Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557.

[Igor Korshunov]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Igor Korshunov at 29. August 2004 13:17:

Hi All!
Pro Deo scored 2557.
Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.
Ratings here: http://www.igorkorshunov.narod.ru/Ratings.html

Next time Ktulu 4.2 will be added.
I am sure it will be in top 5.

Best wishes,
Igor

[Günther Simon]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Günther Simon at 30 August 2004 14:28:38:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Korshunov at 29. August 2004 13:17:

Hi All!
Pro Deo scored 2557.
Seems it is very unbalanced engine
and clearly is not the best of free available
Ratings here: http://www.igorkorshunov.narod.ru/Ratings.html

Next time Ktulu 4.2 will be added.
I am sure it will be in top 5.

Best wishes,
Igor

_in bullet_ ! ProDeo will gain a lot on 'normal' time controls...

again _in bullet_ sigh...

Regards,
Günther

[Kurt Utzinger]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Kurt Utzinger at 30 August 2004 15:47:16:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Korshunov at 29. August 2004 13:17:


I dont't bother if Pro Deo would be last at bullet chess.
What counts much more for me is the strenght at
"normal time controls" and here at 40'/40 and slower
the engine is very strong. Perhaps the best free
available program at the moment.
Kurt



Kurt & Rolf Chess

[Gábor Szots]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Gábor Szots at 30 August 2004 20:27:45:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Korshunov at 29. August 2004 13:17:

Hi All!
Pro Deo scored 2557.
Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.
Ratings here: http://www.igorkorshunov.narod.ru/Ratings.html

Next time Ktulu 4.2 will be added.
I am sure it will be in top 5.

Best wishes,
Igor

Hi Igor,
I'm very surprised that Pro Deo has got such a high rating. It is a terrible fast-game player.
On the other hand, it is excellent at slow games and a real enjoyment to watch. Look at its games in SzG Swiss if you are not convinced.
Best wishes,
Gábor

[David Dahlem]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: David Dahlem at 30 August 2004 20:46:20:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Korshunov at 29. August 2004 13:17:

Hi All!
Pro Deo scored 2557.
Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.
Ratings here: http://www.igorkorshunov.narod.ru/Ratings.html

Next time Ktulu 4.2 will be added.
I am sure it will be in top 5.

Best wishes,
Igor

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!
Regards
Dave

[Igor Korshunov]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Igor Korshunov at 30. August 2004 21:32:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: David Dahlem at 30 August 2004 20:46:20:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

[Norm Pollock]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Norm Pollock at 31 August 2004 15:20:12:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Korshunov at 30. August 2004 21:32:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

So by your own words you have to follow up with other time controls. And Bullet is an extreme time control. Try longer time controls that give engines time to show all their search and evaluation abilities so that the game is not always decided by the opening.
And it may turn out that an engine may excel at particular time controls but not at others. This would be analogous to sprinters and marathoners and those in-between.

[Uri Blass]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Uri Blass at 31 August 2004 16:32:17:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Norm Pollock at 31 August 2004 15:20:12:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

So by your own words you have to follow up with other time controls.
And Bullet is an extreme time control.
Try longer time controls that give engines time to show all their search and >evaluation abilities so that the game is not always decided by the opening.
And it may turn out that an engine may excel at particular time controls but not at others. This would be analogous to sprinters and marathoners and those in-between.

No
If the best engine must play well at all suitable time controls then one time control that it does not play well is enough to prove that it is not the best engine.
It is possible that there is no best engine.

Engines can play also at time control of 10 seconds per game.

I do not think that bullet is always decided by the opening and opening book was not used but only defined opening positions that Igor chose.

It is also possible to have one engine that is best or almost best at every time control and it is more likely to happen then a runner who will run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds and marathon in less than 130 minutes.
Uri

[Robert Allgeuer]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Robert Allgeuer at 31 August 2004 17:04:08:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Norm Pollock at 31 August 2004 15:20:12:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

So by your own words you have to follow up with other time controls. And Bullet is an extreme time control. Try longer time controls that give engines time to show all their search and evaluation abilities so that the game is not always decided by the opening.
And it may turn out that an engine may excel at particular time controls but not at others. This would be analogous to sprinters and marathoners and those in-between.

Where does the view come from that the opening book is more important in short time controls than in longer ones? Are there any proofs - or at least indications - that this is indeed the case?
Robert

[Uri Blass]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Uri Blass at 31 August 2004 17:51:16:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Robert Allgeuer at 31 August 2004 17:04:08:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

So by your own words you have to follow up with other time controls. And Bullet is an extreme time control. Try longer time controls that give engines time to show all their search and evaluation abilities so that the game is not always decided by the opening.

Where does the view come from that the opening book is more important in short time controls than in longer ones? Are there any proofs - or at least indications - that this is indeed the case?
Robert

No opening book was used so this question is even irrelevant for the discussion.
Uri

[Robert Allgeuer]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Robert Allgeuer at 31 August 2004 18:41:29:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Uri Blass at 31 August 2004 17:51:16:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

So by your own words you have to follow up with other time controls. And Bullet is an extreme time control. Try longer time controls that give engines time to show all their search and evaluation abilities so that the game is not always decided by the opening.

Where does the view come from that the opening book is more important in short time controls than in longer ones? Are there any proofs - or at least indications - that this is indeed the case?
Robert

No opening book was used so this question is even irrelevant for the discussion.
Uri

In any case I would argue that if it were true that with short time controls luck and the opening book are of more importance than with longer time controls I would expect to see "compressed" rating lists for short time controls. This means lists where the difference in ratings between stronger and weaker engines is smaller, because luck is - on average - more evenly distributed than playing strength and opening book disadvantages are with all due respect smaller than the ones in search. I do not think we observe this.
I do believe also in bullet search and evaluation (i.e. the "engine") are still the dominating parts that determine playing strength. Of course some algorithms may work better with small search depths and others with greater search depths, hence bullet results will most probably differ from the ones obtained with longer time controls. But there are also balanced engines.
Robert




YABRL (Yet Another Blitz Rating List)

[David Dahlem]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: David Dahlem at 31 August 2004 21:40:37:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Korshunov at 30. August 2004 21:32:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

Yes, i do. Quite simply, i don't believe bullet is a suitable time control.
Regards
Dave

[Albert Silver]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Albert Silver at 01 September 2004 17:38:06:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Korshunov at 30. August 2004 21:32:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

I have a different opinion. Just like humans, it is absolutely not clear that excellence at bullet will equate to excellence in slow time controls. The reverse is also true. For example, Ruffian 2.0 showed very poor performance in the SSDF (based on only 165 games it is true) compared to it's older brother v1.01 yet in another similar list dedicated to bullet, ChessFun, it was far superior. This isn't to draw any definitive conclusions except to say that bullet results only say how good an engine is at bullet. You can possibly draw a parallel with blitz as the difference isn't so big, but I don't see how you can say that an engine's superior results in 1-2 minute games is evidence of superior results in 1-2 *hour* games.
Albert

[Igor Korshunov]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Igor Korshunov at 01. September 2004 18:36:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Albert Silver at 01 September 2004 17:38:06:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

I have a different opinion. Just like humans, it is absolutely not clear that excellence at bullet will equate to excellence in slow time controls. The reverse is also true. For example, Ruffian 2.0 showed very poor performance in the SSDF (based on only 165 games it is true) compared to it's older brother v1.01 yet in another similar list dedicated to bullet, ChessFun, it was far superior. This isn't to draw any definitive conclusions except to say that bullet results only say how good an engine is at bullet. You can possibly draw a parallel with blitz as the difference isn't so big, but I don't see how you can say that an engine's superior results in 1-2 minute games is evidence of superior results in 1-2 *hour* games.
Albert

I don't notice different opinion here.
Perfomance at bullet is not perfomance at slow control.
For me it is possible to create bullet rating list. But I have not possibility to create slow rating list.
I just want to say, that best engine must play well at all normal time controls.
So we can consider Ruffian is the best among free available engines.
It clear best at bullet. And there is no engine that clear better at slow controls.
Prod Deo can't be considered as best due to overwhelming bad results at bullet.

[Igor Korshunov]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Igor Korshunov at 01. September 2004 18:38:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: David Dahlem at 31 August 2004 21:40:37:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

Yes, i do. Quite simply, i don't believe bullet is a suitable time control.
Regards
Dave

This is strange.
Do you prefer time control one move per 100 years?
I don't think that this time control is slow enough, because engines will make a lot of mistakes with such a 'bullet' control.
I don't see a big difference between 'game in 1 min' and 'game in 2 hours'.
From my point of view importance of be the best at bullet not smaller than the importance of be the best at slow.
What is the reasons to consider slow is more important?
I heard only one: engines make less mistakes. I don't like such opinion.
But at WBEC engines do so much mistakes, that seems bullet time control used.
At least clear is not slow enough.
From another point: I think the more mistake the more interesting game. Who want to see all games ended in a draw, without any mistakes?
Finally, I think that tournaments with different time controls have the same importance.

[Dan Honeycutt]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Dan Honeycutt at 01 September 2004 21:21:38:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Korshunov at 01. September 2004 18:38:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

Yes, i do. Quite simply, i don't believe bullet is a suitable time control.
Regards
Dave

This is strange.
Do you prefer time control one move per 100 years?
I don't think that this time control is slow enough, because engines will make a lot of mistakes with such a 'bullet' control.
I don't see a big difference between 'game in 1 min' and 'game in 2 hours'.
From my point of view importance of be the best at bullet not smaller than the importance of be the best at slow.
What is the reasons to consider slow is more important?
I heard only one: engines make less mistakes. I don't like such opinion.
But at WBEC engines do so much mistakes, that seems bullet time control used.
At least clear is not slow enough.
From another point: I think the more mistake the more interesting game. Who want to see all games ended in a draw, without any mistakes?
Finally, I think that tournaments with different time controls have the same importance.

Engine search depth vs time is exponential and the probability that the engine will change it's move selection generally follows the slope of that curve - high initially and then decreasing toward zero. (I say generally - there are some positions where the engine flips back and forth between two moves). The engine has to get over the knee and out on the flat part of the curve before you are reasonably sure that it has made up it's mind. Bullet time controls may not allow that.
Volker Pittlik is doing some research into the "fastest" time control that could be considered "slow" time control, ie the amount of time needed so you are 95 % sure the engine would not change it's mind even if given a lot more time. This will be useful data so debates like this thread can be more quantitative rather than qualitative.
Dan H.

[David Dahlem]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: David Dahlem at 01 September 2004 21:35:20:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Igor Korshunov at 01. September 2004 18:38:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

Yes, i do. Quite simply, i don't believe bullet is a suitable time control.
Regards
Dave

This is strange.
Do you prefer time control one move per 100 years?
I don't think that this time control is slow enough, because engines will make a lot of mistakes with such a 'bullet' control.
I don't see a big difference between 'game in 1 min' and 'game in 2 hours'.
From my point of view importance of be the best at bullet not smaller than the importance of be the best at slow.
What is the reasons to consider slow is more important?
I heard only one: engines make less mistakes. I don't like such opinion.
But at WBEC engines do so much mistakes, that seems bullet time control used.
At least clear is not slow enough.
From another point: I think the more mistake the more interesting game. Who want to see all games ended in a draw, without any mistakes?
Finally, I think that tournaments with different time controls have the same importance.

Of course not, this is an extreme, foolish time control, and game in 1 minute is an extreme, foolish time control.
Dave

[Uri Blass]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Uri Blass at 01 September 2004 22:36:24:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: David Dahlem at 01 September 2004 21:35:20:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

Yes, i do. Quite simply, i don't believe bullet is a suitable time control.
Regards
Dave

This is strange.
Do you prefer time control one move per 100 years?

Of course not, this is an extreme, foolish time control, and game in 1 minute is an extreme, foolish time control.
Dave

I disagree.
1 move per 100 years is foolish because you practically will not get data.
Every time control that you can get games without losses on time is not foolish.
Even 10 seconds per game is not foolish if both engines know usually not to lose on time.
40 hours/40 moves is also not foolish(you will probably not get significant results if you do not have a lot of computers that run at the same time but you can get games).
Uri

[David Dahlem]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: David Dahlem at 02 September 2004 00:32:39:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: Uri Blass at 01 September 2004 22:36:24:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

Yes, i do. Quite simply, i don't believe bullet is a suitable time control.
Regards
Dave

This is strange.
Do you prefer time control one move per 100 years?

Of course not, this is an extreme, foolish time control, and game in 1 minute is an extreme, foolish time control.
Dave

I disagree.
1 move per 100 years is foolish because you practically will not get data.
Every time control that you can get games without losses on time is not foolish.
Even 10 seconds per game is not foolish if both engines know usually not to lose on time.
40 hours/40 moves is also not foolish(you will probably not get significant results if you do not have a lot of computers that run at the same time but you can get games).
Uri

Surely this is a typing error, and you really mean 10 seconds per move, and not 10 seconds per game.
Dave

[Igor Korshunov]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Igor Korshunov at 02. September 2004 07:34:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Bullet masters. Pro Deo 1.0 - 2557. geschrieben von:/posted by: David Dahlem at 01 September 2004 21:35:20:

Seems it is very unbalanced engine and clearly is not the best of free available.

You're reaching this kind of conclusion based on bullet games? Get real!!

The best engine must play well at all suitable time controls.
Imho, it is clear.
Do you have another opinion?

Yes, i do. Quite simply, i don't believe bullet is a suitable time control.
Regards
Dave

This is strange.
Do you prefer time control one move per 100 years?

Of course not, this is an extreme, foolish time control, and game in 1 minute is an extreme, foolish time control.
Dave

I don't see nothing extreme in 'game in 1 min'.
There are a lot of time for engine.
Of course, for human 1 min is highly extreme. But we are talking about engines!
On modern PC 1 min is more than enough to avoid any time trouble.
From another point: 2 hours per move on modern PC is clearly not enough to produce good enough moves.