Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / What chess program style would u like to emulate??
This question is just for fun and conversation....It has nothing to do with the strongest program, but style only. pls add the reasons for your choice
Dareapa
regards
Dareapa
regards
I would like to emulate whatever is running on Kasparov's brain. :-)
/* Steinar */
/* Steinar */
Nimzo 8.
The following game is not particularly typical for what I mean: A sharp aggressive style; Nimzo 8 is still among the fastest engines tactically. Combined with the typical computer speed and precision, that is an ability I'd like to have myself!
Watch Black's center after 15...b4!!. That was a calculated move, I think not with very much computer power behind it (the game is from 2000).
[Event "5/00-37"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gandalf 4.32f"]
[Black "Nimzo 8"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B33"]
[PlyCount "60"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nb5 Nf6 6. N1c3 d6 7. Bf4 e5 8.
Bg5 a6 9. Na3 b5 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Nd5 f5 12. c3 Bg7 13. exf5 Bxf5 14. Qf3 Be6
{#} 15. Bd3 b4 $3 {Opfert einen Bauern für ein starkes, marschbereites Zentrum:
} 16. Nxb4 Nxb4 17. cxb4 d5 18. Qg3 O-O 19. f3 f5 20. Nc2 {
Weiß hat zu rochieren vergessen.} e4 21. Nd4 Qb6 22. Nxe6 Qxe6 23. fxe4 fxe4
24. Be2 d4 25. Bd1 Kh8 26. Bb3 Qh6 27. Rb1 Rac8 28. Rd1 (28. Kd1 d3 (28... Rc3
$5 {gewinnt spektakulär:} 29. bxc3 dxc3) 29. Qh3 (29. Qg4 Bxb2) 29... Qg5)
28... d3 29. Rf1 d2+ 30. Ke2 Qh5+ 0-1
144: Gandalf 4.32f - Nimzo 8, 5/00-37 2000
Analysis by Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit (after depth 15):
1. = (-0.12): 15...0-0 16.0-0 Rc8 17.Rfe1 f5 18.Nf4 Qd7 19.Nxe6 Qxe6
2. = (0.05): 15...Bxd5 16.Qxd5 Ne7 17.Qb3 d5 18.0-0-0 Qb6 19.f3 Qf2 20.Kb1 0-0 21.Qc2 Qxc2+ 22.Nxc2
3. = (0.14): 15...b4 16.Nc4 bxc3 17.bxc3 0-0 18.Nce3 Ne7 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7 20.0-0 Qg5 21.Qe4 f5 22.Qc6
So, Rybka sees 15...b4 as 'interesting' but also, that White should better decline the pawn offer :-)
The following game is not particularly typical for what I mean: A sharp aggressive style; Nimzo 8 is still among the fastest engines tactically. Combined with the typical computer speed and precision, that is an ability I'd like to have myself!
Watch Black's center after 15...b4!!. That was a calculated move, I think not with very much computer power behind it (the game is from 2000).
[Event "5/00-37"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gandalf 4.32f"]
[Black "Nimzo 8"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B33"]
[PlyCount "60"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nb5 Nf6 6. N1c3 d6 7. Bf4 e5 8.
Bg5 a6 9. Na3 b5 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Nd5 f5 12. c3 Bg7 13. exf5 Bxf5 14. Qf3 Be6
{#} 15. Bd3 b4 $3 {Opfert einen Bauern für ein starkes, marschbereites Zentrum:
} 16. Nxb4 Nxb4 17. cxb4 d5 18. Qg3 O-O 19. f3 f5 20. Nc2 {
Weiß hat zu rochieren vergessen.} e4 21. Nd4 Qb6 22. Nxe6 Qxe6 23. fxe4 fxe4
24. Be2 d4 25. Bd1 Kh8 26. Bb3 Qh6 27. Rb1 Rac8 28. Rd1 (28. Kd1 d3 (28... Rc3
$5 {gewinnt spektakulär:} 29. bxc3 dxc3) 29. Qh3 (29. Qg4 Bxb2) 29... Qg5)
28... d3 29. Rf1 d2+ 30. Ke2 Qh5+ 0-1
144: Gandalf 4.32f - Nimzo 8, 5/00-37 2000
r2qk2r/5pbp/p1npb3/1p1Np3/8/N1PB1Q2/PP3PPP/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 15
Analysis by Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit (after depth 15):
1. = (-0.12): 15...0-0 16.0-0 Rc8 17.Rfe1 f5 18.Nf4 Qd7 19.Nxe6 Qxe6
2. = (0.05): 15...Bxd5 16.Qxd5 Ne7 17.Qb3 d5 18.0-0-0 Qb6 19.f3 Qf2 20.Kb1 0-0 21.Qc2 Qxc2+ 22.Nxc2
3. = (0.14): 15...b4 16.Nc4 bxc3 17.bxc3 0-0 18.Nce3 Ne7 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7 20.0-0 Qg5 21.Qe4 f5 22.Qc6
So, Rybka sees 15...b4 as 'interesting' but also, that White should better decline the pawn offer :-)
nimzo is a program not mentioned much if at all... I too wish my style was more tactically aggressive..mostly from the fun u get when u see the face of ur opponent from ur tactical skill.
In multipv 3 (analysis) mode, my programme starts to like b4 at depth 7 in under a second [cp scores are self-oriented, not white-oriented]:
After a minute, it still likes it at depth 12:
Unfortunately(?), if I don't use multipv, it likes O-O after a minute at depth 14 (since b4 gains from being searched as a PV node it seems).
> info multipv 1 depth 7 seldepth 21 score cp -59 time 568 nodes 218437 pv a8c8 e1g1 b5b4 c3b4 c6d4 f3e4 d8g5 d3a6 e6d5 e4d5
> info multipv 1 depth 7 seldepth 21 score cp -49 time 714 nodes 276827 pv b5b4 d5b4 c6b4 c3b4 a8b8 e1g1 b8b4 f3c6 d8d7
> info multipv 2 depth 7 seldepth 21 score cp -59 time 756 nodes 291825 pv a8c8 e1g1 b5b4 c3b4 c6d4 f3e4 d8g5
> info multipv 3 depth 7 seldepth 21 score cp -69 time 874 nodes 342156 pv a8b8 e1g1 b5b4 a3c4 b4c3 d5c3 c6d4
After a minute, it still likes it at depth 12:
> info multipv 1 depth 12 seldepth 37 score cp -8 time 39374 nodes 17829139 pv b5b4 a3c2 b4c3 b2c3 e8g8 e1g1 f7f5 d5f4 e5f4 f3c6 a8c8 c6a6 g7c3 a1b1
> info multipv 2 depth 12 seldepth 39 score cp -18 time 46381 nodes 21095509 pv e8g8 e1g1 a8c8 d5e3 d8f6 f3g3 f6f4 g3f4 e5f4 e3f5 g7e5 f1e1
> info multipv 3 depth 12 seldepth 39 score cp -43 time 65385 nodes 29848181 pv a8b8 a3c2 e8g8 e1g1 g8h8 d5b4 c6b4 c2b4 d8b6 b4c6 b8c8 f3h5 f7f5
Unfortunately(?), if I don't use multipv, it likes O-O after a minute at depth 14 (since b4 gains from being searched as a PV node it seems).
Hi,
I do not know if I understood question good but I do not want to emulate myself any chess program style. The answer is none.
I want to play good as a human.
Rgds
Hetman
I do not know if I understood question good but I do not want to emulate myself any chess program style. The answer is none.
I want to play good as a human.
Rgds
Hetman
This is an unexpected answer...but a very good one. thanx hetman
wow, over 80 hits but still only 3 replies........??
You welcome :-).
I am trying not to be the slave of the computer programs. I think it might be a big problem.
Rgds
Hetman
I am trying not to be the slave of the computer programs. I think it might be a big problem.
Rgds
Hetman
I see what u mean by not becoming a slave to an engines style,but for me an engine is the strongest opponent that I have somewhat control over...I can't call up a grandmaster or even an IM to play with me..Engines, for me, are the strongest chess entities that I can observe at anytime. So style becomes important to me because the strength of the programs are much to high to even think that they have to use all of their elo's to defeat me. :)
It is true that engine is the strongest opponent but I do not know if it can be the good advisor. It answers only one question: what move but not why and what for - which seems to be more important. That questions we have to answer by ourselves or search the answer in the books.
Playing vs engines is not slavery but the blindful following their advises seems to be.
Rgds
Hetman
Playing vs engines is not slavery but the blindful following their advises seems to be.
Rgds
Hetman
> It answers only one question: what move but not why and what for - which seems to be more important.
That information can be get by doing an interactive deep analysis of the position, throwing lines to the engine to see what it does and seeing what it does against your intended move (if the engine's move is different.)
Playing these moves against the engine is like asking it questions, like "But what if my opponent does this?". Sometimes the engine will answer "Oh! I didn't see that! You are right, this variation is not good", and you can go back to the root position with new knowledge.
The bad thing about that is that maybe you're never going to play that position again, so what you must strive to learn is the concepts, not the moves (sometimes a move is good in one position and bad in another, even though these positions are very similar, the 'why' is what you have to understand.)
I have to agree that playing Vs. the engines would not be very useful in improving your chess (In the best case it would only help you to get better against engines), so you should only play them for the fun of it (But if humans are available, I wonder why would you want to play a computer.)
Another often helpfull thing to do, is to have the engine(s) calculate threats - using mpv mode can in addition prove helpful when you seach insights.
Playing against engines, even tho I lose, seems to strengthen my game against humans....So it seems the more I play engines the better I become.
Maybe, but do you get better by playing against humans or against engines? If you get "more better" playing against engines and your goal is to become stronger, then I no longer see a reason to play against humans (Since it would be more productive to spend than time on playing against engines.)
Personally, I think that chess is a game for humans (After all, the engines have no fun while playing against you), so I no longer play against engines.
Personally, I think that chess is a game for humans (After all, the engines have no fun while playing against you), so I no longer play against engines.
Hi,
excuse me,
I think that playing vs engines is improving the human play, either. To resist :-) we have to play 'positionaly' . That way we are training our positonal skill and the tactic somehow. It can be usefull in human games. The engine is playing not 'on psychology' it can cause some problems in play vs humans but let it be.
I see the problem with the interactive analysis. If the 'advisor' is 800-1000 Elo stronger it is difficult to understand why it evaluates one position better other worse. I do not speak about 2-3 points difference in evaluation but if we have to understand less then 0.3 cp differrences. How do you solve that ?
Rgds
Hetman
excuse me,
I think that playing vs engines is improving the human play, either. To resist :-) we have to play 'positionaly' . That way we are training our positonal skill and the tactic somehow. It can be usefull in human games. The engine is playing not 'on psychology' it can cause some problems in play vs humans but let it be.
I see the problem with the interactive analysis. If the 'advisor' is 800-1000 Elo stronger it is difficult to understand why it evaluates one position better other worse. I do not speak about 2-3 points difference in evaluation but if we have to understand less then 0.3 cp differrences. How do you solve that ?
Rgds
Hetman
Well, yes and no. An engine can tell you that a position is bad, but not why (or even that) the bishop pair is better than a bishop and a knight.
/* Steinar */
/* Steinar */
By josh
Date 2007-12-09 01:25
It is true that engine is the strongest opponent but I do not know if it can be the good advisor. It answers only one question: what move but not why and what for - which seems to be more important. That questions we have to answer by ourselves or search the answer in the books.
What move and why can be defined from a lot of ass-kickings that Rybka will gladly hand out to you. Reading books on chess is laziness.
What move and why can be defined from a lot of ass-kickings that Rybka will gladly hand out to you. Reading books on chess is laziness.
...Laziness... ?
How advanced are you in chess ?
I will tell that WCCh Petrosjan, Tal, Smyslov has treated 'the book My system' as the base of his chess education.
Rgds
Hetman
How advanced are you in chess ?
I will tell that WCCh Petrosjan, Tal, Smyslov has treated 'the book My system' as the base of his chess education.
Rgds
Hetman
By josh
Date 2007-12-10 03:39
...Laziness... ?
Yeah , it is.
How advanced are you in chess ?
Do I have to be a GM to say such things? Anyways , I'm a bit over the 2100 margin.
I will tell that WCCh Petrosjan, Tal, Smyslov has treated 'the book My system' as the base of his chess education.
Do you really believe all that?
Yeah , it is.
How advanced are you in chess ?
Do I have to be a GM to say such things? Anyways , I'm a bit over the 2100 margin.
I will tell that WCCh Petrosjan, Tal, Smyslov has treated 'the book My system' as the base of his chess education.
Do you really believe all that?
I don't think it's lazy to read chess books. Lazyness is playing lots of blitz on the server and staying at exactly the same elo for 30 years.
1)If you would be GM you would not need the books. :-)
2100 I do not know ?. I know the person who is over 2400 and he uses chess books. ;-)
2)I believe in such extent as I can believe their printed biography.
Rgds
Hetman
2100 I do not know ?. I know the person who is over 2400 and he uses chess books. ;-)
2)I believe in such extent as I can believe their printed biography.
Rgds
Hetman
This really just seems to be a matter of different learning styles. Back when I was in high school, I had a good friend who was an international master, and he did relatively little reading throughout his entire life, other than studying Capablanca's games at an early age--he got much better by playing against people at a high level. I got much better by playing lots of games against him--I certainly never became as good as he was, but I was definitely at master level. However, after he moved away and I stopped playing lots of games against him, and stopped playing blitz and rapid games against other people, I lost my previous ability quite rapidly (and have never gained it back), even though I was reading chess articles all the time. However, I got up to about 1800 level, from where I could learn more and become a lot better by playing against my friend, by reading lots of chess articles and learning from the commentary and such. I'm probably pretty close now to being back down near that level--I look at some of my games from before, even ones that I lost, and wonder, "how in the world did I ever come up with those moves?"
I have a friend who, a few years ago, had about a 1600 rating at the beginning of summer. He spent probably 8 hours a day with Fritz 8, playing against a set elo(1800-2000 mostly I think, 2100 later on), analyzing his games with the engine afterwards, studying the engine suggestions and figuring out WHY it was suggesting what it was suggesting. After 2 months of doing this, his rating broke 2000.
It's an excellent tool to get better and a great adviser. You just have to know how to 1.Train with it to get better, and 2.Be willing to put in the time and the effort it takes to get better.
It's an excellent tool to get better and a great adviser. You just have to know how to 1.Train with it to get better, and 2.Be willing to put in the time and the effort it takes to get better.
I agree that playing vs engine can improve the game as the play with stronger opponent is a kind of learning.
The important fact it is that your friend has had 1600 Elo before so it is sign of some chess knowledge and it is the base to work on.
I am pointing on other factor, if you will have the trainee who can speak (why and what for) the way will be shorter .
I think that he has been using books or some comments of the stronger player,, paralelly.
Spending 8 hours a day for 2 months on analysing games and books will improve his game without computer, even. I do not know if not more then 400 Elo.
I remember from my young days that reading 1 particular chess book has been resulting in moving 200 Elo up, from 1800 to 2000 in my case.
Rgds
Hetman
The important fact it is that your friend has had 1600 Elo before so it is sign of some chess knowledge and it is the base to work on.
I am pointing on other factor, if you will have the trainee who can speak (why and what for) the way will be shorter .
I think that he has been using books or some comments of the stronger player,, paralelly.
Spending 8 hours a day for 2 months on analysing games and books will improve his game without computer, even. I do not know if not more then 400 Elo.
I remember from my young days that reading 1 particular chess book has been resulting in moving 200 Elo up, from 1800 to 2000 in my case.
Rgds
Hetman
I remember from my young days that reading 1 particular chess book has been resulting in moving 200 Elo up, from 1800 to 2000 in my case.
Awww, c'mon now--you can't say something like that and then leave us hanging without telling us which book. Which book was it? :-)
Awww, c'mon now--you can't say something like that and then leave us hanging without telling us which book. Which book was it? :-)
My Elo went up about 200 points while I was reading War and Peace, but I don't think the two were related. You have to be careful with these type of things! :-)
Alan
Alan
My Elo went up about 200 points [...] but I don't think the two were related.
Probably just when you started playing 1. b3. Tolstoy can have that effect. Actually, Anna Karenina makes me want to play 1. h3 for some reason.
Probably just when you started playing 1. b3. Tolstoy can have that effect. Actually, Anna Karenina makes me want to play 1. h3 for some reason.
Seeing 1. h3 played makes me suicidal. It is really only suitable for deranged people.
Alan
Alan
> Seeing 1. h3 played makes me suicidal. It is really only suitable for deranged people.
Perhaps Dostoyevksy's The Idiot (especially ******) would be the proper book then.
War and Peace.... :-) It could be correlated. Chess has the elements of war, unfortunately. :-(
My case book was My System. ;-)
Rgds
Hetman
My case book was My System. ;-)
Rgds
Hetman
I'll pick ProDeo.
Some people might have noticed that I'm a great fan of this engine, the main reason being that it is the engine that most plays like me (from the ones I have tested), that means that most of the time, when a move is decent enough, and I played it in a game, the other engines are going to suggest something else, but ProDeo is going to agree with my move choice (at first sight) without having to go deeper in the line.
That means that I already play like ProDeo (just, much weaker), so I'd expect that if I become much stronger, my style would be "emulating" ProDeo (That would be playing like it, but without my actual blunders, and I wouldn't be doing it on purpose, it's just my playing style).
Some people might have noticed that I'm a great fan of this engine, the main reason being that it is the engine that most plays like me (from the ones I have tested), that means that most of the time, when a move is decent enough, and I played it in a game, the other engines are going to suggest something else, but ProDeo is going to agree with my move choice (at first sight) without having to go deeper in the line.
That means that I already play like ProDeo (just, much weaker), so I'd expect that if I become much stronger, my style would be "emulating" ProDeo (That would be playing like it, but without my actual blunders, and I wouldn't be doing it on purpose, it's just my playing style).
Hi,
I like Rebel :-).
It is the question if the ProDeo is similar to you or you similar to ProDeo ? I think that analysing with the program influences the human play.
Rgds
Hetman
I like Rebel :-).
It is the question if the ProDeo is similar to you or you similar to ProDeo ? I think that analysing with the program influences the human play.
Rgds
Hetman
Probably you are right.
Back then, when I got Rebel Decade, I was some hundred points weaker than I am now, but I was analyzing my games with it, understanding my weaknesses and becoming better and better. It seems I could have earned the ProDeo style in that way, and now, it seems we have the same playing style.
Maybe if I used Fritz instead of Rebel I'd be playing like Fritz, it's an interesting thought. But yes, in the grammatical sense, ProDeo doesn't play like me, Ed would have needed to analyze my games and adjust ProDeo's settings to play like me, so the opposite happened (I play like ProDeo).
Back then, when I got Rebel Decade, I was some hundred points weaker than I am now, but I was analyzing my games with it, understanding my weaknesses and becoming better and better. It seems I could have earned the ProDeo style in that way, and now, it seems we have the same playing style.
Maybe if I used Fritz instead of Rebel I'd be playing like Fritz, it's an interesting thought. But yes, in the grammatical sense, ProDeo doesn't play like me, Ed would have needed to analyze my games and adjust ProDeo's settings to play like me, so the opposite happened (I play like ProDeo).
I've played Pro Deo 1.2 several times, and if u play anything like it as far as style goes, I want to compliment you.
Thanks.
Yes, I play with the style of ProDeo, not the strength, because I'm about 1200 rating points weaker, so just imagine ProDeo making blunders very often and you'd get a playing style like mine. (So, only [most of] the decent moves that I do are ProDeo like.)
Yes, I play with the style of ProDeo, not the strength, because I'm about 1200 rating points weaker, so just imagine ProDeo making blunders very often and you'd get a playing style like mine. (So, only [most of] the decent moves that I do are ProDeo like.)
Hi,
might be the good way to improve itself is to analyse by differrent programms : one year ProDeo next Rybka next Hiarcs next Shredder :-).
Rgds
Hetman
might be the good way to improve itself is to analyse by differrent programms : one year ProDeo next Rybka next Hiarcs next Shredder :-).
Rgds
Hetman
Actually, right now I use all of my top engines for my analysis, it's good for 'foolproving' an idea and seeing what different personalities would do (And even though the newest engines have gotten a playing style closer to Rybka's, they still have their own style).
It takes a lot of time :-). Is it not difficult to manage differrent advices from many silicon GM's ?
If you are master or better it is to do, but if not ?
Rgds
Hetman
If you are master or better it is to do, but if not ?
Rgds
Hetman
I'm just a patzer, no matter how do I use the engines or how many I use, it's not going to help me tremendously so I just analyze my games for fun (And I have so much fun with it, that sometimes I spend 4x more time analyzing my games than playing them.)
Lately I've been running "engine elections", in where I give the engines a position, and then I put them to search for some time to get a "best move", and it's like if the engine "voted" for that move. Sometimes the competition for 2 different moves gets very close, and so the last engine will have the deciding vote; it's fun to bet on which move it will be, and sometimes this last engine votes for something else, so I have to enter yet another engine to know if its vote will be a tie breaker.
Then I may force the other move into the engines that voted differently, to see their reactions and the outcomes of the positions; sometimes an engine will change its mind about the position, giving it a different score, and that counts as changing their vote on the root position.
I've been having so much fun by doing this, and sometimes a trap pops up (You know that you have something when even the top engines are missing the refuting variations), and I get some new ideas by doing this. I really doubt that anyone uses the engines like this (Since basically this has nothing to do with chess), so I'll just say that fun is the only thing that matters to me :)
Lately I've been running "engine elections", in where I give the engines a position, and then I put them to search for some time to get a "best move", and it's like if the engine "voted" for that move. Sometimes the competition for 2 different moves gets very close, and so the last engine will have the deciding vote; it's fun to bet on which move it will be, and sometimes this last engine votes for something else, so I have to enter yet another engine to know if its vote will be a tie breaker.
Then I may force the other move into the engines that voted differently, to see their reactions and the outcomes of the positions; sometimes an engine will change its mind about the position, giving it a different score, and that counts as changing their vote on the root position.
I've been having so much fun by doing this, and sometimes a trap pops up (You know that you have something when even the top engines are missing the refuting variations), and I get some new ideas by doing this. I really doubt that anyone uses the engines like this (Since basically this has nothing to do with chess), so I'll just say that fun is the only thing that matters to me :)
Voting is interesting experiment. Is using different programs not a bit confusing ? I mean when we use one engine for the longer time we are taking over sth from it (osmosis ;-) ). Similar happened with the next one. Using them parallely is not the reason for some misunderstandings ?
Rgds
Hetman
Rgds
Hetman
I don't believe in osmosis for chess, otherwise I'd just use a chess book as my pillow and I'd be becoming stronger everyday without having to play at all.
Also, I don't use them in parallel, but one at a time, for 1 minute in average. The reason is that I always let them finish an iteration for maximum effectiveness, so if I ran them in parallel, some engines (those that will not finish an iteration in time) would be stealing time from others.
Also, I don't use them in parallel, but one at a time, for 1 minute in average. The reason is that I always let them finish an iteration for maximum effectiveness, so if I ran them in parallel, some engines (those that will not finish an iteration in time) would be stealing time from others.
I go with the book with positions from Tal games in my pocket :-). If we are looking the comments of the program and trying to understand why it gives the effect. It is adjusting our game. It is better to have one trainee at the time then many with differrent styles, probably.
Rgds
Hetman
Rgds
Hetman
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / What chess program style would u like to emulate??
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill