![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
I am trying to work out where Rybka stands on scale of aggressiveness / dynamic play. I realise "aggressive" isn't a precise term but I think of players like Morphy, Alekhine, Topalov & Kasparov when I think of attacking players and Karpov, Kramnik & co when I think of "technical" players. Please rearrage the following list WITH THE MOST AGGRESSIVE AT THE TOP and the most positional / technical at the bottom. All programs refer to latest versions
Many many thanks.
Fritz
Fruit
Hiarcs
Junior
Naum
Rybka
Shredder
Zappa
Many many thanks.
Fritz
Fruit
Hiarcs
Junior
Naum
Rybka
Shredder
Zappa
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
I think that by saying "most aggressive at the top" AND most positional/technical at the bottom, you're asking for a contradiction at times. For example, Junior is often hyperaggressive and is also often very positional. Thus, I'll give you two lists:
MOST AGGRESSIVE:
Junior
Glaurung (old)
Hiarcs
Shredder
Fritz
Loop
Zappa
Rybka
Naum
Fruit
MOST TECHNICAL/POSITIONAL:
Rybka
Zappa
Naum
Shredder
Junior
Loop
Hiarcs
Fruit
Fritz
Glaurung (old)
MOST AGGRESSIVE:
Junior
Glaurung (old)
Hiarcs
Shredder
Fritz
Loop
Zappa
Rybka
Naum
Fruit
MOST TECHNICAL/POSITIONAL:
Rybka
Zappa
Naum
Shredder
Junior
Loop
Hiarcs
Fruit
Fritz
Glaurung (old)
wow - that really wasn't the order I expected! I thought Rybka was higher up on the 'aggressive' list, and Shredder lower down. In terms of strength it seems that the technicians are winning...
Well...we'll see if anyone actually agrees with my rankings... :-)
![[cr]](/mwf/v12/flags/cr.png "Costa Rica")
Hello Werewolf,
Some time ago, you made a good comparison of styles here. I liked it and I know that you guess right quite well about what's the true style of programs. Try to answer yourself too and give us the order of what you expected.
Regards,
Gambito.
Some time ago, you made a good comparison of styles here. I liked it and I know that you guess right quite well about what's the true style of programs. Try to answer yourself too and give us the order of what you expected.
Regards,
Gambito.
OK, no problem - but I can only give you results of programs I have used, and I don't have all of them:
Junior (unpredictable, loves to sac the exchange. Doesn't seem to have lots of knowledge apart from material imbalance though. The least greedy program)
Hiarcs (sharp & aggressive & positive. Attacks feel somewhat artificial though, especially against strong opposition. poor central control. good flank attacks) (version 10)
Rybka (Deep positional ideas, loves to sac a pawn for pressure. e.g. After 1e4 c5 2Qh5?! with no book rybka was happy with 2...Nf6?! More aggressive than people give it credit for)
Fritz (sharp. plays as you'd expect a computer to play. Doesn't always seem to play with what a human would call a plan. Excellent central control. Quite greedy.)
Shredder (Dour. The Kramnik of the computer world. Technically strong (this refers to version 9))
Junior (unpredictable, loves to sac the exchange. Doesn't seem to have lots of knowledge apart from material imbalance though. The least greedy program)
Hiarcs (sharp & aggressive & positive. Attacks feel somewhat artificial though, especially against strong opposition. poor central control. good flank attacks) (version 10)
Rybka (Deep positional ideas, loves to sac a pawn for pressure. e.g. After 1e4 c5 2Qh5?! with no book rybka was happy with 2...Nf6?! More aggressive than people give it credit for)
Fritz (sharp. plays as you'd expect a computer to play. Doesn't always seem to play with what a human would call a plan. Excellent central control. Quite greedy.)
Shredder (Dour. The Kramnik of the computer world. Technically strong (this refers to version 9))
These comparisons are very colorful and evocative, but what do they really describe? The first problem we have is that words have slightly different meanings to different people based on the knowledge they possess and the experiences they have had. Saying an engine is "passive", "aggressive" or "positional" projects certain stylistic inferences, but you can't really quantify them, can you? And if you can't quantify them then the words are really subjective and impressionistic for both the transmitter and receiver, aren't they?
I am not saying you can't describe an engine's characteristics and distinguish one from the next. Of course you can, based on observation. But how can such descriptions convey some level of definitional precision?
Compare this discussion to the terrific rating lists of the CCRL and CEGT, which we tend to overlook as a tremendous achievement of great value to everyone in the hobby.
I am not saying you can't describe an engine's characteristics and distinguish one from the next. Of course you can, based on observation. But how can such descriptions convey some level of definitional precision?
Compare this discussion to the terrific rating lists of the CCRL and CEGT, which we tend to overlook as a tremendous achievement of great value to everyone in the hobby.
That's the whole point. Style is a subjective thing.
But even so there is a level of agreement amongst people: most would agree, for example, that Alekhine was an aggressive player.
The same observations can be made of programs too.
But even so there is a level of agreement amongst people: most would agree, for example, that Alekhine was an aggressive player.
The same observations can be made of programs too.
A crocodile grabs you by the leg and drags you to water before eating you. A python squeezes you until your ribs break and eats you whole. A lion chases you down and rips you to pieces with teeth and claws. Which one is "aggressive"?
[Answer: the lion, because he ranges far and wide for opportunities to create mayhem while the other two usually lie in wait.]
I'm not being obtuse. Aggression suggests persistent attacking and to a lesser degree risk-taking. Let's stipulate that this behavior translates into certain characteristics at the chessboard. How do you define these characteristics in a way that can objectively compare one player (or engine) to another? Anecdotes and impressions seem inadequate when we have such powerful tools at our disposal. Are such descriptions inherently anecdotal and impressionistic?
Feel free to ignore the post. This is more food for thought than something concrete I am driving at here.
[Answer: the lion, because he ranges far and wide for opportunities to create mayhem while the other two usually lie in wait.]
I'm not being obtuse. Aggression suggests persistent attacking and to a lesser degree risk-taking. Let's stipulate that this behavior translates into certain characteristics at the chessboard. How do you define these characteristics in a way that can objectively compare one player (or engine) to another? Anecdotes and impressions seem inadequate when we have such powerful tools at our disposal. Are such descriptions inherently anecdotal and impressionistic?
Feel free to ignore the post. This is more food for thought than something concrete I am driving at here.
Feel free to ignore the post.
Nice to see that politeness has returned to the forum.
Nice to see that politeness has returned to the forum.
Yes, ok, if we could concretely prove aggression - I'm up for that.
I was just summing up my opinions!
I was just summing up my opinions!
![[hu]](/mwf/v12/flags/hu.png "Hungary")
Actually, risk-taking isn't really the issue. Somebody has to lose, so everything is risky - you can play positionally and risk getting outplayed.
One definition of aggressive would be trying to win in the shortest number of moves. Some would call that impatience.
Vas
One definition of aggressive would be trying to win in the shortest number of moves. Some would call that impatience.
Vas
Thanks for your comparisons. I know what you mean with each one of them.
But are you sure that Shredder 9 is the Kramnik of the computer world? It is not too aggressive to play in a similar way like Kramnik? :-)
Regards,
Gambito.
But are you sure that Shredder 9 is the Kramnik of the computer world? It is not too aggressive to play in a similar way like Kramnik? :-)
Regards,
Gambito.
I saw a huge increase in aggression with Shredder 10. Shredder 8 (in particular) and S9 were not that aggressive I don't think.
Personally I think the name "shredder" conjures up a picture of a very aggressive opponent but SMK said in an interview that Shredder got its name from shredding a wave - that is riding it like a surfer.
From what I have heard Shredder 11 plays more like versions 8 - 9 while version 10 was the super aggressive one.
Personally I think the name "shredder" conjures up a picture of a very aggressive opponent but SMK said in an interview that Shredder got its name from shredding a wave - that is riding it like a surfer.
From what I have heard Shredder 11 plays more like versions 8 - 9 while version 10 was the super aggressive one.
It's hard to say--this may be true, and I haven't yet tried Shredder 11 on this position (and I'm currently in a different geographic location from my chess computer), but after 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5?, Shredder 8 and 9 prefer 2...Nf6!!, which I think wins for black (based on many games with Shredder 9 as black against stronger opponents as white--but these were over a year ago), and is what I would consider to be an aggressive move. Shredder 10, however, eventually relaxes on the passive 2...Nc6?!
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
I think Zappa is a lot more aggressive than that, and that Shredder is more aggressive than Hiarcs. Aside from that, they're very good lists :)
I would say(assuming Shredder 11 is almost the same style with 10 since i haven't seen many games with S11):
MOST AGGRESSIVE:
Junior
Glaurung (old) = Hiarcs
Shredder
Fritz ~= Zappa
Loop
Rybka
Naum
Fruit
MOST TECHNICAL/POSITIONAL:
Rybka
Junior
Naum
Zappa
Shredder
Loop
Fruit
Hiarcs
Fritz
Glaurung (old)
MOST AGGRESSIVE:
Junior
Glaurung (old) = Hiarcs
Shredder
Fritz ~= Zappa
Loop
Rybka
Naum
Fruit
MOST TECHNICAL/POSITIONAL:
Rybka
Junior
Naum
Zappa
Shredder
Loop
Fruit
Hiarcs
Fritz
Glaurung (old)
I always considered Rybka a very passive engine, so I was surprised to see her above Naum and Fruit on aggressiveness in both lists.
BTW, Shredder 11 is less aggressive than Shredder 10 and plays more like Rybka (And I'm sad about it, I want more variety on the playing style and it gets boring when the strong engines just emulate the style of the strongest engine, it brings 100 ELO home, but I don't like it).
BTW, Shredder 11 is less aggressive than Shredder 10 and plays more like Rybka (And I'm sad about it, I want more variety on the playing style and it gets boring when the strong engines just emulate the style of the strongest engine, it brings 100 ELO home, but I don't like it).
![[za]](/mwf/v12/flags/za.png "South Africa")
it gets boring when the strong engines just emulate the style of the strongest engine
I agree with you, it will be boring when they all start to play similar, variety is the best.
On that note have you seen this? Playing style will hopefully be more like Rybka. That was one of the goals. If you can't beat them, join them :) It comes from http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=159658&t=17851
Puts a smile a smile on my face that the fish is adorable, I hope Sid has got a picture of a better looking fish.
I agree with you, it will be boring when they all start to play similar, variety is the best.
On that note have you seen this? Playing style will hopefully be more like Rybka. That was one of the goals. If you can't beat them, join them :) It comes from http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=159658&t=17851
Puts a smile a smile on my face that the fish is adorable, I hope Sid has got a picture of a better looking fish.
![[it]](/mwf/v12/flags/it.png "Italy")
Well, at the end of this homogenization process, maybe we'll have to buy Junior...
Guys I'm a bit confused by one thing: A number of you are putting Junior high up on both lists - what do you mean by that? I guess when I meant "positional" I meant non-attacking/dry technical but people have taken it a different way. I'm curious to know why you think Junior is positional - do you mean that it regularily sacs the exchange in certain situations where there is NO attack?
Hi, Werefolf: I see that you put me this question, even if I'm not the best one to answer:
Using my old Junior 9, sometimes I see it finds some "original" moves, respect to other more "orthodox" engines. Take this for what is worth :)
Using my old Junior 9, sometimes I see it finds some "original" moves, respect to other more "orthodox" engines. Take this for what is worth :)
>I'm curious to know why you think Junior is positional - do you mean that it regularily sacs the exchange in certain situations where there is NO attack?
Yes. Junior does that many times. Although in current years we live, most engines do that and behave unmaterialistically much, much more frequently than the "old times"....
I remember also that Shredder and Junior versions, dominated the first places of the positional play test suite in the old WM-tests that are not published anymore....
Hello Vytron,
I am a bit surprised you have thought that Rybka is passive engine.
Passive means for me going to the defence.
IMSO Rybka is playing at least the active prophylaxis . Her play is based on the position not on the optimismus that she will overcalculate the opponent in tactical complications (calculations).
The style of programs will evaluate to be the similar ones when they will be more near to the 'true' method of play.
The top GMs are playing similar either :-).
Rgds
Hetman
I am a bit surprised you have thought that Rybka is passive engine.
Passive means for me going to the defence.
IMSO Rybka is playing at least the active prophylaxis . Her play is based on the position not on the optimismus that she will overcalculate the opponent in tactical complications (calculations).
The style of programs will evaluate to be the similar ones when they will be more near to the 'true' method of play.
The top GMs are playing similar either :-).
Rgds
Hetman
I have not bought Junior or Fritz yet.. but I think Rybka winfinder is the most aggressive.
> Passive means for me going to the defence.
For me it just means doing nothing. To me it looks like Rybka does nothing until she sees something to do (Like, re-agruping her pieces to attack a weak spot), so she relies on the opponent's errors to win, since all the other engines (and humans) make those errors (inaccuracies?) and Rybka is very good at attacking them, the outcome is that Rybka wins.
Also, about stephenNJUKI's comment below yours, I have to agree about Winfinder playing more active chess, too bad it's more inaccurate too.
Thank you for clearing your point of view.
If she is doing nothing she will get worse position and will have to defence herself. Is it working that way ?
It is looking for me more as the prophylaxis until there will be the objects to attack. I am not sure but that would be the healthy concept.
It is fitting to the idea that chess nature is drawish and win is taken on the base of partner mistakes.
Rgds
Hetman
If she is doing nothing she will get worse position and will have to defence herself. Is it working that way ?
It is looking for me more as the prophylaxis until there will be the objects to attack. I am not sure but that would be the healthy concept.
It is fitting to the idea that chess nature is drawish and win is taken on the base of partner mistakes.
Rgds
Hetman
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill