Python-Chess Release 1.6.1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The 12Th Top Chess Engine Championship
TCEC12: the 12th Top Chess Engine Championship Article Accepted Version Haworth, G. and Hernandez, N. (2019) TCEC12: the 12th Top Chess Engine Championship. ICGA Journal, 41 (1). pp. 24-30. ISSN 1389-6911 doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/ICG-190090 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/76985/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ICG-190090 Publisher: The International Computer Games Association All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online TCEC12: the 12th Top Chess Engine Championship Guy Haworth and Nelson Hernandez1 Reading, UK and Maryland, USA After the successes of TCEC Season 11 (Haworth and Hernandez, 2018a; TCEC, 2018), the Top Chess Engine Championship moved straight on to Season 12, starting April 18th 2018 with the same divisional structure if somewhat evolved. Five divisions, each of eight engines, played two or more ‘DRR’ double round robin phases each, with promotions and relegations following. Classic tempi gradually lengthened and the Premier division’s top two engines played a 100-game match to determine the Grand Champion. The strategy for the selection of mandated openings was finessed from division to division. -
1999/6 Layout
Virginia Chess Newsletter 1999 - #6 1 The Chesapeake Challenge Cup is a rotating club team trophy that grew out of an informal rivalry between two Maryland clubs a couple years ago. Since Chesapeake then the competition has opened up and the Arlington Chess Club captured the cup from the Fort Meade Chess Armory on October 15, 1999, defeating the 1 1 Challenge Cup erstwhile cup holders 6 ⁄2-5 ⁄2. The format for the Chesapeake Cup is still evolving but in principle the idea is that a defense should occur about once every six months, and any team from the “Chesapeake Bay drainage basin” is eligible to issue a challenge. “Choosing the challenger is a rather informal process,” explained Kurt Eschbach, one of the Chesapeake Cup's founding fathers. “Whoever speaks up first with a credible bid gets to challenge, except that we will give preference to a club that has never played for the Cup over one that has already played.” To further encourage broad participation, the match format calls for each team to field players of varying strength. The basic formula stipulates a 12-board match between teams composed of two Masters (no limit), two Expert, and two each from classes A, B, C & D. The defending team hosts the match and plays White on odd-numbered boards. It is possible that a particular challenge could include additional type boards (juniors, seniors, women, etc) by mutual agreement between the clubs. Clubs interested in coming to Arlington around April, 2000 to try to wrest away the Chesapeake Cup should call Dan Fuson at (703) 532-0192 or write him at 2834 Rosemary Ln, Falls Church VA 22042. -
Assignment2 Grading Criteria
Assignment 2 - Grading Criteria 1. GUI (10 points) The GUI of the program has to contain the following elements: 1.1 Chess board and HelpÆAbout menu item (1 point) The GUI has to include a chess board and a HelpÆAbout menu item, which is used to show a window (form) with the version of the application and some additional information about the program (e.g. your name). Note: This dialog is used to test the responsiveness of the GUI for the multithreading task. 1.2 Area for captured pieces (1 point) The GUI has to include an area to display the captured pieces. 1.3 History list (1 point) The GUI has to include a history list that shows the moves of both players. These moves have to be represented in the algebraic notation. Note: Take a look at the link provided in assignment1.pdf to check the algebraic notation format. 1.4 Command buttons (1 point) The GUI has to include three buttons: Redo, Undo and Reset. 1.5 Menu item FileÆNew and Reset button (1 point) The FileÆNew command and the reset button have to set the board to the initial positions. I.e. to the standard starting position in chess. 1.6 Menu item FileÆLoad (1 point) This command displays an open-file dialog box for loading a Forsyth file. The program shall then calculate the next move of the black player and render the result on the board. Note: This command has the same purpose as the loading operation of the previous assignment. Instead of printing the result in a file, you have to render it on the board. -
White Knight Review Chess E-Magazine January/February - 2012 Table of Contents
Chess E-Magazine Interactive E-Magazine Volume 3 • Issue 1 January/February 2012 Chess Gambits Chess Gambits The Immortal Game Canada and Chess Anderssen- Vs. -Kieseritzky Bill Wall’s Top 10 Chess software programs C Seraphim Press White Knight Review Chess E-Magazine January/February - 2012 Table of Contents Editorial~ “My Move” 4 contents Feature~ Chess and Canada 5 Article~ Bill Wall’s Top 10 Software Programs 9 INTERACTIVE CONTENT ________________ Feature~ The Incomparable Kasparov 10 • Click on title in Table of Contents Article~ Chess Variants 17 to move directly to Unorthodox Chess Variations page. • Click on “White Feature~ Proof Games 21 Knight Review” on the top of each page to return to ARTICLE~ The Immortal Game 22 Table of Contents. Anderssen Vrs. Kieseritzky • Click on red type to continue to next page ARTICLE~ News Around the World 24 • Click on ads to go to their websites BOOK REVIEW~ Kasparov on Kasparov Pt. 1 25 • Click on email to Pt.One, 1973-1985 open up email program Feature~ Chess Gambits 26 • Click up URLs to go to websites. ANNOTATED GAME~ Bareev Vs. Kasparov 30 COMMENTARY~ “Ask Bill” 31 White Knight Review January/February 2012 White Knight Review January/February 2012 Feature My Move Editorial - Jerry Wall [email protected] Well it has been over a year now since we started this publication. It is not easy putting together a 32 page magazine on chess White Knight every couple of months but it certainly has been rewarding (maybe not so Review much financially but then that really never was Chess E-Magazine the goal). -
Altogether Now in My Decades of Playing Sub-Optimal Chess, I Have
Altogether now In my decades of playing sub-optimal chess, I have been given several pieces of advice about how best to play simultaneous chess. I have faced several grandmasters over the board in simuls and tried to adopt these tips, but with very little success. In fact, no success. One suggestion was to tactically muddy the waters. The theory being if you play a closed positional game the GM (or whoever is giving the simul) will easily overcome you end in the end with their superior technique. On the other hand, although they are, of course, much better than you tactically if they have 20 odd other boards to focus on, effectively playing their moves at a rate akin to blitz, there is a chance they might slip up and give you some winning chances when faced with a messy position. This is fine in theory and may work well for those players stronger then myself who are adept at tactics but my record of my games shows a whopping nil points for me with this approach. In fact, I have found the opposite to be true. I am pleased to report that I have achieved a couple of draws from playing a completely blocked stagnant position. The key here has been to try to make the games last sufficiently long so that in the end then GM kindly offers you a draw in a desperate attempt to get his last bus home. Although loathsome this is when you want as many of those horrible creatures who play on when they are a rook and a bishop down with no compensation (or similar) to keep on playing against the GM. -
FIDE Laws of Chess
FIDE Laws of Chess FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play. The Laws of Chess have two parts: 1. Basic Rules of Play and 2. Competition Rules. The English text is the authentic version of the Laws of Chess (which was adopted at the 84th FIDE Congress at Tallinn (Estonia) coming into force on 1 July 2014. In these Laws the words ‘he’, ‘him’, and ‘his’ shall be considered to include ‘she’ and ‘her’. PREFACE The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view. A necessary condition for a game to be rated by FIDE is that it shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess. It is recommended that competitive games not rated by FIDE be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess. Member federations may ask FIDE to give a ruling on matters relating to the Laws of Chess. BASIC RULES OF PLAY Article 1: The nature and objectives of the game of chess 1.1 The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces on a square board called a ‘chessboard’. -
Solved Openings in Losing Chess
1 Solved Openings in Losing Chess Mark Watkins, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney 1. INTRODUCTION Losing Chess is a chess variant where each player tries to lose all one’s pieces. As the naming of “Giveaway” variants has multiple schools of terminology, we state for definiteness that captures are compulsory (a player with multiple captures chooses which to make), a King can be captured like any other piece, Pawns can promote to Kings, and castling is not legal. There are competing rulesets for stalemate: International Rules give the win to the player on move, while FICS (Free Internet Chess Server) Rules gives the win to the player with fewer pieces (and a draw if equal). Gameplay under these rulesets is typically quite similar.1 Unless otherwise stated, we consider the “joint” FICS/International Rules, where a stalemate is a draw unless it is won under both rulesets. There does not seem to be a canonical place for information about Losing Chess. The ICGA webpage [H] has a number of references (notably [Li]) and is a reasonable historical source, though the page is quite old and some of the links are broken. Similarly, there exist a number of piecemeal Internet sites (I found the most useful ones to be [F1], [An], and [La]), but again some of these have not been touched in 5-10 years. Much of the information was either outdated or tangential to our aim of solving openings (in particular responses to 1. e3), We started our work in late 2011. The long-term goal was to weakly solve the game, presumably by showing that 1. -
FIDE CANDIDATES TOURNAMENT 2020 Chief Arbiter's Information
FIDE CANDIDATES TOURNAMENT 2020 Yekaterinburg, Russia, 16th March – 5th April 2020 Chief Arbiter’s information Date: The FIDE Candidates Tournament 2020 takes place in Yekaterinburg (Russia) fro m 16th March until 5 th April. Tournament Venue: The playing hall is located in the Hyatt Regency Hotel (second floor), Bo risa Yeltsina Street 8, Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Oblast, Russia, 620014. Format & System: The 8 players play a double round robin tournament (14 rounds). The winner qualifies fo r the 2020 FIDE World Chess Championship Match. Pairings and draw of colors: The draw for pairings and colors was made in the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation in Moscow, with the presence of the FIDE President, Mr. Arkady Dvorkovich. The participants have the following starting numbers: SNo. Name IRtg FED 1 GM Vachier-Lagrave Maxime 2767 FRA 2 GM Ding Liren 2805 CHN 3 GM Giri Anish 2763 NED 4 GM Grischuk Alexander 2777 RUS 5 GM Alekseenko Kirill 2698 RUS 6 GM Nepomniachtchi Ian 2774 RUS 7 GM Wang Hao 2762 CHN 8 GM Caruana Fabiano 2842 USA Note: Teimour Radjabov (SNo.1) is replaced by Maxime Vachier-Lagrave. Pairings: Round 1 SNo. Name Rtg Res. Name Rtg SNo. 1 GM Vac hier-Lagrave Maxime 2767 - GM Caruana Fabiano 2842 8 2 GM Ding Liren 2805 - GM Wang Hao 2762 7 3 GM Giri Anish 2763 - GM Nepomniachtchi Ian 2774 6 4 GM Grischuk Alexander 2777 - GM Alekseenko Kirill 2698 5 Round 2 SNo. Name Rtg Res. Name Rtg SNo. 8 GM Caruana Fabiano 2842 - GM Alekseenko Kirill 2698 5 6 GM Nepomniachtchi Ian 2774 - GM Grischuk Alexander 2777 4 7 GM Wang Hao 2762 - GM Giri Anish 2763 3 1 GM Vac hier-Lagrave Maxime 2767 - GM Ding Liren 2805 2 Round 3 SNo. -
Learning to Play Chess Using Temporal Differences
Machine Learning, 40, 243–263, 2000 c 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands. Learning to Play Chess Using Temporal Differences JONATHAN BAXTER [email protected] Department of Systems Engineering, Australian National University 0200, Australia ANDREW TRIDGELL [email protected] LEX WEAVER [email protected] Department of Computer Science, Australian National University 0200, Australia Editor: Sridhar Mahadevan Abstract. In this paper we present TDLEAF(), a variation on the TD() algorithm that enables it to be used in conjunction with game-tree search. We present some experiments in which our chess program “KnightCap” used TDLEAF() to learn its evaluation function while playing on Internet chess servers. The main success we report is that KnightCap improved from a 1650 rating to a 2150 rating in just 308 games and 3 days of play. As a reference, a rating of 1650 corresponds to about level B human play (on a scale from E (1000) to A (1800)), while 2150 is human master level. We discuss some of the reasons for this success, principle among them being the use of on-line, rather than self-play. We also investigate whether TDLEAF() can yield better results in the domain of backgammon, where TD() has previously yielded striking success. Keywords: temporal difference learning, neural network, TDLEAF, chess, backgammon 1. Introduction Temporal Difference learning, first introduced by Samuel (Samuel, 1959) and later extended and formalized by Sutton (Sutton, 1988) in his TD() algorithm, is an elegant technique for approximating the expected long term future cost (or cost-to-go) of a stochastic dy- namical system as a function of the current state. -
Chess Engine Using Deep Reinforcement Learning Kamil Klosowski
Chess Engine Using Deep Reinforcement Learning Kamil Klosowski 916847 May 2019 Abstract Reinforcement learning is one of the most rapidly developing areas of Artificial Intelligence. The goal of this project is to analyse, implement and try to improve on AlphaZero architecture presented by Google DeepMind team. To achieve this I explore different architectures and methods of training neural networks as well as techniques used for development of chess engines. Project Dissertation submitted to Swansea University in Partial Fulfilment for the Degree of Bachelor of Science Department of Computer Science Swansea University Declaration This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being currently submitted for any degree. May 13, 2019 Signed: Statement 1 This dissertation is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of a BSc in Computer Science. May 13, 2019 Signed: Statement 2 This dissertation is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are specifically acknowledged by clear cross referencing to author, work, and pages using the bibliography/references. I understand that fail- ure to do this amounts to plagiarism and will be considered grounds for failure of this dissertation and the degree examination as a whole. May 13, 2019 Signed: Statement 3 I hereby give consent for my dissertation to be available for photocopying and for inter- library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. May 13, 2019 Signed: 1 Acknowledgment I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Benjamin Mora for supervising this project and his respect and understanding of my preference for largely unsupervised work. -
57 New Year's Ride to the Normal
TTHHEE PPUUZZZZLLIINNGG SSIIDDEE OOFF CCHHEESSSS Jeff Coakley A NEW YEAR’S RIDE TO THE NORMAL SIDE number 57 December 28, 2013 For many players, the holiday season is associated with unusual chess problems. The Puzzling Side of Chess takes the opposite approach. To celebrate the end of each year, we cross over, for a brief moment in time, to “the normal side of chess”. As described in our first holiday column (21), normal chess means direct mates, endgame studies, and game positions. So here, for your New Year’s entertainment, is a selection of twelve standard problems. Cheers, everyone! Happy New Year from the Chess Cafe! Let’s begin our journey into the world of chess normalcy with a simple mate in two. Then we’ll gradually work our way up to the harder stuff. 1 w________w áwdwHkdwd] àdwIw)wdw] ßwdwdwGwd] Þdwdwdwdw] Ýwdwdwdwd] Üdwdwdwdw] Ûwdwdwdwd] Údwdw$wdw] wÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈw White to mate in 2 Miniature problems, with seven pieces or less, have always been a favourite of mine, especially mates in two. Positions with eight to twelve pieces, like the one below, are known as merediths. The name honours American composer William Meredith (1835-1903) of Philadelphia. 2 w________w áwdkdwdwd] àdwdRdNHw] ßwdwdwdwd] ÞdPdwIwdw] ÝwdwdwdBd] ÜdwdwdwGw] Ûwdwdwdwd] Údwdwdwdw] wÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈw White to mate in 2 In the first two puzzles, the only black piece was the king. Samuel Loyd, in his book Chess Strategy (1878), called such positions “intimidated king problems”. The black king is not intimidated in the next mate in two. In fact, the black forces outnumber the white. Sam Loyd had these two things to say about his composition: “This problem is especially constructed to give a deceptive appearance to mislead the solver ...” “To amateur solvers, .. -
Elo World, a Framework for Benchmarking Weak Chess Engines
Elo World, a framework for with a rating of 2000). If the true outcome (of e.g. a benchmarking weak chess tournament) doesn’t match the expected outcome, then both player’s scores are adjusted towards values engines that would have produced the expected result. Over time, scores thus become a more accurate reflection DR. TOM MURPHY VII PH.D. of players’ skill, while also allowing for players to change skill level. This system is carefully described CCS Concepts: • Evaluation methodologies → Tour- elsewhere, so we can just leave it at that. naments; • Chess → Being bad at it; The players need not be human, and in fact this can facilitate running many games and thereby getting Additional Key Words and Phrases: pawn, horse, bishop, arbitrarily accurate ratings. castle, queen, king The problem this paper addresses is that basically ACH Reference Format: all chess tournaments (whether with humans or com- Dr. Tom Murphy VII Ph.D.. 2019. Elo World, a framework puters or both) are between players who know how for benchmarking weak chess engines. 1, 1 (March 2019), to play chess, are interested in winning their games, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/nnnnnnn.nnnnnnn and have some reasonable level of skill. This makes 1 INTRODUCTION it hard to give a rating to weak players: They just lose every single game and so tend towards a rating Fiddly bits aside, it is a solved problem to maintain of −∞.1 Even if other comparatively weak players a numeric skill rating of players for some game (for existed to participate in the tournament and occasion- example chess, but also sports, e-sports, probably ally lose to the player under study, it may still be dif- also z-sports if that’s a thing).