice pawns without any reason as often as 0.80
- some more UCI options (explained in the readme file)
- improvements in time management
- smaller aspiration windows (also adjustable)
The strength should be around 2100 CCRL now (at least I hope so ).
Download
it appears here that something is not right with this version. It comes straight out of book thinking it's over 2 pawns ahead in every game!
As a result, it's performing poorly as one would expect in this tournament I'm running:
http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/discuss ... f=7&t=5255
Cheers,
Graham.
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 41473
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Can anybody else confirm this?
Can somebody else who uses ChessMind confirm this behaviour?Graham Banks wrote: it appears here that something is not right with this version. It comes straight out of book thinking it's over 2 pawns ahead in every game!
As a result, it's performing poorly as one would expect in this tournament I'm running:
http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/discuss ... f=7&t=5255
Cheers,
Graham.
The previous version was okay.
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:23 am
- Location: Milky Way
Re: Can anybody else confirm this?
Hi Graham,Graham Banks wrote:Can somebody else who uses ChessMind confirm this behaviour?Graham Banks wrote: it appears here that something is not right with this version. It comes straight out of book thinking it's over 2 pawns ahead in every game!
As a result, it's performing poorly as one would expect in this tournament I'm running:
http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/discuss ... f=7&t=5255
Cheers,
Graham.
The previous version was okay.
Yes I can confirm that. I am using ChessMind to test Redqueen and it appears that it is losing every game because of that. It seems like a problem in the evaluation function regarding dynamic terms, perhaps mobility or King safety. The engine sometimes evaluates equal positions to 1 or 2 pawns ahead, then when it starts losing material the score drops to something more realistic.
Regards,
-
- Posts: 41473
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Can anybody else confirm this?
Thanks Ben-Hur.bhlangonijr wrote:Hi Graham,Graham Banks wrote:Can somebody else who uses ChessMind confirm this behaviour?Graham Banks wrote: it appears here that something is not right with this version. It comes straight out of book thinking it's over 2 pawns ahead in every game!
As a result, it's performing poorly as one would expect in this tournament I'm running:
http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/discuss ... f=7&t=5255
Cheers,
Graham.
The previous version was okay.
Yes I can confirm that. I am using ChessMind to test Redqueen and it appears that it is losing every game because of that. It seems like a problem in the evaluation function regarding dynamic terms, perhaps mobility or King safety. The engine sometimes evaluates equal positions to 1 or 2 pawns ahead, then when it starts losing material the score drops to something more realistic.
Regards,
gbanksnz at gmail.com