Yes, Whats still left for rybka 4? Have not you run out of ideas yet or can we still expect more?
What happened to Winfinder? (Rustam's question :) )
What about this one?:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=5399
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=5399
Does Rybka 3 consider all pawn under promotions?
You forgot the most basic: Monte Carlo. :-)
So what about it? How exactly it works?
And also what is the difference between the different implementations in Chessbase GUI and in Aquarium GUI? If you know about the second question of course....
So what about it? How exactly it works?
And also what is the difference between the different implementations in Chessbase GUI and in Aquarium GUI? If you know about the second question of course....
One should probably elaborate a bit about R3 and older Fritz GUIs...
Yes, this will need a bit of documentation. We'll get to this ..
Vas
Vas
Thanks Vas, I have Shredder 8 and could use this too.
Hi,
i'm disappointed because it seems that Aquarium 3 und Deep Aquarium 3 are different GUIs. I bought Aquarium 3 from Convekta and Deep Rybka from Chessbase.
Is ist possible to use the Deep Rybka Engine in the Auarium 3 GUI with the same functionality as I had in the Deep Auarium Gui - or what is the difference.
There was no information about that it could be a problem/difference and i must have the Deep Aquarium GUI: Download size is different: 44 MB (A 3) 47 MB (DA 3).
retep1
i'm disappointed because it seems that Aquarium 3 und Deep Aquarium 3 are different GUIs. I bought Aquarium 3 from Convekta and Deep Rybka from Chessbase.
Is ist possible to use the Deep Rybka Engine in the Auarium 3 GUI with the same functionality as I had in the Deep Auarium Gui - or what is the difference.
There was no information about that it could be a problem/difference and i must have the Deep Aquarium GUI: Download size is different: 44 MB (A 3) 47 MB (DA 3).
retep1
> Download size is different: 44 MB (A 3) 47 MB (DA 3).
That's because of the extra engines (multiprocessor versions).
thx!
yes, Vempele is right. The GUIs are identical.
Hi,
in the download mail there is no fast-link for the mega-cap-file.
"ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS:
After you installed Rybka 3 Aquarium, you can also download additional Aquarium components:
MegaCAP - an analysis tree with 44 000 000 evaluations of different engines (not only Rybka)."
Downloading over the ChessOK- Downloader is very slow.
ChessOK Downloader (11kb) over http ca. 200kb.
Could give anyone for me as a registered user the fast link-adresse.
thx
retep1
in the download mail there is no fast-link for the mega-cap-file.
"ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS:
After you installed Rybka 3 Aquarium, you can also download additional Aquarium components:
MegaCAP - an analysis tree with 44 000 000 evaluations of different engines (not only Rybka)."
Downloading over the ChessOK- Downloader is very slow.
ChessOK Downloader (11kb) over http ca. 200kb.
Could give anyone for me as a registered user the fast link-adresse.
thx
retep1
We will upload these components to a faster server in some time.
If persistent hash is something like a tablebase, which will not grow in size, unless I resize it, then what is the use of resizing? In which way is a bigger tablebase better than a smaller one? Are there optimal sizes for PH? Like 16 MB, 32 MB, 64 MB etc.? Is there an upper size, where size gets difficult to handle or doesn't have much additional use?
Hi Vas,
One question.
I installed Rybka 3, Rybka 3 Human and Rybka 3 Dynamic.
When under Fritz GUI I want to create a tournament and want to select a Rybka 3, the 3 of them are named Rybka 3 without extension so I dont know which one is which and often select the wrong engine. E.G. select Rybka Human instead of Rybka 3 (Default)
How can I change that ?
thanks for your help
regards
One question.
I installed Rybka 3, Rybka 3 Human and Rybka 3 Dynamic.
When under Fritz GUI I want to create a tournament and want to select a Rybka 3, the 3 of them are named Rybka 3 without extension so I dont know which one is which and often select the wrong engine. E.G. select Rybka Human instead of Rybka 3 (Default)
How can I change that ?
thanks for your help
regards
Hi can anyone explaine i read a post but cannot seem to find it now,i have on order Deep rybka 3 uci and i have read that when the engine is created in gui. Mine will be fritz 11, that the engine will not display Deep rybka 3 or rybka 3 mp is this correct? if so how would you know you have actualy got a deep rybka engine... using my dual core as i have seen someone stated in there post that display of engine was Rybka 3 w32... again why not mp or deep? what is the discriptive difference. How would you tell the standard and deep apart ? many thanks Ian
Multi-processor is default, while single-processor is maked with a "1-cpu" token in both filename and engine name.
Vas
Vas
>>Is there a simple way to test whether Rybka is using tablebases correctly?
Sure. Just give her a simple king and pawn endgame and you'll know very quickly <<
This sounds like a threat :D
Does Rybka support the UCI_SetPositionValue parameter?
No, but there is something similar in the Rybka 3 UCI extensions. Details will be available shortly.
how much money do you charge for implemeting this in a private version?
well the same question I'll have to ask convekta..
No, but there is something similar in the Rybka 3 UCI extensions. Details will be available shortly.
how much money do you charge for implemeting this in a private version?
well the same question I'll have to ask convekta..
What is the UCI_SetPositionValue parameter?
What does it makes?
What does it makes?
It lets you force the engine to evaluate a position in a certain way.
Vas
Vas
Ok, maybe I should have done this with Rybka 3, for the sake of existing interfaces. The Shredder GUI from shredderchess.com is I believe the only one affected. You'll have to either wait for Rybka 4 or use the new interfaces.
Vas
Vas
Is it useful to load 3-4-5 Nalimov tablebases in Rybka 3?
Yes, slightly. I believe that tablebases improve the quality of endgame play by an Elo point or so. This is only an opinion, as we don't have a good way to measure improvements of this type of magnitude.
Let me propose a good way to measure the cost of not having tablebases. Simply stop using them in all of the tournaments you participate in! Sooner or later you will realize that you are drawing a lot of games unnecessarily. Other people will help you in this process by asking probing questions like "what the !@#$% were you thinking?"! :-D ). After a while you will be able to identify the percentage of games you are drawing, rather than winning, by not having tablebases and will realize the lack of tablebase support is costing a lot more than an Elo point or so. The educational value alone will be of far greater value than the lonely Elo point you may or may not be forgoing. What do you say?
Regards,
Alan
Yes, slightly. I believe that tablebases improve the quality of endgame play by an Elo point or so. This is only an opinion, as we don't have a good way to measure improvements of this type of magnitude.
Let me propose a good way to measure the cost of not having tablebases. Simply stop using them in all of the tournaments you participate in! Sooner or later you will realize that you are drawing a lot of games unnecessarily. Other people will help you in this process by asking probing questions like "what the !@#$% were you thinking?"! :-D ). After a while you will be able to identify the percentage of games you are drawing, rather than winning, by not having tablebases and will realize the lack of tablebase support is costing a lot more than an Elo point or so. The educational value alone will be of far greater value than the lonely Elo point you may or may not be forgoing. What do you say?
Regards,
Alan
Hi Alan:
I think you are probably right. But unfortunately it does not appear that there is any simple way to obtain and load the 3-4-5 man TBs into Rybka.
(At one point, there was discussion of including these TBs with Rybka 3.0 but I guess that was dropped.)
I was not able to do it with version 2.3.2.a because Shredderbases (the only TBs I had) don't work with Rybka.
May I ask how you have implemented it 3-4-5 man TBs in Rybka.
Thanks, CMA
I think you are probably right. But unfortunately it does not appear that there is any simple way to obtain and load the 3-4-5 man TBs into Rybka.
(At one point, there was discussion of including these TBs with Rybka 3.0 but I guess that was dropped.)
