50 ( +1 | -1 ) The King?A chess playing friend just told me that the chess engine The King won an international chess tournament against the likes of Fritz and Shredder. I'm quite sure that The King is the engine that powers Chessmaster -- and if so, this seems to upset the conventional wisdom that Fritz/Shredder/Junior are all much stronger than Chessmaster (usually derided as "not for the serious player"). Anyway, I'll head to chessbase or TWIC to find further information...
32 ( +1 | -1 ) Yeah"The King" is the engine that powers the Chessmaster 9000 program. A bit of a surprise that it performed so well, equally surprising, I think Fritz trailed in a poor fourth.......maybe computer chess playing programs have "bad hair" days just like us mere mortals.....
40 ( +1 | -1 ) wellCM9K has TheKing.exe as its engine, and so did CM8K.
I found it interesting also that he said he used the same engine last year, when he got 4th, with just a few minor tweaks.
The thing about the tournaments is that they are swiss system, so its not necessarily the best that wins. As a matter of fact, i think its something like a 50% chance that the best competitor will win.
109 ( +1 | -1 ) Another problem...I was quite annoyed yesterday when I was sifting through the articles and looking at the tournament site itself... What versions of these engines are being used???
I too was surprised that Fritz was such a poor performer. But I didn't know if this was Fritz 7 or Fritz 8, and could only guess that it was version 8 that he was using... The same goes for last year's results. Was he using the latest version of every engine in the tournament?
The other thing that struck me as I was going through the results was that I wondered how the computers and environment used to play the tournaments affected the over all results. For example, some computers played on faster CPU's, more CPU's, different chipsets, etc.
Do you think the results would be skewed if an engine playing on a "Dual-Intel Xeon 2800 MHz, 2000MB" came up against another engine playing on an "AMD Athlon1600+, 1400 MHz, 256 MB" machine?
Anyways, I am probably suffering from a lack of information on the why's and the how's with regards to computer vs computer tournaments. In any the case, I *would* like to see the versions that were used...
18 ( +1 | -1 ) Did the engines really run on differently specified machines, zucan? That would of course invalidate all results....
92 ( +1 | -1 ) yesthey each ran on the machine that their operator chose (or someone chose on their behalf). It is not much different than an OTB tourney where one player has gotten a good nights rest, eaten a good breakfast, and is alert and ready to focus, and another who was out late, slept in past breakfast and only woke up just in time to arrive.
A match between these two players would not be a fair evaluation of their skill, and the results could quite possibly be different if both were playing under the same conditions. What makes this fair is that it is their own fault.
Well, the computers are the same way, if they only want to put a 1.4GHz CPU and 256MB of memory in their computer, so be it. They have to reallize that they are going to compete against someone who is serious, and may bring a bleeding edge system to play against them.
31 ( +1 | -1 ) Exactly...And everybody else that sees these results misses that important fact and instantly assumes that the playing conditions *were* the same, and thus The King must be the new undisputed champion.
How does this tournament compare to the SDDC (is that right) tournament?
17 ( +1 | -1 ) Ironically enough, Fritz had the strongest hardYes, Fritz had the strongest hardware of them all by far. Yet it still didn't win.
In computer vs. computer, victory could depend of seeing one more node than your opponent.
21 ( +1 | -1 ) Who in the world sets up a ridiculous event like this?! Who is interested in which team can afford the best hardware, I'd rather know who put the most cunning into his software.
Just my opinion, of course.
117 ( +1 | -1 ) FritzWell, Fritz only lost 2 games, one against Deep Sjeng (which was running on a "Dual AMD Athlon 2200 MHz, 1000MB") and one against Chess Tiger (which was running on a "AMD XP1800+, 1533 MHz, 256MB").
I would be more interested in what happened with the game between Fritz and Chess Tiger, as the hardware looks dramatically different there!
Other things to note is that 2nd place Shredder was the only engine to not lose a single game... the fact that The King converted more of its games to wins and not draws was why it took the trophy... That is simply a technicality... The fact remains that The King and Shredder did tie for first for points!
Finally, I find it interesting as well that Deep Sjeng and Fritz follow behind with 6 points, which is a full 1 1/2 points behind the leaders! I don't know, but to me that seems pretty significant... I rarely see tournaments where there aren't one or more strong players a half point behind the leaders... that shows the caliber of the participants in the tournament.
Just throwing a couple more observations out.
Maybe we should run our own tournament? :)
65 ( +1 | -1 ) chess programsanother thing to consider is not only pc strength but the size of its database. a good place to compare your own pc strength and related things is playchess.com wish can be entered by getting fritz 8 for example. i know on that site people have even better pcs and their "program" ratings are near 3000. I once ran plenty of tournaments with the dozens of programs i have and most of the time fritz 8 won followed by fritz 7, chesstiger 14 or 15 (cant remember), gambit tiger, shredder, nimzo (who all took turns being 2nd), occasionally chessmaster 9000 squeezed in, then chessmaster 8000, followed by other anonymous programs.
7 ( +1 | -1 ) correctionwish should be which (dont know what i was thinking)
15 ( +1 | -1 ) Interesting...So, at playchess.com, you sign up as a computer account and play other computer accounts on there? Is that what you mean? It sounds interesting...
64 ( +1 | -1 ) playchess.comyeah thats one of many things that happen there. you also get your own rating and the site checks if someone is using a program in real player games. if so they get banned. there is lessons offered there also by real IM's and GM's. you can have a blitz rating, bullet rating, program rating, centaur rating (i believe centaur is really long games, not sure) and other types of rating all on one account. the amount of people playing there is about the same much as over here. and the rating system is more effective i think. (i still like gk more no doubt there.)
74 ( +1 | -1 ) i still likeUSCL better than playchess.com. While you can have ratings other than blitz or bullet, noone likes to play over a 5 minute game, and most of them want a 1/0 game.
on USCL you have everything that playchess.com has, but you can also participate in tournaments (on playchess.com you have to be rated high enough to participate in most tournaments), they have online databases of training, etc.
They also have many variants that are kinda fun when youre looking to just relax a bit. I havent played on playchess.com since i found USCL, and i dont plan to go back. I also find the GM and IM lectures on USCL very easy to understand, and the instructors are very friendly and helpful.
97 ( +1 | -1 ) About USCLI know this is going on a tangent, but for what it's worth, I concur with silverwolf's assessment of USCL.
It is the best free RT chess site that I've been able to find on the Internet. 15 rated games / day is sufficient for my needs and the GUI is just awesome (customizable) and the interface is a breeze to learn. I can't say enough about the graphics (apparently it's based on the CM8K program...VERY nice.)
I keep hearing that ICC is the best; but it isn't free, so I haven't checked it out. My only complaint is that there is an overabundence of programs at any one time on USCL....much more so than human players. At least they are revealed as being programs.
I joined playchess.com last night and was impressed by its features...but it still lacks the user friendliness of USCL. Still, I'll give it a try in order to compare it more fairly against USCL.
Last on my preference list for RT chess is worldchessnetwork.com. It's a straight forward interface and easy to learn, but the graphics are basic and not very customizable.
19 ( +1 | -1 ) playchess.comwas the first RT site i played on (outside of yahoo, but that doesnt really count does it?). I thought it was great, but since i found USCL, i have never looked back.
70 ( +1 | -1 ) digression...USCL is great, though I would say the quality of play at the ICC is better; however, if you're not willing to pay, then USCL is perfectly fine. And the interface is lovely!
ICC also has more players who are interested in standard time controls. If you post a standard game at USCL for a game over 15 minutes, eventually someone will accept -- but more often than not, you'll see from their profile that they've played few if any standard games and they'll play a 20/5 game as if it's game 5. This may not be important to most, but for players like myself who like to play games at 20 - 45 minutes (or when time permits, up to 60 minutes), USCL can be frustrating. For this, ICC and FICS are both better.