Hola Debaser :-),

yes, it seems a bit strange to have ponder stats when no ponder on games are played like the Swedes are doing. As far as I know they take the games with comments and check the main lines, what move is expected, that means one move earlier. Real ponder on would mean to see that an engine already is on ply 18 for example when it is it´s turn again in a match when two computers are linked with a cable.

To show what I am doing take a look here for a first completed game where Anand lost with White pieces against Aronian, choosing the Marshall attack just finished in Linares. There are more games in progress and I will give an update on Sunday or Monday. To gain conclusions and interesting insight, we will need many dozens of this high end games and all kinds of games, that means positional, tactical, endgames and so on. If you like to have a special game analyzed, just post it and I will add it. Might also be a classical one with top players. The test is done with the complete analysis feature in Zappa 64-bit GUI, where one engine after the other calculates the same position (not all at once). Used is a dual core machine AMD X64 4200+, 1024 MB hash, 3 minutes per engine for each ply and engines are 64-bit versions. This is because the Quad machines are busy with the CEGT 40/120 quad rating list and the Marathon matches 40/400. But maybe I will use Quad machines later.

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/Replay/gm.htm

We have 68 plies in this game (category tactical) and you have to bear in mind, that many moves in the end were forced, leading to mate.

Statistically still insignificiant, but just for fun here the first stats in category tactical:

Engines choosing the same move than Rybka 2.3.2a mp after three minutes:

Hiarcs 11.2 mp -- 46 identical moves

Zappa Mexico II mp -- 45 identical moves

Naum 3 mp -- 43 identical moves

Deep Shredder 11 -- 40 identical moves

When you check the main lines given I think that so far none of those engines seems to have similar output than Rybka. I will add Deep Fritz 11 to this tests as soon as it is out.

If you have fun to do so, you could also check the GM´s playing most similar to which engines after more games.

Best Wishes
Heinz

Hi Vytron :-),

percentage of draws seems to depend on opponents. Many against Rybka and Zappa, so you can also blame those two.  Like Uri explained I guess that this is because of the highest level in this matches between top three engines. There are also many draws between Rybka and Zappa by the way.

There are fewer draws against Deep Shredder 11 and so far none against Deep Fritz 10.1 after the first games and when you check all games you will find a lot of highly intersting tactical battles, although when there might be a draw in the end. But you will see more tactics and devastating attacks between 2500 ELO engines or when you have matches between engines of very different strength.

Best Regards
Heinz

I just got my Naum 3 in the mail and there are indeed some options to try, there is a Draw_Contempt_Score  that can be increased and the value of Material can be lowered, that is usually a good way to get more enterprising play and more sacrifices. Also some of the material imbalances in the endgame could be tuned. It will probably not bring much elopoints to make changes but you can influence the style of play with these options, if you want.

Here is the text of Naum's configuration file if you use Naum 3 as a Winboard engine:

##########################################################
# Winboard configuration file for Naum chess engine
# (needs to be in the same directory as naum.exe)
# This file is not used when the engine is in the UCI mode
##########################################################

# Set to 1 to enable pondering (thinking on opponents move)
PONDER = 0

# Set to 1 to enable book learning.
# Note that Naum saves learned info in the book file, so if
# you replace the book file, all the learned info will be lost.
# You should use a separate book file for blitz test tournaments,
# if you don't want less accurate blitz learned info to influence
# openings Naum plays under regular time controls.
LEARN = 1

# Set to 1 to allow engine to resign a game
RESIGN = 1

# If set to 1, engine will not clear the hash tables when position
# on board is changed. This is usefull for analysis, because
# the engine will keep hash entries when user goes backwards
# or forwards on the move list while the engine is in the analysis mode.
# When playing a game this option is ignored, because the engine
# will always keep the hash values.
# Also when the 'new game' command is issued, hash is always cleared.
PRESERVE_HASH = 0

# Transposition table size in megabytes (min 8MB, max 1GB, default 64MB)
TT_SIZE = 64

# Path to endgame tablebase files
EGTB_PATH =

# EGTB cache size in MB (min 1, max 128, default 32)
EGTB_CACHE_SIZE = 32

# Maximum number of threads (CPUs) to use (min 1, max 8, default 1)
MAX_THREADS = 1

# Use positive value to tell Naum the draw is bad, or negative value to indicate the draw is good
# Warning! Using contempt may reduce the playing strength, but it might be good against humans
DRAW_CONTEMPT_SCORE = 0

# Smallest depth in the search tree at which to probe EGTBs.
# Increase this value if the EGTB probing is slowing down the engine.
MIN_EGTB_DEPTH = 3

# Use a positive value to increase the importance of material in the position evaluation.
# Use a negative value to decrease the importance of material compared to the other
# positional factors and king safety.
MATERIAL_IMPORTANCE = 0

# Configurable material evaluation parameters.
# Parameter values are in centipawns and will be added to the default value.
#
MINOR_VS_PAWNS_SCORE = 0
ROOK_VS_PAWNS_SCORE = 0
ROOK_VS_MINOR_SCORE = 0
TWO_MINORS_VS_ROOK_SCORE = 0
THREE_MINORS_VS_QUEEN_SCORE = 0
TWO_ROOKS_VS_QUEEN_SCORE = 0

Naum 3 SP 32-bit has lost just one rating point since yesterday in CCRL 40/40 but with 2981 (+44/-43) after 157 games it is still ahead of Naum 3 SP 64-bit with 2949 (+48/-48) elo. Not without losses anymore against Fritz 11 and Toga II 1.4 beta5c. Thanks to CCRL, Graham I think for the updated list, nice to watch the progress of a program this way if possible!

You are right
It is my mistake when I wrote 22.5

> Yes, I have found the same thing. Rybka's strength seems to be mainly associated with not making bad moves, as opposed to making best moves.

Playing the best move in a position is really hard. I doubt that Rybka with an hour on a quad plays the best move even let's say half the time. This isn't some sort of design decision - it's just that chess is hard.

Vas