First Chess960 Computer World Championship - Huge response

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Hi friends of real chess programming!

In a very interesting article (German language) from the Frankfurt
Chess Tigers you can learn that there are already 20 participants.
Thus it will be an event huge and relevant for chess programming in
August 2005, where the engines will have to calculate from the
beginning, not where a huge opening library might end.

See article at: [http://www.chesstigers.de/] from 2005-04-17.

Reinhard.
8 answers Last reply
More about first chess960 computer world championship huge response
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

    Good point. But comps have a bigger advantage in Chess960 compared to
    classic chess even without books, just because of the tactical
    superiority. There was a 960 match Tiger versus GM Rogozenko which has
    shown this. He lost the match although he even had a (slower) computer
    to support him, in some of the games.

    Tactics is the main thing in chess. Strategy can't compensate much
    anymore when you've lost a piece. So, the human has to calculate very
    carefully from the beginning. He loses a big part of his opening
    performance which in classic chess comes from theory and preparation,
    while for the engine it's just usual business and it can unleash the
    computational power.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

    Chess960 is in fact more openingsbook theory than normal chess.

    Instead of 1 book, you need a book for 960 positions.

    I know already at least 1 chess960 engine which does have 960 books now.

    So several wont be searching from scratch.

    Chess960 is not different in that respect from computerviewpoint. Only for
    humans it's hard to remember all that.

    Computers have a huge advantage therefore in chess960, when the chess
    variation would be practiced at a professional level.

    "Reinhard Scharnagl" <rescharn@yahoo.de> wrote in message
    news:a30564f7.0504170301.7686b18c@posting.google.com...
    > Hi friends of real chess programming!
    >
    > In a very interesting article (German language) from the Frankfurt
    > Chess Tigers you can learn that there are already 20 participants.
    > Thus it will be an event huge and relevant for chess programming in
    > August 2005, where the engines will have to calculate from the
    > beginning, not where a huge opening library might end.
    >
    > See article at: [http://www.chesstigers.de/] from 2005-04-17.
    >
    > Reinhard.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

    Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
    >
    > Chess960 is in fact more openingsbook theory than normal chess.
    >
    > Instead of 1 book, you need a book for 960 positions.

    Actually, only 480 initial layouts are of independent significance due to
    symmetry ("mirroring"). Nevertheless, 480 books can still be quite a
    handful! :)

    >
    > I know already at least 1 chess960 engine which does have 960 books now.

    Which one is it? Are the books strictly computer-generated? If not, how
    strong or important was the human contribution to the effort?

    >
    > So several wont be searching from scratch.

    I hope so! :)

    >
    > Chess960 is not different in that respect from computerviewpoint. Only for
    > humans it's hard to remember all that.

    Agreed.

    >
    > Computers have a huge advantage therefore in chess960, when the chess
    > variation would be practiced at a professional level.

    I wish some of the heavy-hitters around here would comment! :)


    Respectfully,

    Major Cat
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

    Error Flink wrote:
    >
    > Good point. But comps have a bigger advantage in Chess960 compared to
    > classic chess even without books, just because of the tactical
    > superiority.

    See below.

    > There was a 960 match Tiger versus GM Rogozenko which has shown this.
    > He lost the match although he even had a (slower) computer to support
    > him, in some of the games.

    Which Tiger was this? Did it play without any books? What were the time
    controls?

    >
    > Tactics is the main thing in chess. Strategy can't compensate much
    > anymore when you've lost a piece. So, the human has to calculate very
    > carefully from the beginning. He loses a big part of his opening
    > performance which in classic chess comes from theory and preparation,
    > while for the engine it's just usual business and it can unleash the
    > computational power.

    Let me see if I understand this. Are you saying that chess-playing
    computers at present would have trounced GMs at classical chess but for
    the GMs' *deep* book knowledge that *protects* them from committing serious
    *tactical* errors in the opening phase of the game? If so, under Chess960,
    possessing no "true-and-tried" book knowledge, GMs would be at a serious
    *tactical* disadvantage having no longer such *protection* available to
    them? Are my conjectures correct?

    Respectfully,

    Major Cat
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

    > Computers have a huge advantage therefore in chess960, when the chess
    >> variation would be practiced at a professional level.
    >
    >I wish some of the heavy-hitters around here would comment! :)


    I don't consider myself to be a "heavy hitter"...but I'll take a swing
    at commeting on Chess960.

    At last. At last we're finally starting to see some REAL chess played.
    I'm sick and tired of so called "GM's" with all their book knowledge
    and their snotty attitudes towards others who can't keep up. Well, I'd
    love to see these arrogant SOBs take on chess software programs using
    Chess960! Now we'll really see if these people are deserving their
    haughty ways.

    Because I've NEVER subscribed to the belief that studying opening
    theory equals chess knowledge. If anything...it makes me think they're
    only "copying" from past masters who've studied and tested lines
    before current GM's were even born! I'd love to see Anand take on ANY
    chess program using Chess960. If Anand is so good...he should have
    absolutely NO problem whipping them in Chess960. But is that going to
    happen? I doubt it. Because I've read remarks that Anand and others
    MEMORIZE lines that guarantee them DRAWS. And this is in classical
    chess! I think that's disgusting.

    I think it's cowardice that's preventing these GM's from taking on
    former World Champion Bobby Fischer and his challenge to play
    Chess960. They're afraid to LOSE! Wow..now THERES a concept. They're
    quaking in FEAR from the prospect of being without their precious
    knowledge of all their pretty variations.

    Getting back to Chess960...I would applaud any result showing these
    GM's HUMILIATED at Chess960 against computers. As far as I'm
    concerned...such a sorry result by a GM would be justice meted out for
    their arrogance in assuming their superiority because of their "book
    knowledge" in classical chess.

    A perfect example is using Kramnik. Here's the current World Champion
    who's always beaten GM Judit Polgar...he did so again at Sofia,
    Bulgaria. But does that mean Judit Polgar is not on the same level as
    Kramnik and therefore not deserving a shot at the World Championship?
    Hardly. Judit Polgar is probably just as strong as anyone in the top
    10. I believe it's Kramnik's "superior" knowledge of opeing theory
    that's gotten him his current plus score against Judit Polgar.
    Now...let's take away Kramnik's "book knowledge" of opening theory in
    classical chess and throw him into a Chess960 match with Judit Polgar!
    The result of such a match wouldn't be so "lopsided" anymore to say
    the least. GM Judit Polgar would finally be able to unleash her
    tactical fury at Kramnik and beat him.

    That's the genious of Chess960. It ditches opeing theory from
    classical chess at one stroke...and forcing GM's to start from
    scratch. I'd gladly play Anand or anybody else in a game of Chess960
    where it's creativity, imagination and boldness counts far more than
    memorizing lines in classical chess.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc (More info?)

    > I don't consider myself to be a "heavy hitter"...but I'll take a swing
    > at commenting on Chess960.

    Thank you for taking the time to comment on a topic that seems to be of
    very little interest around here! :) However, if Variant Chess ever were
    to be viewed as a serious heresy rather than a harmless, idiosyncratic
    pasttime or preoccupation, well, better watch out; at a minimum, you
    would need to be fairly conversant with the ways of virtual...fire-
    fighting! :)

    > At last. At last we're finally starting to see some REAL chess played.
    > I'm sick and tired of so called "GM's" with all their book knowledge
    > and their snotty attitudes towards others who can't keep up. Well, I'd
    > love to see these arrogant SOBs take on chess software programs using
    > Chess960! Now we'll really see if these people are deserving their
    > haughty ways.

    > Because I've NEVER subscribed to the belief that studying opening
    > theory equals chess knowledge. If anything...it makes me think they're
    > only "copying" from past masters who've studied and tested lines
    > before current GM's were even born! I'd love to see Anand take on ANY
    > chess program using Chess960. If Anand is so good...he should have
    > absolutely NO problem whipping them in Chess960. But is that going to
    > happen? I doubt it. Because I've read remarks that Anand and others
    > MEMORIZE lines that guarantee them DRAWS. And this is in classical
    > chess! I think that's disgusting.

    If I understand *official* Orthodox Chess correctly, GM's get their
    titles and ratings through *all-human* play. To this effect, GM's may
    be utilizing computers to assist them with such things as training,
    analysis and documentation but they do not *officially* compete against
    them, do they? If so, GM-level book knowledge and, presumably, GMs'
    "snotty attitudes" and "haughty ways" are confined to the all-human
    play arena. In other words, the "others who can't keep up" are mere
    ....mortals, not computers! :) In the foregoing sense, *official*
    Orthodox Chess is something of a gladiatorial sport requiring that
    *all* gladiators be...human. GM bravado, if any, is of a gladiatorial
    nature. Memorizing and, hopefully, understanding opening lines have
    proven useful to GMs as per the historical evolution of *official*
    Orthodox Chess. You may want to think of it as a gladiatorial combat
    tool or technique the mastery of which seems to be *empirically* in-
    dispensable for anyone aspiring to become GM. It is the iron-clad
    framework within which gladiatorial combat takes place that is the
    "culprit" here...

    The above notwithstanding, *official* Orthodox Chess encompassing
    *man-machine* play seems to be a very fruitful and multifaceted topic
    to reflect upon and discuss on an ongoing basis. I also suspect that
    the case for Variant Chess may be more cogently made on the basis of
    the understanding and clarification that such reflection/discussion
    may contribute to. I would be very curious to see what kind of GM
    play one would witness within the context of *man-machine* play
    ("official" Orthodox or, jumping the gun a bit, Variant Chess) as
    time goes by...

    > I think it's cowardice that's preventing these GM's from taking on
    > former World Champion Bobby Fischer and his challenge to play
    > Chess960. They're afraid to LOSE! Wow..now THERES a concept. They're
    > quaking in FEAR from the prospect of being without their precious
    > knowledge of all their pretty variations.

    Please see below.

    > Getting back to Chess960...I would applaud any result showing these
    > GM's HUMILIATED at Chess960 against computers. As far as I'm
    > concerned...such a sorry result by a GM would be justice meted out for
    > their arrogance in assuming their superiority because of their "book
    > knowledge" in classical chess.

    Please see above.

    > A perfect example is using Kramnik. Here's the current World Champion
    > who's always beaten GM Judit Polgar...he did so again at Sofia,
    > Bulgaria. But does that mean Judit Polgar is not on the same level as
    > Kramnik and therefore not deserving a shot at the World Championship?
    > Hardly. Judit Polgar is probably just as strong as anyone in the top
    > 10. I believe it's Kramnik's "superior" knowledge of opeing theory
    > that's gotten him his current plus score against Judit Polgar.
    > Now...let's take away Kramnik's "book knowledge" of opening theory in
    > classical chess and throw him into a Chess960 match with Judit Polgar!
    > The result of such a match wouldn't be so "lopsided" anymore to say
    > the least. GM Judit Polgar would finally be able to unleash her
    > tactical fury at Kramnik and beat him.

    > That's the genious of Chess960. It ditches opeing theory from
    > classical chess at one stroke...and forcing GM's to start from
    > scratch. I'd gladly play Anand or anybody else in a game of Chess960
    > where it's creativity, imagination and boldness counts far more than
    > memorizing lines in classical chess.

    I am very glad that you raised the topic of *all-human* Variant Chess
    play as distinct from *man-machine* Orthodox/Variant Chess play. Your
    emphasis seems to be on GM-level play. Is this intentional? What about
    the rest of chess players around the world? I mean, what is in Variant
    Chess (e.g., Chess960) for them? In any case, the *all-human* play
    dimension calls for rec.games.chess.analysis and rec.games.chess.misc
    potential involvement, right? :)

    Respectfully,

    Major Cat
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

    (snipped)
    >
    >I am very glad that you raised the topic of *all-human* Variant Chess
    >play as distinct from *man-machine* Orthodox/Variant Chess play. Your
    >emphasis seems to be on GM-level play. Is this intentional? What about
    >the rest of chess players around the world? I mean, what is in Variant
    >Chess (e.g., Chess960) for them? In any case, the *all-human* play
    >dimension calls for rec.games.chess.analysis and rec.games.chess.misc
    >potential involvement, right? :)
    >
    >Respectfully,
    >
    >Major Cat

    Yes, I'm advocating all human Chess960 per se. Forget about human vs.
    computer at Chess960. I can tell you from personal experience that in
    Chess960 against computers...humans would be crushed in less than 35
    moves. I got checkmated in 38 moves. Below is a sample kind of game.

    [Event "Blitz:5'+10""]
    [Site "Alberich's Computer"]
    [Date "2005.06.05"]
    [Round "?"]
    [White "Alberich"]
    [Black "Junior 9"]
    [Result "0-1"]
    [Annotator "Junior9"]
    [SetUp "1"]
    [FEN "kqnrnbbr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/KQNRNBBR w - - 0 1"]
    [PlyCount "68"]
    [TimeControl "300+10"]

    {Shuffle-Position 415} 1. g3 Ned6 2. Bg2 f5 3. f4 Nb6 4. d4 Bd5 5. Nf3
    c6 6.Nd3 Ne4 7. Qc1 d6 8. Ng5 Nxg5 9. Bxd5 cxd5 10. fxg5 Rc8 11. Nf4
    Qc7 12. c3 Qc6 13. Rd3 g6 14. Ne6 Qd7 15. Nf4 Qb5 16. b3 Bg7 17. Ne6
    Rhg8 18. Qe3 a5 19. Bf2 a4 20. Rb1 Qa5 21. b4 Qb5 22. Qf3 Qd7 23. Nf4
    e6 24. h4 Nc4 25. h5 Qe8 26. Rh1 a3 27. hxg6 hxg6 28. g4 e5 29. dxe5
    dxe5 30. Nxd5 e4 31. Nb6+ Nxb6 32. Bxb6 exf3 33. exf3 Qe2 34. Rhd1
    Qb2# 0-1

    Now, this is ONLY shuffle chess without Fischer Random
    rules...currently Chessbase's line of chess software can't play
    Fischer Random. Hopefully this will be addressed in Fritz 9, scheduled
    to be released in October of this year.

    But given the kind of chess we can expect to see using the above
    example...I think chess needs variety to keep people's interest. Even
    casual observers of the game say it's all memory. To a certain
    extent...they're correct. It's all about memorizing variations that
    guarantee you a draw at least...assuming your opponent knows the same
    line. This is not chess. It's people remembering lines they've studied
    at home and playing them out on over the board.

    It's time to move onto Fischer Random chess or Chess960. The beauty of
    Chess960 is that neither side has an advantage over the other player.
    Both sides are in the dark about which move to play. This allows
    original, creative chess that Bobby Fischer is trying to show the
    world. He is truly ahead of his time in this respect. Now, I would
    LOVE to see what Kramnik would say about a hypothetical match with
    Judit Polgar using Chess960.

    To say the least...this suggestion would put him on the spot. If he
    refuses...it would make him look like he's trying to avoid playing
    something new and interesting. I can't imagine Judit Polgar refusing
    such a challenge because she would have absolutely nothing to lose by
    accepting to play Kramnik in Chess960. So mentally, GM Judit Polgar
    would have the advantage here. Now here's something else I've learned
    in Shuffle Chess variants. I've noticed that the second player...the
    one who plays Black no longer has to be on the defensive from the get
    go. In fact, it's better to play Black than White in Shuffle Chess
    because you can immediately respond to mistakes by White.

    Gone is the adage of White's first move guarantee's him a win. Shuffle
    chess throws this out on it's ear.

    Now I believe Chess960's real threat to professional chess players
    involves their livelihood in teaching chess. With Chess960, there's no
    need for chess teachers to train players in variations anymore. Gone.
    All those books in opening theory...gone. I would LOVE to hear GM Mark
    Dvoretsky's response to Chess960 as he's a very well respected GM
    player, coach and chess author. To put it bluntly...Chess960 would put
    chess teachers and trainers out of business. Without opening theiory
    knowledge necessary in Fischer Random Chess...all those monthly
    articles in various online and print journals becomes worthless.

    I've been curious as to why GM Susan Polgar for instance...isn't using
    Chess960 as a training tool while she's promoting chess in the US. She
    was taught by Bobby Fischer himself on Fischer Random and still she
    hasn't stated her official position on this new form of chess. Why? I
    can't presume to know why because I'm sure GM Susan Polgar is very
    busy promoting Classical chess wherever she goes...and perhaps she
    doesn't want to "confuse" people with this new form. But I'm
    definitely sure that GM Susan Polgar is in the best position of all
    chess players in the US to promote this variant...and she probably
    knows it. She recently played 3 games in Fischer Random against former
    World Champion Anatoly Karpov in Kansas. I believe if more GM's could
    publically support this variant without being ridiculed...then Fischer
    Random chess would start to be taken more seriously.

    Until then...i believe the best bet is for knowledgable chess
    journalists to put the heat on these GM' stars like Anand, Topolov,
    Ponomariov, Radjabov and even women chess players now like Katya
    Lahno, Alexandria Kosteniuk, and Antoneata Stefanova and aggressively
    ask them questions about Fischer Random Chess and its future. The more
    we hear about Fischer Random...the better it will be for chess'
    future.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc (More info?)

    Alberich@somewhere.com wrote:
    >
    > Yes, I'm advocating all human Chess960 per se. Forget about human vs.
    > computer at Chess960. I can tell you from personal experience that in
    > Chess960 against computers...humans would be crushed in less than 35
    > moves. I got checkmated in 38 moves. Below is a sample kind of game.
    >
    > [Event "Blitz:5'+10""]
    > [Site "Alberich's Computer"]
    > [Date "2005.06.05"]
    > [Round "?"]
    > [White "Alberich"]
    > [Black "Junior 9"]
    > [Result "0-1"]
    > [Annotator "Junior9"]
    > [SetUp "1"]
    > [FEN "kqnrnbbr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/KQNRNBBR w - - 0 1"]
    > [PlyCount "68"]
    > [TimeControl "300+10"]
    >
    > {Shuffle-Position 415} 1. g3 Ned6 2. Bg2 f5 3. f4 Nb6 4. d4 Bd5 5. Nf3
    > c6 6.Nd3 Ne4 7. Qc1 d6 8. Ng5 Nxg5 9. Bxd5 cxd5 10. fxg5 Rc8 11. Nf4
    > Qc7 12. c3 Qc6 13. Rd3 g6 14. Ne6 Qd7 15. Nf4 Qb5 16. b3 Bg7 17. Ne6
    > Rhg8 18. Qe3 a5 19. Bf2 a4 20. Rb1 Qa5 21. b4 Qb5 22. Qf3 Qd7 23. Nf4
    > e6 24. h4 Nc4 25. h5 Qe8 26. Rh1 a3 27. hxg6 hxg6 28. g4 e5 29. dxe5
    > dxe5 30. Nxd5 e4 31. Nb6+ Nxb6 32. Bxb6 exf3 33. exf3 Qe2 34. Rhd1
    > Qb2# 0-1
    >
    > Now, this is ONLY shuffle chess without Fischer Random
    > rules...currently Chessbase's line of chess software can't play
    > Fischer Random. Hopefully this will be addressed in Fritz 9, scheduled
    > to be released in October of this year.

    Given the results of the recent Adams-Hydra games, GMs may be faced
    with formidable opposition even in Classical/Orthodox FIDE OTB chess...

    > I think chess needs variety to keep people's interest. Even
    > casual observers of the game say it's all memory. To a certain
    > extent...they're correct. It's all about memorizing variations that
    > guarantee you a draw at least...assuming your opponent knows the same
    > line. This is not chess. It's people remembering lines they've studied
    > at home and playing them out on over the board.
    >
    > It's time to move onto Fischer Random chess or Chess960. The beauty of
    > Chess960 is that neither side has an advantage over the other player.
    > Both sides are in the dark about which move to play. This allows
    > original, creative chess that Bobby Fischer is trying to show the
    > world. He is truly ahead of his time in this respect.

    For the overwhelming majority of chess players, Classical/Orthodox FIDE
    OTB chess seems to entail an inexhaustible supply of challenges and sur-
    prises. Serious, in depth memorization of opening lines seems to be out
    of the question...:) Having said this, Variant Chess may very well be
    what the doctor ordered for misplaced emphasis for most of us. Namely,
    by removing opening line memorization from the mixture, many a chess
    player would become better at middle game and endgame tactics! Ironical-
    ly, this may prove to be quite a boon for Classical/Orthodox FIDE OTB
    chess as well...:)

    > Now, I would
    > LOVE to see what Kramnik would say about a hypothetical match with
    > Judit Polgar using Chess960.
    >
    > To say the least...this suggestion would put him on the spot. If he
    > refuses...it would make him look like he's trying to avoid playing
    > something new and interesting. I can't imagine Judit Polgar refusing
    > such a challenge because she would have absolutely nothing to lose by
    > accepting to play Kramnik in Chess960. So mentally, GM Judit Polgar
    > would have the advantage here.

    Yes, beautiful tactics *are* pleasing both intellectually and aesthetical-
    ly. The "games" would be something to behold...

    > Now here's something else I've learned
    > in Shuffle Chess variants. I've noticed that the second player...the
    > one who plays Black no longer has to be on the defensive from the get
    > go. In fact, it's better to play Black than White in Shuffle Chess
    > because you can immediately respond to mistakes by White.
    >
    > Gone is the adage of White's first move guarantee's him a win. Shuffle
    > chess throws this out on it's ear.

    I am willing to bet that this issue will not be settled in our century! :)

    > Now I believe Chess960's real threat to professional chess players
    > involves their livelihood in teaching chess. With Chess960, there's no
    > need for chess teachers to train players in variations anymore. Gone.
    > All those books in opening theory...gone. I would LOVE to hear GM Mark
    > Dvoretsky's response to Chess960 as he's a very well respected GM
    > player, coach and chess author. To put it bluntly...Chess960 would put
    > chess teachers and trainers out of business. Without opening theiory
    > knowledge necessary in Fischer Random Chess...all those monthly
    > articles in various online and print journals becomes worthless.
    This presupposes that Variant Chess would totally displace Classical/
    Orthodox FIDE OTB chess at the highest levels. It would be an uphill
    struggle...

    > I've been curious as to why GM Susan Polgar for instance...isn't using
    > Chess960 as a training tool while she's promoting chess in the US. She
    > was taught by Bobby Fischer himself on Fischer Random and still she
    > hasn't stated her official position on this new form of chess. Why? I
    > can't presume to know why because I'm sure GM Susan Polgar is very
    > busy promoting Classical chess wherever she goes...and perhaps she
    > doesn't want to "confuse" people with this new form. But I'm
    > definitely sure that GM Susan Polgar is in the best position of all
    > chess players in the US to promote this variant...and she probably
    > knows it. She recently played 3 games in Fischer Random against former
    > World Champion Anatoly Karpov in Kansas. I believe if more GM's could
    > publically support this variant without being ridiculed...then Fischer
    > Random chess would start to be taken more seriously.
    >
    > Until then...i believe the best bet is for knowledgable chess
    > journalists to put the heat on these GM' stars like Anand, Topolov,
    > Ponomariov, Radjabov and even women chess players now like Katya
    > Lahno, Alexandria Kosteniuk, and Antoneata Stefanova and aggressively
    > ask them questions about Fischer Random Chess and its future. The more
    > we hear about Fischer Random...the better it will be for chess'
    > future.

    I agree that such a "top down" approach would be necessary. However,
    would it be sufficient? I mean, should not pressure come from the "grass
    roots" as well? At a minimum, chess enthusiasts may want to impress upon
    the "chessic gladiators" that they would like the "games" to become more...
    spectacular! It is the roar of the crowd and not necessarily the emperor...

    Regards

    Major Cat
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Programming Computers Games Video Games