Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Computer Chess / Noomen Testsuite 2012 available
- - By Venator (Silver) Date 2011-12-03 11:32 Edited 2011-12-03 12:45
My last testsuite was from 2008, so it was time for an update. Here is a new testsuite, consisting of 30 opening positions, which can be used in engine-engine matches. Enjoy.

Download link:

http://rybkachess.com/free/NoomenTestsuite2012.pgn

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen01"]
[Black "SICILIAN 1"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "36"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 h6 8. Bh4
Qb6 9. a3 Be7 10. Bf2 Qc7 11. Qf3 Nbd7 12. O-O-O b5 13. g4 Bb7 14. Bg2 Rc8 15.
Kb1 g5 16. h4 gxf4 17. g5 Ne5 18. Qxf4 Nfd7 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen02"]
[Black "SICILIAN 2"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "13"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Qf3 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen03"]
[Black "SICILIAN 3"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "24"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2
O-O 9. g4 Be6 10. Nxe6 fxe6 11. O-O-O Ne5 12. Be2 Qc8 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen04"]
[Black "SICILIAN 4"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. f4 e6 7. Qf3 Qb6 8. Nb3
Qc7 9. g4 b5 10. g5 Nfd7 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen05"]
[Black "RUY LOPEZ 1"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5
8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. Nc3 Ke8 10. h3 h5 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen06"]
[Black "RUY LOPEZ 2"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. d3 d6 7. c3 O-O 8. Re1
b5 9. Bc2 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen07"]
[Black "RUY LOPEZ 3"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3
O-O 9. h3 Nb8 10. d4 Nbd7 11. c4 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen08"]
[Black "RUY LOPEZ 4"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "29"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3
O-O 9. h3 Bb7 10. d4 Re8 11. Nbd2 Bf8 12. a3 h6 13. Bc2 Nb8 14. b4 Nbd7 15. Bb2
*

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen09"]
[Black "CARO KANN 1"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nd2 e6 5. Nb3 Nd7 6. Nf3 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen10"]
[Black "CARO KANN 2"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "9"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. Be2 e6 5. d4 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen11"]
[Black "FRENCH 1"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "24"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Qc7 7. Qg4 Ne7 8.
Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2 Nbc6 11. f4 dxc3 12. Qd3 d4 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen12"]
[Black "FRENCH 2"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Be7 6. Nxe4 Nf6 7. Nxf6+ Bxf6
8. Be3 O-O 9. Qd2 b6 10. O-O-O Bb7 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen13"]
[Black "ITALIAN"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. O-O d6 6. c3 a6 7. Bb3 Ba7 8. Nbd2
h6 9. Re1 O-O 10. h3 Be6 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen14"]
[Black "ALEKHINE"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "14"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. Nxe5 c6 6. Be2 Bf5 7. O-O Nd7 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen15"]
[Black "PIRC DEFENCE"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "16"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3 Na6 7. O-O c5 8. d5
Bg4 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen16"]
[Black "SLAV 1"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Qb3 Nbd7 6. Bf4 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen17"]
[Black "SLAV 2"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "16"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 a6 6. b3 Bb4 7. Bd2 Bd6 8. Qc2
Nbd7 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen18"]
[Black "SLAV 3"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5
9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7 11. exf6 Bb7 12. g3 c5 13. d5 Qb6 14. Bg2 b4 15. O-O
O-O-O 16. Na4 Qa6 17. a3 Bxd5 18. Bxd5 Ne5 19. Qe2 Rxd5 20. axb4 cxb4 21. Nc3
Qd6 22. Nxd5 Qxd5 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen19"]
[Black "QUEEN'S GAMBIT 1"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 Ne4 8. Bxe7
Qxe7 9. Rc1 c6 10. Qc2 Nd7 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen20"]
[Black "QUEEN'S GAMBIT 2"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "13"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. a3 dxc4 7. e3 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen21"]
[Black "QUEEN'S GAMBIT 3"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Qc2 c5 8. Rd1
*

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen22"]
[Black "QUEEN'S INDIAN 1"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "16"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Ba6 5. Qc2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Be7 7. Bg2 c6 8. O-O
d5 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen23"]
[Black "QUEEN'S INDIAN 2"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "18"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Ba6 5. Qa4 Be7 6. Bg2 c6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. O-O
d5 9. Ne5 Qe8 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen24"]
[Black "NIMZO INDIAN"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2008"]
[PlyCount "20"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d5 6. Nf3 c5 7. O-O dxc4 8. Bxc4
Nbd7 9. Qe2 a6 10. a4 Qe7 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen25"]
[Black "CATALAN"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "25"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O dxc4 7. Qc2 a6 8. a4
Bd7 9. Qxc4 Bc6 10. Bf4 a5 11. Nc3 Na6 12. Ne5 Bxg2 13. Kxg2 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen26"]
[Black "GRUNFELD 1"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "23"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Bc4 O-O 8.
Ne2 c5 9. O-O Nc6 10. Be3 Bg4 11. f3 Bd7 12. Rb1 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen27"]
[Black "GRUNFELD 2"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "11"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 Bg7 5. Qb3 e6 6. Qa3 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen28"]
[Black "KING'S INDIAN 1"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 a6 7. Qd2 Nc6 8. Nge2
Rb8 9. Rb1 b5 10. cxb5 axb5 11. b4 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen29"]
[Black "KING'S INDIAN 2"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5
Ne7 9. b4 a5 10. Ba3 b6 11. bxa5 Nh5 *

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Noomen30"]
[Black "ENGLISH"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Noomen-Testsuite 2012"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]

1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 e5 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. a3 d6 7. O-O Nge7 8. b4 e4
9. Ne1 f5 10. Bb2 O-O 11. d3 Be6 *
Parent - - By Permanent Brain (*****) Date 2011-12-03 12:25 Edited 2011-12-03 12:28
Thanks! I assume you don't mind that I have attached the file right here, for easiest download.

(Files up to ~6 MB can be attached)
Attachment: NoomenTestsuite2012.pgn - Noomen-Testsuite 2012 (30) (9k)
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2011-12-03 14:59
No problem!
Parent - - By Felix Kling (Gold) Date 2011-12-03 12:26
Hi Jeroen!

I'll upload the file to our website
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2011-12-03 14:59
Hi Felix,

Thanks!
Parent - By Felix Kling (Gold) Date 2011-12-03 12:47
It's on the front page of our website now :) (finally an update ;) )
Parent - By Hurnavich (Bronze) Date 2011-12-03 13:00
Hi.

Many thanks excellent work.

Hurnavich
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-12-03 15:43
This is very nice, but you must have accidentally left out all the 1.b3 lines... :yell:
Parent - - By Venator (Silver) Date 2011-12-03 16:55
The suite is based on very recent GM games, so no 1. b3  :wink:

But perhaps a '1. b3 only' testsuite is an interesting idea!?
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-12-04 12:07
It's a thought. I will start collecting a set of interesting :roll: and unclear opening lines, and see what you think...
Parent - - By Indrajit (***) Date 2011-12-03 16:41
How can I use this test suite? Is it for engine - engine matches?
Parent - - By Venator (Silver) Date 2011-12-03 16:53
Yes, it is for engine-engine matches. 30 positions, both engines play each position with white and black, so you get a 60 game match.
Parent - - By ubuntu (*) Date 2011-12-04 05:14
Where to instal this pgn for engine vs engine match?
Parent - - By Venator (Silver) Date 2011-12-04 06:13
My Documents => ChessBase => Testsets

Start an engine-engine match, choose the option 'Openings DB' and then choose 'Noomen Testsuite 2012'.
Parent - By ubuntu (*) Date 2011-12-05 03:28
Thank you very much.
Parent - By keoki010 (Silver) Date 2011-12-03 17:02
Thanks Jeroen, really appreciate this!:cool:
Parent - By h1a8 (***) Date 2011-12-03 23:31
Thank you very much.
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-12-04 03:06
Wow! Time flies, it feels as if it was just two years ago that I downloaded your test Suite.

Thanks for the update!
Parent - By Razor (****) Date 2011-12-04 08:52
What, no GROB! :sad:
Parent - By Rubén Cómes (****) Date 2011-12-05 00:02
Thank you very much Jeroen!
Parent - - By Hurnavich (Bronze) Date 2011-12-05 04:03
Hi,

Just completed a engine match test,

Houdini 2.0c x64 vs Houdini 2.0b x64

Noomen-Testsuite 2012

Result  +19 =27 -14

A good result for Houdini 2.0c x64

i7 950 @ 4206 Mhz ( 4 threads ) ponder off

512mb hash

Hurnavich.
Parent - By ernest (****) Date 2011-12-05 16:24

> Result   +19 =27 -14
>
> A good result for Houdini 2.0c x64


... 32.5 - 27.5

but Standard Deviation is  ± 3 and 95% error bar is  ± 6  :cool:
Parent - By InspectorGadget (*****) Date 2011-12-10 17:59
Thank you so much Jeroen
Parent - - By Gambit-man (**) Date 2011-12-27 22:13
Forgive me for being naive, Jeroen, what exactly is the purpose of these? I've never used one before, wouldn't know what to do with it
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-12-28 03:32 Edited 2011-12-30 02:47
You use them to play games between engines.

It's better than using books because books pick position randomly, while Testsuites always give the same positions, so what you see is what you always get, while with books you never know what you'll get.
Parent - - By Gambit-man (**) Date 2011-12-29 00:10
ok, point taken on board, but do engines have any ability to seek out more favourable lines from an opening book? If so, are some better than others?
I'm currently running an engine tournament of my own, after downloading a batch of more recent engines to the ones i already had. The last tourney i ran was through the Fritz gui where it automatically played both sides of the same opening. I notice this time through the Rybka gui, it hasn't been doing that.
I had assumed that since all my engines have access to the 'Strong' version of Fritz Powerbook there would be no weak lines...
Parent - - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) Date 2011-12-29 01:01
it automatically played both sides of the same opening. I notice this time through the Rybka gui, it hasn't been doing that.

in that case you have set something up wrong.Rybka GUI does not exist only Fritz GUI

in engine matches latest Fritz/Chessbase GUI always plays both sides.
Parent - - By Gambit-man (**) Date 2011-12-29 01:07
it definitely says Rybka on it, but i thought it looked an awful lot like fritz. lmao, actually wondered for a while whether it was the same program under a different name.
man, i can't keep up with anything these days...
Parent - - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) Date 2011-12-29 01:09
if you bought R4 like i did on cd,it uses Fritz GUI.
Parent - By Gambit-man (**) Date 2011-12-29 11:10
yeah, that explains why they look so similar.
i suddenly feel conned :-(
Parent - - By leavenfish (***) Date 2011-12-28 01:12
Generally I like the lines. Saying that, I am not a double Kings Pawn guy.

I read that you culled these from recent GM practice - what level of GM may I ask? I'm open to wondering there is wisdom in this apprach. A computer program does not 'stand on the shoulders of giants' so to speak as GM's do. The 'Super-GM's' who play against each other many times a year admit to their openings being a constant looking for a nuance. This or that opening may be simply out of fashion at the moment.

For example, I can't imagine why this was included:1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Qf3 odd, for sure. As is:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2
O-O 9. g4 Be6 10. Nxe6 fxe6 11. O-O-O Ne5 12. Be2 Qc8

But again, I generally like the other lines. I am sure you probably have good reasons for including these that I have not at first glance noticed. Would you mind giveing an idea of why you did chose them?

Thanks,
Leavenfish
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-12-28 03:44

> I'm open to wondering there is wisdom in this apprach.


I think it's expected that GMs play the latest fads in theory. That is, they'll avoid playing known refuted openings and will focus in the latest discovered ideas.
Parent - - By leavenfish (***) Date 2011-12-28 03:56
Well, I would think ANY GM or person making his living off of playing chess would avoide 'refuted openings' so that goes without saying. I think it was either Carlsen or Svider a couple of weeks ago say that basically they aren't 'playing chess' at that level, they are just looking for ways to get an edge against given opponents. I may not be saying that right, but essentially it's just a lot of homework and noticing that GM 'X' did not handle a certain line in Opening 'Y' well. It struck me that the GM said they aren't really 'playing chess' and I think alluding to the fact that they get to 'play chess' in big open tourneys and such.

So, what I am trying to say is why (if it is indeed the case in designing these tests) look at those games - why not look at long established statically or dynamically 'equal' lines and have those in a test and have engines fight it out there.

Maybe of course, it doesn't matter.
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-12-28 04:08

> Well, I would think ANY GM or person making his living off of playing chess would avoide 'refuted openings' so that goes without saying.


Refuted doesn't mean "bad", it just means an opening has been played to death and all the other people know how to draw against it. If the GM is happy with a draw then he'll happily play the refuted line, so I don't find it obvious that they'll avoid them.
Parent - - By Venator (Silver) Date 2011-12-28 07:04
Both lines were played in recent 2600+ GM games. IMO they are both interesting positions.
Parent - - By leavenfish (***) Date 2011-12-29 03:04 Edited 2011-12-29 03:17
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Qf3 odd, for sure. is one I mentioned

Well, my Chessbase Megabase is completely up-to-date. I find 3 games with it...ever:

Vinckier - Bosch (2035) 11.07.2006 Result 0-1 20 moves
Urbanik (1887) Plat (2410) 02.07.2011 Result 0-1 19 moves
Giri (2714) - Banikas (2620) 09.11.2011 Result 1-0 34 moves

I assume you mean the last one. It was from EU-chT (Men) 18th [Netherlands - Greece], a team tournament...high level players do tend to experiment in those. Maybe it is worthy to be in such a test...maybe not. No harm I guess.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2
O-O 9. g4 Be6 10. Nxe6 fxe6 11. O-O-O Ne5 12. Be2 Qc8


This appears to be from the same team tournament.  I find 22 games with this position. Only one game featured a 2600 player - two actually.

Hracek (2628) - Jones (2635)  1/2 - 1/2 in 45 moves. It's not a bad line the more I look at it. Just odd and that's probably why it only shows up 22 times.
Parent - - By Venator (Silver) Date 2011-12-29 07:35
You are correct. Those two are the games I used for the testset. So 7. Qf3 might look odd in the first game, but Giri (> 2700 elo) played it and it leads to original positions.
Parent - By DGB (**) Date 2011-12-29 11:23
Great suite. Thank you.
Parent - - By leavenfish (***) Date 2011-12-31 19:00
I meant to ask this the other day but apparently forgot: What are your criteria for these test postions? Is it largely a matter of what you think is an 'original position' or something else? My personal preference would be to rely on fairly well established lines - that way one could compare an engines 'thoughts' on a position with well established GM practice and more easily see an engines strengths and weaknesses.

BTW, these are largely just curiosity questions (I guess I'm very curious!) - I do not mean in any way to seem to be challanging you because it must take quite a while to get such tests together and I know I haven't the patience. I largely spend my 'chess time' on OTB preperation and working on how I think at the board.
Parent - - By DGB (**) Date 2011-12-31 19:20
I'm currently working in an open sicilian opening suite that may meet your preferences. Meaning: it has the most challeging lines (go really deep) and also a few side lines that are open for original play (both mainly based on top otb play). I humble admit that I like my positions better. Still a lot of work (testing) to see if there are any major flaws or bias in the lines. Final of february I should have it finished.
Parent - - By leavenfish (***) Date 2011-12-31 22:17
I'm not so sure 'really deep' is better, perhaps the opposite of what might be best. Of course, that depends on what you mean by 'really deep'. My thinking is that much of the game has already been worked thru if you start deep. I tend to think that the more moves in a game an engine has to work thru and evaluate, the better...and the more likely a result in an engine vs engine match-up would mean something. My main thought about 'novel' positions or original ones...is that it is harder to compare them with the wealth of GM play that has shown how positions can logically evolve. Evaluating their moves in the light of years and years of trial and error just has a lot to say for it in my book.

It all depends on the individual opening line of course, but using positions that arise after roughly 10 -12 moves is what I would suggest. You aren't looking for starteling discoveries in a test suite, but rather how well an engine handles a wealth of (again, I think largely known) positions. It is then that you can judge their strengths and weaknesses.
Parent - By keoki010 (Silver) Date 2011-12-31 22:20
+1 :grin:
Parent - - By DGB (**) Date 2012-01-01 12:09
-2:twisted:

Really deep means including the critical line (wich is usually around 20 moves). Off course the critical lines keep almost all pieces in the board (no direct endgame style playing). A good analogy is to think then as different positions of chess960 :wink: but with a change in pawn structure. I also include the side lines that are positions with interesting unexplored moves (around 9 or 11 moves).

I don't agree with your post. The use for opening test suites is (for the majority of users, keep in mind that you can be in the minority) for creating a wide and realistic battleground for engines matches.

The typical user usually uses short time controls, so no room for truly creativity. If you use long time controls that can change a little bit, but believe me, that if you want startling discoveries analysing the position yourself is the best way to go (you can analyse with different engines and take a look at their style).

Also is important to keep in mind that all grandmasters use engines in their opening preparation so you might sometimes end up trying to compare engine output vs engine + grandmaster output.
Parent - - By leavenfish (***) Date 2012-01-01 18:38
You and I will have to disagree then. I can't see a valid reason behind what you claim.

To start around move 20 just seems to late (unless you are referring to 20 ply...which I take it you are not). Why not give the engines in a match/tournament more opportunities to actually 'play a game' by allowing them to start dealing with positions earlier? To start at your time frame for 'critical lines' at about move 20 means that all the moves that led up to that 'critical line' are simply given to the engine. Should not engines use their algorithyms to try to make it's way thru a game instead of giving it some arbitrary (?) critical position and have them play the game out from there?

Obviously you have to have some point at which to start...to have it as close to the beginning of the game as possible only make sense for these matches/tournaments. That said, you don't want to start while they are early in an opening of course - you would want to set up a basic structure and remove those opening varibles- but allow engines more time to actually play against one another.

Even then it is enlightening to not go just by the result, but look at the actual game content and compare it to years and years of GM trial and error. To me, that only seems logical.
Parent - - By DGB (**) Date 2012-01-01 19:02
I understand your opinion and respect it. Althought I suspect you didn't understand my point that it's not significant the results of comparing to current opening theory (actually that's not usually the point of opening suites anyway :roll:). If you admit that grandmasters don't usually commit tactical blunders in the early phase of the game, and then add to their chess understanding the power of home computer analysis and thousand of playing tries, you will find that refuting a certain line takes too many plies, for the engine to actually evaluate if that line is good or what (which is the only way of having a correct correlation) in it's opinion. If you add the factor that usually the games are blitz games: you are playing in a landscape in which the engines are all suffering from the horizont effect and almost all the moves are played in some line that's already been analysed too a much greater level.

Sorry for any misunderstanding. English is not my main language and it takes me years to write my replies.
Parent - By leavenfish (***) Date 2012-01-01 21:38
Sorry, I still don't get it.

"...you will find that refuting a certain line takes too many plies, for the engine to actually evaluate if that line is good or what (wnich is the only way of having a correct correlation) in it's opinion)".

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Off the top of my head, I would see the following reasons for use a test suite of opening lines, to: A). Set a level playing field for a contest. Maybe a balanced one testing certain pawn structures or material imbalance or how to use or defend against an unclear iniative - something like that B). Test the evaluation mechanism via a set of positions. If you are going to opt for the later, any good position - tactical or positional in nature - would do, be it occuring at move 10 or 35 would do. You don't necessarily need to actually play a game or look at the end result, just the continuation chosen when it is the engines time to move.

These test suites all seem to be about how to have engines fairly 'plays' a game - not a contest of individual opening books. To give it more time and allow its evaluation functions to be tested, it seems like giving them enough time and a well chosen opening suite that starts early enough for the two engines to have a full battle makes the most sense to me like I said in "A" above. Not starting later in a game at a position where you have helped it to get to. That's more akin to "B" above in my opinion but with a small game to be played out beyond an initial evaluation.

As a fairly competent player myself, I am far more interested in how an engines 'evaluates' a position, rather than how it plays a game so all this is a bit of an academic discussion for me. Blitz allows for the horizon affect to become more pronounced so I take slower time controls or fixed ply searches more to heart.
- By aidin (**) Date 2011-12-26 13:14
the strange thing is that I have a Pocket Fritz 4.3 on my Pocket pc for more than 1.5 years and it's well tried book  can solve almost all of your opening positions !! seems that opening theory has not been changed so much since 1.5 years ago ! Wired !
- - By Scott (*****) Date 2012-01-02 04:24
Can someone explain how to make a "testsuite", or give a link where it is explained? Thanks
Parent - By keoki010 (Silver) Date 2012-01-02 23:38
:lol: Take the first 10 moves from my games, and the first 10 moves from your games! Good luck! :evil: Just joking. If I find something I'll let you know! :wink:
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Computer Chess / Noomen Testsuite 2012 available

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill