AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers

[Olivier Deville]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Olivier Deville at 23 July 2004 11:35:30:

Here are the versions of the engines that will participate in AEGT :

Group A (Master Class)

AnMon 5.32
Aristarch 4.50
Crafty 19.15 (same compile for all, not decided yet which one)
Delfi 4.5
Gothmog 1.0b10
List 5.12 (will play with no book, unless the author provides us with a book...)
Quark 2.35
Ruffian 1.0.5
SmarThink 0.17a
Tao 5.7b4
Thinker 4.6c
Yace 0.99.87


Group B (Higher Class)

DanChess 1.06
Trace 1.29
Big Lion 2.23i
Snitch (with a stable tested version that the author is able to send us until Sunday)
Spike (with a stable tested version that the authors are able to send us until Sunday)
Bruja 1.7
BlackBishop 0.9.7i
Alarm 0.93.1
Cerebro (with a stable tested version that the author is able to send us until Sunday)
Djinn 0.870
Booot 4.03
Hermann 1.1.6

Olivier




ChessWar

[Matthias Gemuh]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 23 July 2004 12:29:00:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Olivier Deville at 23 July 2004 11:35:30:

Group B (Higher Class)

DanChess 1.06
Trace 1.29
Big Lion 2.23i
Snitch (with a stable tested version that the author is able to send us until Sunday)
Spike (with a stable tested version that the authors are able to send us until Sunday)
Bruja 1.7
BlackBishop 0.9.7i
Alarm 0.93.1
Cerebro (with a stable tested version that the author is able to send us until Sunday)
Djinn 0.870
Booot 4.03
Hermann 1.1.6

Hi Olivier,
BigLion cannot win even 1 game in this highest class !!
I am afraid the results will make you hate my engine.
But I am working on a new version .
Best,
Matthias.




BigLion + Taktix

[Olivier Deville]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Olivier Deville at 23 July 2004 12:33:28:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 23 July 2004 12:29:00:

Group B (Higher Class)

DanChess 1.06
Trace 1.29
Big Lion 2.23i
Snitch (with a stable tested version that the author is able to send us until Sunday)
Spike (with a stable tested version that the authors are able to send us until Sunday)
Bruja 1.7
BlackBishop 0.9.7i
Alarm 0.93.1
Cerebro (with a stable tested version that the author is able to send us until Sunday)
Djinn 0.870
Booot 4.03
Hermann 1.1.6

Hi Olivier,
BigLion cannot win even 1 game in this highest class !!
I am afraid the results will make you hate my engine.
But I am working on a new version .
Best,
Matthias.

Matthias,
If you have a beta version that you want us to test instead of 2.23i, we will be happy to include it .
This is true for all authors of course : authors are free to send us new versions.
Olivier


ChessWar

[Uri Blass]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Uri Blass at 23 July 2004 12:48:09:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 23 July 2004 12:29:00:

Group B (Higher Class)

DanChess 1.06
Trace 1.29
Big Lion 2.23i
Snitch (with a stable tested version that the author is able to send us until Sunday)
Spike (with a stable tested version that the authors are able to send us until Sunday)
Bruja 1.7
BlackBishop 0.9.7i
Alarm 0.93.1
Cerebro (with a stable tested version that the author is able to send us until Sunday)
Djinn 0.870
Booot 4.03
Hermann 1.1.6

Hi Olivier,
BigLion cannot win even 1 game in this highest class !!
I am afraid the results will make you hate my engine.
But I am working on a new version .
Best,
Matthias.

I am not so sure that biglion cannot win even 1 game.
I remember that biglion beated shredder7.04 and Crafty19.15.

Uri

[Igor Gorelikov]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Igor Gorelikov at 23 July 2004 12:51:01:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Olivier Deville at 23 July 2004 11:35:30:

I think that we should use engine names assigned by their authors:
feature myname="Gothmog 1.0 beta 10"
feature myname="List 512"
Igor

Gothmog 1.0b10
List 5.12 (will play with no book, unless the author provides us with a book...)

[Tom Likens]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Tom Likens at 23 July 2004 13:23:50:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 23 July 2004 12:29:00:

Group B (Higher Class)

DanChess 1.06
Trace 1.29
Big Lion 2.23i
Snitch (with a stable tested version that the author is able to send us until Sunday)
Spike (with a stable tested version that the authors are able to send us until Sunday)
Bruja 1.7
BlackBishop 0.9.7i
Alarm 0.93.1
Cerebro (with a stable tested version that the author is able to send us until Sunday)
Djinn 0.870
Booot 4.03
Hermann 1.1.6

Hi Olivier,
BigLion cannot win even 1 game in this highest class !!
I am afraid the results will make you hate my engine.
But I am working on a new version .
Best,
Matthias.

Ha, so you say Matthias- until BigLion pulls out its claws!
I like BigLion's style. If it were a bit faster, it would more than
likely ruin a few engine's days.
best regards,
--tom

[Matthias Gemuh]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 23 July 2004 13:33:44:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Uri Blass at 23 July 2004 12:48:09:

I am not so sure that biglion cannot win even 1 game.
I remember that biglion beated shredder7.04 and Crafty19.15.

Uri

The victory against Shredder was nice, but Crafty simply played poorly !
Maybe BigLion's opponents will blunder away a point or two.
Matthias.


BigLion + Taktix

[Matthias Gemuh]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 23 July 2004 13:45:56:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Tom Likens at 23 July 2004 13:23:50:

Ha, so you say Matthias- until BigLion pulls out its claws!
I like BigLion's style. If it were a bit faster, it would more than
likely ruin a few engine's days.
best regards,
--tom

Yes, speed ! I spend all my time wondering how others do it .
/Matthias.


BigLion + Taktix

[Fabien Letouzey]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Fabien Letouzey at 23 July 2004 13:50:41:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Olivier Deville at 23 July 2004 11:35:30:

Here are the versions of the engines that will participate in AEGT :
Group A (Master Class)
AnMon 5.32
Aristarch 4.50
Crafty 19.15 (same compile for all, not decided yet which one)
Delfi 4.5
Gothmog 1.0b10
List 5.12 (will play with no book, unless the author provides us with a book...)
Quark 2.35
Ruffian 1.0.5
SmarThink 0.17a
Tao 5.7b4
Thinker 4.6c
Yace 0.99.87

Hi Olivier,
When is the Group-A tournament expected to start?
Fabien.

[Roger Brown]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Roger Brown at 23 July 2004 14:09:53:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: slight corrections of names geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Gorelikov at 23 July 2004 12:51:01:

[Olivier Deville]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Olivier Deville at 23 July 2004 14:10:55:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Fabien Letouzey at 23 July 2004 13:50:41:

Here are the versions of the engines that will participate in AEGT :
Group A (Master Class)
AnMon 5.32
Aristarch 4.50
Crafty 19.15 (same compile for all, not decided yet which one)
Delfi 4.5
Gothmog 1.0b10
List 5.12 (will play with no book, unless the author provides us with a book...)
Quark 2.35
Ruffian 1.0.5
SmarThink 0.17a
Tao 5.7b4
Thinker 4.6c
Yace 0.99.87

Hi Olivier,
When is the Group-A tournament expected to start?
Fabien.

I don't know exactly, possibly Monday if all decisions have been made. Heinz could answer more precisely.
Olivier


ChessWar

[Daniel Shawul]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Daniel Shawul at 23 July 2004 14:36:01:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: slight corrections of names geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Gorelikov at 23 July 2004 12:51:01:

I think that we should use engine names assigned by their authors:
feature myname="Gothmog 1.0 beta 10"
feature myname="List 512"
Igor

Gothmog 1.0b10
List 5.12 (will play with no book, unless the author provides us with a book...)

I expect all testers to use DanChess 1.06-DC eventhough name is set
feature myname="DanChess 1.06"
by mistake.
best
daniel

[Tord Romstad]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Tord Romstad at 23 July 2004 15:03:00:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 23 July 2004 13:45:56:

Yes, speed ! I spend all my time wondering how others do it .

So do I. In Gothmog, I always blamed the miserably low nodes/second count
on my complicated evaluation function. After working for some time on Gothmog's
successor, I am no longer so sure. My board representation and data structures
look good, and the code is simple, straightforward, and with no obvious
inefficiencies which I can see. The evaluation currently consists of material
and piece square tables only, and the score is incrementally updated when moves
are made/unmade.
This sounds like a speed monster, but it isn't. On my PIV 2.4 GHz, the
nodes/second count is comparable to Crafty's. Not very impressive for a
program with only incremental eval. I wonder what I am doing wrong.
Tord

[Fabien Letouzey]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Fabien Letouzey at 23 July 2004 15:14:26:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Tord Romstad at 23 July 2004 15:03:00:

Yes, speed ! I spend all my time wondering how others do it .

So do I. In Gothmog, I always blamed the miserably low nodes/second count
on my complicated evaluation function. After working for some time on Gothmog's
successor, I am no longer so sure. My board representation and data structures
look good, and the code is simple, straightforward, and with no obvious
inefficiencies which I can see. The evaluation currently consists of material
and piece square tables only, and the score is incrementally updated when moves
are made/unmade.
This sounds like a speed monster, but it isn't. On my PIV 2.4 GHz, the
nodes/second count is comparable to Crafty's. Not very impressive for a
program with only incremental eval. I wonder what I am doing wrong.
Tord

Don't forget that Crafty uses lazy evaluation. I suspect on average the speed of the whole program is not so far away from one with incremental evaluation.
Fruit 1.0 is clearly slower than Crafty and is not doing much either (some stuff like ETC at depth>=4, 4-probe HT and fail-high null move slow down here and there, NPS-wise that is).
I would say getting the speed of Crafty is good! Now you can start adding your magic code to evaluate twice as good and twice as deep
Don't worry and move forward
Fabien.

[Daniel Shawul]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Daniel Shawul at 23 July 2004 15:15:27:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Tord Romstad at 23 July 2004 15:03:00:

Yes, speed ! I spend all my time wondering how others do it .

So do I. In Gothmog, I always blamed the miserably low nodes/second count
on my complicated evaluation function. After working for some time on Gothmog's
successor, I am no longer so sure. My board representation and data structures
look good, and the code is simple, straightforward, and with no obvious
inefficiencies which I can see. The evaluation currently consists of material
and piece square tables only, and the score is incrementally updated when moves
are made/unmade.
This sounds like a speed monster, but it isn't. On my PIV 2.4 GHz, the
nodes/second count is comparable to Crafty's. Not very impressive for a
program with only incremental eval. I wonder what I am doing wrong.
Tord

Even if it is not much work to add piece square values, it lowers the
nps count very much. Score only material and i am sure nps will rise tremedously.
daniel

[Fabien Letouzey]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Fabien Letouzey at 23 July 2004 15:17:55:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Fabien Letouzey at 23 July 2004 15:14:26:

Don't forget that Crafty uses lazy evaluation. I suspect on average the speed of the whole program is not so far away from one with incremental evaluation.

I forgot incremental move generation etc ...
Any algorithmic speed enhancement, Crafty is already using it.
Keep that in mind and be satisfied.
Fabien.

[Olivier Deville]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Olivier Deville at 23 July 2004 15:48:45:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: slight corrections of names geschrieben von:/posted by: Daniel Shawul at 23 July 2004 14:36:01:

I think that we should use engine names assigned by their authors:
feature myname="Gothmog 1.0 beta 10"
feature myname="List 512"
Igor

Gothmog 1.0b10
List 5.12 (will play with no book, unless the author provides us with a book...)

I expect all testers to use DanChess 1.06-DC eventhough name is set
feature myname="DanChess 1.06"
by mistake.
best
daniel

Yes Dan we will take DC compile
Olivier



ChessWar

[Olivier Deville]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Olivier Deville at 23 July 2004 15:51:14:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: slight corrections of names geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Gorelikov at 23 July 2004 12:51:01:

I think that we should use engine names assigned by their authors:
feature myname="Gothmog 1.0 beta 10"
feature myname="List 512"
Igor

Gothmog 1.0b10
List 5.12 (will play with no book, unless the author provides us with a book...)

You are rignt, Igor : we should all take exactly the same names for the engines. This will be much better if we put all the games together in a database anyway.
Olivier



ChessWar

[Uri Blass]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Uri Blass at 23 July 2004 16:12:24:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Tord Romstad at 23 July 2004 15:03:00:

Yes, speed ! I spend all my time wondering how others do it .

So do I. In Gothmog, I always blamed the miserably low nodes/second count
on my complicated evaluation function. After working for some time on Gothmog's
successor, I am no longer so sure. My board representation and data structures
look good, and the code is simple, straightforward, and with no obvious
inefficiencies which I can see. The evaluation currently consists of material
and piece square tables only, and the score is incrementally updated when moves
are made/unmade.
This sounds like a speed monster, but it isn't. On my PIV 2.4 GHz, the
nodes/second count is comparable to Crafty's. Not very impressive for a
program with only incremental eval. I wonder what I am doing wrong.
Tord

Maybe Crafty is using superior compiler.
Did You try to use the same compiler that you use for gothmog for Crafty
and compare the speed of Gothmog with Crafty?
Another question is if you count nodes the same as Crafty.
As far as I know crafty includes also illegal moves as part of it's nodes.
In the case of movei I never expected to have the same speed as Crafty because my makemove update information about the attacked squares and as far as I know Crafty has not this information.
I am happy enough with the fact that movei has similiar speed to some commercial programs like Shredder or Hiarcs and I believe that no speed improvement is needed in order to be stronger then them(only better algorithm).
Latest version also does not do incremental update of piece square tables.
The problem is that there are different piece square table for opening and
endgame and I decided that it is better to lose some speed and do the code more simpler in order not to have bugs(it only costed me something like being 5% slower in nodes per second and the improvement that I did later in evaluating transition from opening to endgame based on some average between opening king table and endgame king table in similiar way to fruit is probably more than it).
Uri

[Tom Likens]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Tom Likens at 23 July 2004 16:24:45:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: AEGT : list of participants, with version numbers geschrieben von:/posted by: Tord Romstad at 23 July 2004 15:03:00:

Yes, speed ! I spend all my time wondering how others do it .

So do I. In Gothmog, I always blamed the miserably low nodes/second count
on my complicated evaluation function. After working for some time on Gothmog's
successor, I am no longer so sure. My board representation and data structures
look good, and the code is simple, straightforward, and with no obvious
inefficiencies which I can see. The evaluation currently consists of material
and piece square tables only, and the score is incrementally updated when moves
are made/unmade.
This sounds like a speed monster, but it isn't. On my PIV 2.4 GHz, the
nodes/second count is comparable to Crafty's. Not very impressive for a
program with only incremental eval. I wonder what I am doing wrong.
Tord

Hey Tord,
Interestingly, I'm in the middle of something very similar. I'm currently
rewriting Djinn's evaluation from scratch, since I feel that it contains too
many elements that conflict with each other. And yes, I know I might get
more benefit from reworking the search, but that will eventually get done
as well. One of the advantages of being an amateur is that you can work on
the sections of the program that interest you, (at least until you get an
email from Leo, detailing your latest ponder bug!!)
At the moment, Djinn's evaluation consists of interior node recognizers,
some incremental stuff (not even piece square tables), recognition of
trival draws and material. It's current speed is about as fast as Crafty,
but certainly no faster, (I don't use lazy eval, nor do I plan on adding it).
Surprisingly, at least to me, it solves 296 of the WAC positions, including
for the first time, #100. My goal is not to search as fast as Crafty,
although that would be fine, but to search as deep or deeper. Of course,
my *real* goal is too play stronger, but first things first!
regards,
--tom