![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
After all of the succes that Rybka has had, is it possible for Stockfish to equal or surpass Rybka's strenght? Looks like is going to be hard to accomplish that, but I will be sitting here and wait for a surprise.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Already very close - I suspect the next major release will be moving ahead of R4 as it stands now - this will be at tournament time controls {about 3min/move}
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
Hmmm, looking at my post story, I keep talking about predictions of Rybka being permanently removed from the rating lists' first place in "6 months", then "5 months", and all that points to December.
So if that holds, in December Stockfish or some other engine is going to overtake Rybka, it seemed likely in June, let's see what happens.
So if that holds, in December Stockfish or some other engine is going to overtake Rybka, it seemed likely in June, let's see what happens.
Whenever you talk we listen Vytron; is going to be an amazing story if that ever happens.
I wouldn't bet on Stockfish catching up until toward the end of next year. It must be getting harder and harder to eke out ELO improvements for everyone all around.
There is an unmentionable engine that I think has pulled just about even and has a really different behavioral style. I consider it the #2 engine right now, and one more bound and it could be #1. Of course, this judgment is subject to the tests some are conducting at different R4 settings.
There is an unmentionable engine that I think has pulled just about even and has a really different behavioral style. I consider it the #2 engine right now, and one more bound and it could be #1. Of course, this judgment is subject to the tests some are conducting at different R4 settings.
You could be right about Sf. The latest version 1.9 is about the same elo as SF 1.8. No real improvement.
R4 and the other engine is about the same elo.
Best,
Gerold.
P.S. It would be nice to see an update for R4.
R4 and the other engine is about the same elo.
Best,
Gerold.
P.S. It would be nice to see an update for R4.
By the time Stockfish even equals Rybka a newer version of Rybka will be released.I doubt Stocky will equal Rybka anytime soon.
The idea is that Rybka should be able to learn something from Stockfish, because it is open source, and not the other way around. Because of the clones this is not always what has happened, I think that should be admitted; there are ideas from Rybka now in open source programs including Stockfish. I am glad that the clones are not making much progress at the moment as they have not really made these programs on their own. Does Stockfish really want to surpass Rybka 4 and become the new target for clones? It is not really an enviable position to be in
I think Tord has again made a very big contribution to "reusable" code with his new remote Glaurung on Ipod code. I hope some of the commercials including Vas will be able to find some ideas there that could be used for remote versions of their software. I think only Tord could do this much, in the limited time that he has for chessprogramming. But the other Stockfish programmers I'm sure are also not sitting still
Eelco
I think Tord has again made a very big contribution to "reusable" code with his new remote Glaurung on Ipod code. I hope some of the commercials including Vas will be able to find some ideas there that could be used for remote versions of their software. I think only Tord could do this much, in the limited time that he has for chessprogramming. But the other Stockfish programmers I'm sure are also not sitting still
Eelco
![[il]](/mwf/v12/flags/il.png "Israel")
I think that having the same elo with a simpler code is an improvement.
The code of stockfish1.9 is smaller than the code of stockfish1.8 and it means that it may be easier also to improve the elo of stockfish in the future.
I believe that the evaluation of stockfish1.9 is relatively simple(evaluate.cpp of stockfish1.9 is only 950 lines of codes even when we include all the comments)
and there is a clear room for improvement by a better evaluation.
Edit:The evaluation function is done also in other files and not only in evaluate.cpp but I still think that it does not change the fact that the evaluation of stockfish is relatively simple and there is a room for improvement in it.
Uri
The code of stockfish1.9 is smaller than the code of stockfish1.8 and it means that it may be easier also to improve the elo of stockfish in the future.
I believe that the evaluation of stockfish1.9 is relatively simple(evaluate.cpp of stockfish1.9 is only 950 lines of codes even when we include all the comments)
and there is a clear room for improvement by a better evaluation.
Edit:The evaluation function is done also in other files and not only in evaluate.cpp but I still think that it does not change the fact that the evaluation of stockfish is relatively simple and there is a room for improvement in it.
Uri
![[es]](/mwf/v12/flags/es.png "Spain")
for long analysis I still think R4 is much reliable and stable than SF and, in general, much better. I even prefer many other (mentionable) engines rather than SF.
Nevertheless, engine vs engine is a very different matter and it is possible that we may see SF getting positive results against R4 in one year or so (i am assuming we will have one SF update every 6 months, and we will not see any R4 update anymore, since Vas has never done what he said)
Nevertheless, engine vs engine is a very different matter and it is possible that we may see SF getting positive results against R4 in one year or so (i am assuming we will have one SF update every 6 months, and we will not see any R4 update anymore, since Vas has never done what he said)
> Vas has never done what he said
Well, in his defense, that is obviously not true. It is true that he has disappointed us time after time. But he hasn't been a pathological liar or anything like that. His credibility is not the greatest, but not because he is deliberately trying to deceive us. There are different types of bullshitters, and Vas is one of the more benign varieties. He has never hurt any of us.
> for long analysis I still think R4 is much reliable and stable than SF
No argument from me, though R4's well-known endgame evaluation problems are vexing. For me, the engine that most accurately and quickly identifies a drawn position as 0.00 is a treasure. There are others that do this better even though they may be weaker in other respects.
![[jo]](/mwf/v12/flags/jo.png "Jordan")
....one of the more benign varieties
Come again!?
Come again!?
Are you suggesting he is a malignant bullshitter?
I suggested the first fragment of the diagnosis,you confirmed the second fragment of it
I agree.
I guess he must have other priorities and that he has full right to do so. I think we all agree that if he says he is going to write R4's FAQ document we can wait and wait. If he says he is going to release 3+ version, we can wait and wait. If he says he is going to release 4.01...
But who cares? At the end R4 with all her bugs is the best engine so far...
I guess he must have other priorities and that he has full right to do so. I think we all agree that if he says he is going to write R4's FAQ document we can wait and wait. If he says he is going to release 3+ version, we can wait and wait. If he says he is going to release 4.01...
But who cares? At the end R4 with all her bugs is the best engine so far...
agree.
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
In every other business he would go broke. But it seems computer chess people are more like drug addicts, they always need the latest stuff, reaching greater kicks and higher depths.
Agree. but we mustn't forget that he is still the best, and as a consecuence of that there are some things that are allowed to him, like not to do what he told he was going to do.
There is no way Rybka is the best engine however it still is a must have.
> There is no way Rybka is the best engine
According to any objective criteria?
Rybka is the best according to rating groups that do not test the better engines.
Rybka does not have any negative issues if you consider trivial the mpv bug, lack of support for persistent hash, misevaluation of rooks with pawns endings. BUP and wrong bishop endigames.
Rybka is probably the best in the middlegame, that's why it's a must have if you play correspondence chess but I'm probably not being objective.
Rybka does not have any negative issues if you consider trivial the mpv bug, lack of support for persistent hash, misevaluation of rooks with pawns endings. BUP and wrong bishop endigames.
Rybka is probably the best in the middlegame, that's why it's a must have if you play correspondence chess but I'm probably not being objective.
those bugs may be annoying, but even with those bugs and even other engines do not have them, looks like they cannot beat R4 at high depths time control.
It is supposed they must have other bugs, or in case they are bug-free (?), it seems that they are not good enough to beat a buggy engine like R4 at those time controls.
It is supposed they must have other bugs, or in case they are bug-free (?), it seems that they are not good enough to beat a buggy engine like R4 at those time controls.
I'm sure your private testing is valuable but I have not seen what you are describing. Take this thread for example and show me any evidence that supports what you are stating.
> Vas is one of the more benign varieties
I agree with this assessment. Maybe I'm wrong and he's Mr. Evil in his spare time but I have the impression that Vas is like many other engineers I've known who constantly struggle with time management and lose interest in projects as time goes by. Neglect is a sign of boredom and it's often followed by a new project with a new set of challenges...
If Stockfish ever manages to get a really good evaluation it will be a beast. Currently, Stockfish has lousy evaluation. Does any other top engine disagree with a 100 years of GM praxis more violently than Stockfish? Not even close. Stockfish is the poster child for beancounting and every time I see a wacky, oscillating evaluation of a position that GM's know to be equal I think of the countless debates that used to take place at talkchess concerning the relative importance of beancounting vs evaluation.
The side that said that beancounters would win in the end (Chris Wittington was one of those, I believe.) has completely won that argument, or so it would seem at this juncture. Personally, I think that's a sad development because beancounting isn't nearly as interesting. I'd much rather see developers focus on building new and interesting personalities. Seeing an engine like Stockfish that can reach insane depths when analyzing the starting position and knowing that those depths are meaningless noise does absolutely nothing for me. If Stockfish is the future of computer chess, we're screwed.
The side that said that beancounters would win in the end (Chris Wittington was one of those, I believe.) has completely won that argument, or so it would seem at this juncture. Personally, I think that's a sad development because beancounting isn't nearly as interesting. I'd much rather see developers focus on building new and interesting personalities. Seeing an engine like Stockfish that can reach insane depths when analyzing the starting position and knowing that those depths are meaningless noise does absolutely nothing for me. If Stockfish is the future of computer chess, we're screwed.
Move choice is a product of evaluation and search, I hate Stockfish's search and its super-instability, but I love Sotckfish's move choice and I think it's its main strength, so as in the other thread I'll say that if Stockfish's evaluation is poor I don't want to see it fixed.
> Move choice is a product of evaluation and search, I hate Stockfish's search and its super-instability, but I love Sotckfish's move choice and I think it's its main strength, so as in the other thread I'll say that if Stockfish's evaluation is poor I don't want to see it fixed.
We're in agreement. I'm glad it exists and I use it often in certain types of positions but I fear that in a few years we won't have the variety we have now as the cloners drive Vas into poker or Go or whatever his next project is (Rybka, I fear, is dead) and ideas from Stockfish make their way into other engines. If that happens, it will be very bad for computer chess.
> (Rybka, I fear, is dead)
Nah, he just needs to change his model and damn the logistics, he could rely on people buying the engine monthly or something drastic if necessary, so the cloners are always very behind on his ideas.
But perhaps that's not even necessary, I highly suspect that Rybka 4 is currently selling as good as it would with or without the clones, just like Rybka 3 was selling well in the 6 months before Rybka 4's release (it's hearsay, but I think the reason Vas switched to a 18month release model, if the engine sells as good as new, why release a new engine so soon?)
Rybka 5 could be only maybe 30 elo stronger, but have no bugs + support for permanent hash and underpromotions. A solid product with a nice gui, something better even better than the shredder GUI.
That would be a great product.
That would be a great product.
My point was that "30 elo stronger" would be enough for it to sell as much as if it was "a great product", that's why I think Vas will not focus on that (e.g. it'll have a first round of bug fixes like Rybka 4.1, if we are lucky, the same support of Rybka 4, and nothing more).
Well, I'm still hoping for Persistent Hash support, but if 4.1 doesn't get it back, it's probably gone forever...
Well, I'm still hoping for Persistent Hash support, but if 4.1 doesn't get it back, it's probably gone forever...
In other words you prefer to see stockfish evaluates KNN vs KP as winning for the knights even if it is a draw or KQ vs KP as +8 even in drawn positions when the pawn is at a2 and some stalemate positions as +90 based on static evaluation.
I do not agree.
I prefer to see stockfish's evaluation to be fixed first.
I want a program that static evaluation of some high number that is not mate means winning when the only unknown question is the number of moves to win(there are positions when I am sure that one side is winning even when I do not know the number of moves to mate and I think that it is better if chess programs also get the knowledge to identify this type of positions for better pruning.
I do not agree.
I prefer to see stockfish's evaluation to be fixed first.
I want a program that static evaluation of some high number that is not mate means winning when the only unknown question is the number of moves to win(there are positions when I am sure that one side is winning even when I do not know the number of moves to mate and I think that it is better if chess programs also get the knowledge to identify this type of positions for better pruning.
Have there been any studies to correlate different engine evaluations versus game outcome? This might give a practical basis to decide whose evaluation is more realistic or perhaps more pragmatic.
When playing correspondence games that is not an issue, one can check 6men online tablebases and know that Stockfish's evaluation is wrong. When looking at it a bit earlier where 6men aren't available but Stockfish is very optimistic, one just needs to check if SF's plan leads somewhere.
I've previously praised Stockfish for its overoptimism, suggesting a move and saying it's 1.00 (and the only one that high) while most other engines think the top 4 moves are equal, and Stockfish being right that the 1.00 mover gives white the best chances. So the 1.00 is perhaps too high, but I don't take it as "this move wins the game" but as "I really like this move", one just needs to get used to Stockfish scores even if they're meaningless (as in, it could be 0.40 or 1.60, and it will most probably jump around), what I meant to say is that if "fixing" Stockfish's evaluation will get rid of those jumpy moves (and if Stockfish will say the top 4 moves are equal like the other engines) I don't want to see it fixed.
I've previously praised Stockfish for its overoptimism, suggesting a move and saying it's 1.00 (and the only one that high) while most other engines think the top 4 moves are equal, and Stockfish being right that the 1.00 mover gives white the best chances. So the 1.00 is perhaps too high, but I don't take it as "this move wins the game" but as "I really like this move", one just needs to get used to Stockfish scores even if they're meaningless (as in, it could be 0.40 or 1.60, and it will most probably jump around), what I meant to say is that if "fixing" Stockfish's evaluation will get rid of those jumpy moves (and if Stockfish will say the top 4 moves are equal like the other engines) I don't want to see it fixed.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill