Vitruvius moved to commercial...

[MM]

I wonder who made this list, Komodo 4 is -138 points from Houdini 2.0 single core...it is a nonsense.

Indeed strange results...but if you check more carefully you will notice that 250 games per player

In other words,we need more games for a better conclusion

Regards,
Sedat

Hi Sedat,

yes
i noticed that, in fact i said that games are not enough, anyway this list reports many other strange results.

Anyway i don't think this list is work in progress.

Best Regards

[Robert Flesher]

The name sounds like a virus

Where is the beta version?

There was a current version out for over a year- Vitruvius 0.83b. But it looks like he removed that download. You haven't missed a thing- but I will be more than happy to send it to you.


george

Sure, I will appreciate that

Thanks

You will have to mail me here at geotsp8@yahoo.com and give me an address to send it to. Understand it is not even on the same planet with DeepSaros. But you can run it yourself and decide.


gts

Just made a match 1' IvanHoe 46b - Vitruvius HEM x64.
IvanHoe ruled. Vitruvius sacrifices material without compensation in most cases. I know Vitruvius its not a blitz or bullet specialist but this result is no exciting.

Regards

Do you really expect to see it's best/exciting play in 1 min games? Test Komodo the same way and you will get the same result. Can you say Komodo is weak or not exciting? I have it playing Vitruvius @ 25 min games and it is killing Komodo! Vitruvius understands the power of passed pawns better than other engines, and wins many game do to that fact. Those material sacs you speak of are proving to be nothing short of brilliant.

It's the same old story on this forum. Some tester plays a series of 1 min games, sees the results, and says, "it's weak". So I will make to own claim, weak human players making silly judgements! I know that does not seem fair right? But if the shoe fits.......

Yawning regards

Flesher, i just said that in my match at bullet against IvanHoe, Vitruvius lost bad.
I never said it is weak. I will say it is weak when (if) i will have hundred games against different engines and the results will be bad.

If you have different results at different time control, you should better post the results, more than some games that you selected.

Anyway, some time ago, Carotino (the author of Vitruvius) alias Munter, published a list of engines in which there was Vitruvius. It is a pity that Munter speaks, as source, as ''an enthusiast tester of engines'' (who?).


http://vitruviuschess.blogspot.com/sear ... -results=1

The games are not enough. If you consider that many engines in the list played with 2 cores or 1 single core, this performance of Vitruvius doesn't impress me too much (-102 elo from Houdini 2.0).

P.S.

I wonder who made this list, Komodo 4 is -138 points from Houdini 2.0 single core...it is a nonsense.

My first name is Robert, it is generally polite to address someone that way. Perhaps this beyond your capability, so be it. I never stated you said anything. I asked you if you could say something base on your 1 min blitz games. I implied that 1 min blitz games are useless to determine anything other than 1 min blitz results. I supported this with a comparision to Komodo who also scores terrible at 1 min games, but will crush most of engine as the time control increases.


Also, regarding the games I posted. Think about that for a minute, perhaps you need to get out a calculator. These are the first 15 25 min games. These games take time as the ratio compared to your games is 25:1. Capiche?

[Sedat Canbaz]

Hello again Robert,

SCCT Auto232's time control is Blitz: 4min+2sec

But note that the current hardwares,which i use for Top MP engines:
i7 980X @4.33GHz 6 cores
i7 970 @4.33 GHz 6 cores

And if we compare with my previous old dated processors,the current conditions (6 cores, ponder on...) equals to slower time control

So still i am not sure,how can we call this rating: blitz or slow ?!

Btw,the current results are equal (15 Games, + 3= 9 - 3)

For SCCT Auto232 Rating-All Versions:
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/ratings/scct-auto232/

For SCCT Auto232 Rating-Top 20:
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/scct-auto232-top-20/

For Conditions:
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/rating ... onditions/

Best,
Sedat

Heya Sedat, regardless of processor speed (I also have the I7) I prefer the longer time controls 10min or more. When you analyze an unclear positions with an engine most people with allow it to ponder for 2-3 min or more. This is why I prefer the longer time controls. Even though the engines are super strong, and hardware is very fast, quality suffers. The quality of the games are directly and inversely propotional to the amount of time given.
Engine Blitz is interesting to some people, but I prefer engines playing the longer games. I will watch your results and see how they pan out, but I'd prefer to download and play over the games. keep me posted.

Sure...MP engines running with slow time control on latest i7 6 core machines is just Great

But however,i prefer/like much more games played with maximum performance and strength (between each other on two separate computers)

And unfortunately i have no chance to create a rating list based on slow time control via Auto232 mode (due to i can not produce many games)

About the games,
The total database (all games for downloading) will be available/updated as once a month

Best,
Sedat

[Robert Flesher]

Hello again Robert,

SCCT Auto232's time control is Blitz: 4min+2sec

But note that the current hardwares,which i use for Top MP engines:
i7 980X @4.33GHz 6 cores
i7 970 @4.33 GHz 6 cores

And if we compare with my previous old dated processors,the current conditions (6 cores, ponder on...) equals to slower time control

So still i am not sure,how can we call this rating: blitz or slow ?!

Btw,the current results are equal (15 Games, + 3= 9 - 3)

For SCCT Auto232 Rating-All Versions:
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/ratings/scct-auto232/

For SCCT Auto232 Rating-Top 20:
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/scct-auto232-top-20/

For Conditions:
http://www.sedatcanbaz.com/chess/rating ... onditions/

Best,
Sedat

Heya Sedat, regardless of processor speed (I also have the I7) I prefer the longer time controls 10min or more. When you analyze an unclear positions with an engine most people with allow it to ponder for 2-3 min or more. This is why I prefer the longer time controls. Even though the engines are super strong, and hardware is very fast, quality suffers. The quality of the games are directly and inversely propotional to the amount of time given.
Engine Blitz is interesting to some people, but I prefer engines playing the longer games. I will watch your results and see how they pan out, but I'd prefer to download and play over the games. keep me posted.

Sure...MP engines running with slow time control on latest i7 6 core machines is just Great

But however,i prefer/like much more games played with maximum performance and strength (between each other on two separate computers)

And unfortunately i have no chance to create a rating list based on slow time control via Auto232 mode (due to i can not produce many games)

About the games,
The total database (all games for downloading) will be available/updated as once a month

Best,
Sedat

Good stuff!

[Sedat Canbaz]

Good stuff!

Thank you dear Robert

[Paloma]

What means HEM? special settings or is this part by original engine name

[Robert Flesher]

What means HEM? special settings or is this part by original engine name

I believe it stands for "High End Machine". E-mail support and they can provide more details.

[Carotino]

Vitruvius is not a clone, but that's what in the technical term is called "fork". A "clone" is, by definition, a program identical to another, or has minimal changes (or insignificant) than the original. Vitruvius derives directly from the programs of the "Ippolit series", for the precision comes from a early version of of Ivanhoe, but I have changed many things, such as in: main.c, input.c, control.c, low_depth.c, root_node.c, evaluation.c, pawn_eval.c, cut_node.c, etc.. etc..
Vitruvius had a development independent of its ... Father! Its main goal has always been to get a game as near as possible to the "human style". Why this? First of all, it's more fun and enjoyable! But mostly, I wanted to provide chess player, a tool for finding new lines of play, fairly aggressive, but tactically justified. The style of play of Vitruvius is highly speculative and strategic: to obtain a positional advantage, he is willing to sacrifice the material (one or two pawns, often the quality, sometimes a piece). This style seems easy to achieve: just lower the value of the pieces, and raise that of the positional elements and ... Hoplà! The game is made! In fact, an engine of this kind will have a biased view of the situation on the chessboard. He will sacrifice the material recklessly, and what is worse, he deems to be in advantage. The sacrifices of Vitruvius, instead, despite being risky (speculativi!), often prove correct. This has been demonstrated in many test games.
Vitruvius, of course, is not perfect! There is still much work to do, but I think this is a way to try, and especially not to be despised...

Kind regards,
Roberto Munter (aka "carotino")

P.S. "HEM version" is for high end cpus (i.e. Intel Core-i7, or AMD Phenom). It supports the following hardware features: avx, aes, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 and, especially, popcnt. This translates into a significant increase of speed (15%, 20%, in some cases even more), and then of "playing strength".

[tomgdrums]

Vitruvius is not a clone, but that's what in the technical term is called "fork". A "clone" is, by definition, a program identical to another, or has minimal changes (or insignificant) than the original. Vitruvius derives directly from the programs of the "Ippolit series", for the precision comes from a early version of of Ivanhoe, but I have changed many things, such as in: main.c, input.c, control.c, low_depth.c, root_node.c, evaluation.c, pawn_eval.c, cut_node.c, etc.. etc..
Vitruvius had a development independent of its ... Father! Its main goal has always been to get a game as near as possible to the "human style". Why this? First of all, it's more fun and enjoyable! But mostly, I wanted to provide chess player, a tool for finding new lines of play, fairly aggressive, but tactically justified. The style of play of Vitruvius is highly speculative and strategic: to obtain a positional advantage, he is willing to sacrifice the material (one or two pawns, often the quality, sometimes a piece). This style seems easy to achieve: just lower the value of the pieces, and raise that of the positional elements and ... Hoplà! The game is made! In fact, an engine of this kind will have a biased view of the situation on the chessboard. He will sacrifice the material recklessly, and what is worse, he deems to be in advantage. The sacrifices of Vitruvius, instead, despite being risky (speculativi!), often prove correct. This has been demonstrated in many test games.
Vitruvius, of course, is not perfect! There is still much work to do, but I think this is a way to try, and especially not to be despised...

Kind regards,
Roberto Munter (aka "carotino")

P.S. "HEM version" is for high end cpus (i.e. Intel Core-i7, or AMD Phenom). It supports the following hardware features: avx, aes, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 and, especially, popcnt. This translates into a significant increase of speed (15%, 20%, in some cases even more), and then of "playing strength".

I am liking Vitruvius' analysis so far!

Although I think I goofed up as it looks like I should have purchased the HEM engine. I purchased the normal Vitruvius. But my machine does support SSE and popcnt. Either way Vitruvius is very interesting so far!

Has the manual been released in English yet?

[Joerg Oster]

Roberto, is there a chance that it will also be available as a Linux engine?