I was not able to do it with version 2.3.2.a because Shredderbases (the only TBs I had) don't work with Rybka.
May I ask how you have implemented it 3-4-5 man TBs in Rybka.
Thanks, CMA
The tablebase files 3-4-5-6 are available from a number of different sources. I got my 3-4-5 from Hyatt's site, but I don't know if it is still up. There are a number of other places to get them. The links at the following URL are a good place to start:
http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/tablebases-online/
http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/tablebases-online/
[deleted]
>I got a folder with 35.tbs files in it, total size 286 KBs. Is that all there is?
No, those are only the TableBaseStats files.
I downloaded a bunch of *.nbb.emd files from one of the sites, but what is the next step with those files. What do you do with them?
Thanks, CMA
Thanks, CMA
You need to get the *.nbw.emd files too, stick them into a single directory, and use the options menu (assumes you are using a CB GUI) to point to the directory.
Regards,
Alan
Regards,
Alan
Actually, I'm planning to use the files with Rybka 3.0.
You need to set up the path to the TB directory in the GUI (CB or Aquarium). The GUI then transfers this information to the engine.
Alan
Alan
here is another one
http://tablebase.sesse.net/
http://tablebase.sesse.net/
Vas does his very best, that his estimation about 1 Elo is right! :-) After some hours with Rybka 3 mp I have to say, that the standard NalimovUsage=Rarely is bullshit for R3 mp.
Roland,
we'll eventually standardize this as a part of UCI. Users clicking on engine parameters to control this behavior is really ugly, especially with Nalimov parameters appearing elsewhere in the interface. Just be patient, these things take time ..
Vas
we'll eventually standardize this as a part of UCI. Users clicking on engine parameters to control this behavior is really ugly, especially with Nalimov parameters appearing elsewhere in the interface. Just be patient, these things take time ..
Vas
Are you working with Stefan on modifying the UCI standard, or is the standard a thing of the past?
Regards,
Alan
Regards,
Alan
In principle, yes.
Vas
Vas
Btw., I like answering questions with "or" with yes or no. But this time Vas did it for me :)
Vas is just teaching me to ask simpler questions! :-)
Lol! I'm doing it all the time with my wife. It's very funny. ;-)
Meaning one should set it to "Never"?
> Let me propose a good way to measure the cost of not having tablebases. Simply stop using them in all of the tournaments you participate in! Sooner or later you will realize that you are drawing a lot of games unnecessarily. Other people will help you in this process by asking probing questions like "what the !@#$% were you thinking?"! ). After a while you will be able to identify the percentage of games you are drawing, rather than winning, by not having tablebases and will realize the lack of tablebase support is costing a lot more than an Elo point or so. The educational value alone will be of far greater value than the lonely Elo point you may or may not be forgoing. What do you say?
Ok, but since we are scientists, we have to perform a controlled experiment. For the comparison, we play in tournaments with tablebases but announce that we are playing without them, and count the same complaints :)
Vas
OK, as scientists we might want a double blind experiment. To do this, you would randomly select before each tournament game whether TBs were going to be used or not, and not reveal this to either of the contestants. The long term statistics would then reveal whether there was a statistically significant difference between having TBs or not and you could have additional fun seeing if people could tell when TBs were being used and when they weren't.
Regards,
Alan
Regards,
Alan
Hilarious, Alan. So true, too. You would have to be an idiot to compete without tablebases. The terrible agony of lacking them when the situation demands them is indescribable.
We all know that R3 is good enough to compete against other engines without tablebases, but I see two or three games every day on the Playchess server where Rybka loses a half point by not having the appropriate tablebase and there is no way that I am observant enough to notice all of these if the difference is only 1 Elo. I have suggested that there might be a slowdown in the search that negates some of the gain, but Vas is even more hostile to this theory (although I still believe it :-) ).
My belief is that just having them accessed by the GUI is worth a lot more than 1 Elo (not only for the perfect play but also for the near instantaneous response). Having them available during the search should be an additional gain, even if Rybka's use of tablebases is less effective than some other engines'.
It's certainly not worth your trouble, but if you went through your database of games, there would be some percentage of games that reached 6-pieces, that were resolved in a non-optimal manner (I even remember a freestyle game in this category that you were kibitzing :-) ). I've never done anything scientific in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if as many as 2% of the game that reached 6-pieces were not resolved as they should have been.
Regards,
Alan
My belief is that just having them accessed by the GUI is worth a lot more than 1 Elo (not only for the perfect play but also for the near instantaneous response). Having them available during the search should be an additional gain, even if Rybka's use of tablebases is less effective than some other engines'.
It's certainly not worth your trouble, but if you went through your database of games, there would be some percentage of games that reached 6-pieces, that were resolved in a non-optimal manner (I even remember a freestyle game in this category that you were kibitzing :-) ). I've never done anything scientific in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if as many as 2% of the game that reached 6-pieces were not resolved as they should have been.
Regards,
Alan
Alan,
nothing you write contradicts the theory that tablebases are worth 1 Elo point.
Maybe you underestimate 1 Elo point. 1 Elo point is a winning percentage of 50.2%, or roughly one extra half-point every 250 games. If you watch 750 games total, 3 will be decided by lack of tablebases, and those 3 half-points might really hurt.
Vas
nothing you write contradicts the theory that tablebases are worth 1 Elo point.
Maybe you underestimate 1 Elo point. 1 Elo point is a winning percentage of 50.2%, or roughly one extra half-point every 250 games. If you watch 750 games total, 3 will be decided by lack of tablebases, and those 3 half-points might really hurt.
Vas
I think Alan is suggesting the occurrence is more frequent than once per 250 games when the opponents are both high-quality engines. On Playchess you will soon see a massive changeover to Rybka 3 engines which will naturally play each other a huge percentage of the time. Many of the engine room aficionados play well-developed books. Between these two factors you wind up in a lot more 6-man situations than you would see in human games: with Rybka 2.3.2a the dominant engine about 35% of all Playchess games simplify to six pieces (and many more reach a point where tablebases are hit). It wouldn't surprise me if Rybka 3 boosts that percentage a bit higher.
Of that 35%+ that reaches 6-man, it is hard to say definitively how many slip 0.5 as a result of tablebases and how many do not, but I can tell you from my own research about 3% of 6-man games are wrongly decided at the moment they reach 6-man. So, 35% x 3% = ~1% of Playchess games. So it is a 1-in-100 event on Playchess. What is the practical impact then? More like 3-4 ELO?
Of that 35%+ that reaches 6-man, it is hard to say definitively how many slip 0.5 as a result of tablebases and how many do not, but I can tell you from my own research about 3% of 6-man games are wrongly decided at the moment they reach 6-man. So, 35% x 3% = ~1% of Playchess games. So it is a 1-in-100 event on Playchess. What is the practical impact then? More like 3-4 ELO?
You're saying that 1% of all Playchess games first simplify to a six-man position and then end up with the wrong result? That's an amazingly high figure which I find a little hard to believe. How many of these games involve some sort of stupidity like not mating with KQ v K?
Vas
Vas
That's exactly what I am saying and I can back it up. I would not characterize the frequency of stupidity as that's somewhat subjective; I am only giving you what the numbers really are at a conceptual level. If you want to get into specifics, message me.
Bear in mind in these wrongly-decided games it may be that 0, 1 or 2 players have the appropriate tablebases. (Yes, even two. Disconnects and other one-off stuff can happen resulting in an unpredictable outcome.)
Bear in mind in these wrongly-decided games it may be that 0, 1 or 2 players have the appropriate tablebases. (Yes, even two. Disconnects and other one-off stuff can happen resulting in an unpredictable outcome.)
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill