Moderator: Ras
the engine programming list is not a rating list per se, just a list of engines with authors in the engine programming serverjefk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 02, 2025 4:55 am there anyway are more rating lists than Ccrl
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Engine_Rating_Lists
here's a decent engine list:
http://computer-chess.org/doku.php?id=c ... ngine_list
and a - smaller- github list
https://github.com/EngineProgramming/engine-list
My engine has already been tested in CCRL Blitz by Mr. Gabor.
Also, if I can implement FRC, it will be tested by Mr. Basti as well.Gabor Szots wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:09 am I have downloaded v5 and now I have free CPU time as well so I could start testing it immediately.
My engine is only untested on CCRL 40/15. Graham had said that if my engine reached 2400, it would be tested.
When my engine reached a rating of 2500, he didn't test it and even said:Graham Banks wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 2:50 am If you can eventually reach 2400, I'll be happy to include it in my Amateur Series.
This is not only unprofessional, but also simply disrespectful. As I said in previous comments, I would never want my engine tested by Graham.Graham Banks wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2025 7:15 pm You're like that one small piece of dog shit that one just can't shake off their walking shoes.
Yes.
King safety has always been an engine weakness, so losses like this can happen, and if they do, the game is shorter naturally because it doesn't go into an endgame. However, it's not about how quickly the engine loses if it does, but how often, with varying openings of course. If you say LazySMP 9.0 should be around 2500, that's 200 Elo difference, so LazySMP should get about 2500 points in a 10000 games match - including quite some wins, obviously.LazySMP 9.0 beat CT800 V1.46 in 30 moves
You play ONE game vs ct800 and you claim your "thing" is better than ct800 ? How "funny" guy you are .
You're right. BTW, king safety is the most important part of the evaluation. I am not familiar with your engine code, otherwise I would have helped you to fix its weakness. I think that you don't spend as much time on improving the evaluation function as you do on improving the search function.
No, my point is CCRL rating may be wrong. Please see LazySMP 5.0 rating which is 2070.Daniel Anulliero wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2025 11:35 am You play ONE game vs ct800 and you claim your "thing" is better than ct800 ?
There is ofc king safety code in there, which is why in the game, the CT800 castles properly and sets up a standard pawn structure. What it doesn't see is king attacks coming in. It's not that I havn't tried tons of stuff, with danger zones, scoring attackers and whatnot - but it never worked. The software architecture is also limited by hardware constraints - the UCI version is only the testbed, the actual project is the microcontroller version with 1MB ROM for code/data and 192kB RAM for dynamic data (variables, stack, hash tables) with only 16kB RAM remaining as future reserve.
It's consistent with my own tests, usually within 20 Elo. However, I test with six different engines, 10000 games each, plus 50000 games against the previous CT800 version, and an 80000 opening position book to avoid duplicate games. Unless you even start to ramp up your testing, all you see is error margins.No, my point is CCRL rating may be wrong.
You're right. It's too hard! I remember many years ago when Joerg Oster tuned values for piece check and attack unit factors, king safety went down.Ras wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2025 8:28 pm There is ofc king safety code in there, which is why in the game, the CT800 castles properly and sets up a standard pawn structure. What it doesn't see is king attacks coming in. It's not that I haven't tried tons of stuff, with danger zones, scoring attackers and whatnot - but it never worked.
Joerg Oster wrote: A middle ground patch of two successful tuning patches, one at STC, the other at LTC, which now passed both.
Code: Select all
const int QueenCheck = 52; const int QueenCheck = 62; const int RookCheck = 45; const int RookCheck = 57; const int BishopCheck = 5; const int BishopCheck = 48; const int KnightCheck = 17; const int KnightCheck = 78;
