DOCSLIB.ORG

The SSDF Chess Engine Rating List, 2019-02

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The SSDF Chess Engine Rating List, 2019-02 Article Accepted Version The SSDF long list Sandin, L. and Haworth, G. (2019) The SSDF Chess Engine Rating List, 2019-02. ICGA Journal, 41 (2). 113. ISSN 1389- 6911 doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/ICG-190107 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/82675/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . Published version at: https://doi.org/10.3233/ICG-190085 To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ICG-190107 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 THE SSDF RATING LIST 2019-02-28 148673 games played by 377 computers Rating + - Games Won Oppo ------ --- --- ----- --- ---- 1 Stockfish 9 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3494 32 -30 642 74% 3308 2 Komodo 12.3 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3456 30 -28 640 68% 3321 3 Stockfish 9 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3446 50 -48 200 57% 3396 4 Stockfish 8 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3432 26 -24 1059 77% 3217 5 Stockfish 8 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3418 38 -35 440 72% 3251 6 Komodo 11.01 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3397 23 -22 1134 72% 3229 7 Deep Shredder 13 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3360 25 -24 830 66% 3246 8 Booot 6.3.1 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3352 29 -29 560 54% 3319 9 Komodo 9.1 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3340 21 -20 1435 72% 3175 10 Komodo 11.01 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3333 32 -31 482 55% 3300 11 Stockfish 6 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3326 22 -21 1216 68% 3192 12 Deep Shredder 13 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3296 24 -23 884 64% 3193 13 Booot 6.3.1 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3280 41 -39 320 64% 3179 14 Komodo 7 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3270 23 -23 974 65% 3160 15 Arasan 21.2 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3269 61 -68 127 35% 3375 16 Komodo 5.1 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3245 22 -22 1038 64% 3145 17 Deep Hiarcs 14 1800X 3.6 GHz 3219 26 -27 680 41% 3280 18 Wasp 3 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3218 27 -28 642 43% 3266 19 Stockfish 3 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3203 19 -18 1420 61% 3127 20 Deep Rybka 4 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3201 21 -20 1288 67% 3080 21 Deep Rybka 3 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3194 22 -21 1371 75% 3003 22 Deep Hiarcs 14 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3189 19 -18 1450 61% 3112 23 Chiron 3.01 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3180 27 -27 656 45% 3217 24 Wasp 2.01 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3159 26 -28 726 34% 3276 25 Naum 4.2 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3146 21 -21 1123 60% 3078 26 Deep Junior Yokohama x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3126 22 -22 1010 42% 3184 27 Naum 4 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3121 19 -18 1436 61% 3040 28 Deep Junior 13.3 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3116 19 -19 1290 50% 3119 29 Spike 1.4 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3108 15 -15 1951 52% 3092 30 Deep Shredder 12 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3104 18 -18 1507 62% 3016 31 Hiarcs 14 Athlon 1.2 GHz 3100 29 -29 560 55% 3065 32 Hiarcs 13.1 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3100 24 -23 868 56% 3055 33 Deep Hiarcs 13.2 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3098 23 -23 872 55% 3061 34 Deep Fritz 13 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3097 24 -24 826 55% 3064 35 The Baron 3.43 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3095 32 -35 538 27% 3265 36 Deep Fritz 12 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3091 20 -20 1200 55% 3055 37 Deep Rybka 3 Athlon 1.2 GHz 3071 36 -35 372 53% 3048 38 Deep Junior 12 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3070 20 -20 1198 57% 3017 39 Zappa Mexico II x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3066 20 -20 1146 51% 3058 40 Wasp 2.01 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3065 40 -46 404 20% 3302 41 Deep Fritz 11 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3060 18 -18 1504 62% 2976 42 Naum 3.1 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3053 20 -21 1122 45% 3091 43 Crafty 25 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3028 25 -26 804 35% 3134 44 The Baron 3.43 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3023 33 -33 440 51% 3019 45 Deep Hiarcs 12 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3018 18 -18 1507 52% 3003 46 Deep Shredder 11 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3015 20 -20 1128 50% 3014 47 Arasan 17.2 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3000 26 -26 686 46% 3029 48 Glaurung 2.2 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 2998 19 -19 1265 53% 2976 49 Naum 4 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2996 23 -24 876 40% 3066 50 Arasan 16 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 2991 27 -28 646 37% 3083 51 Hiarcs 11.2 Q6600 2.4 GHz 2990 20 -20 1125 47% 3008 52 Fritz 13 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2990 45 -41 280 65% 2881 53 Shredder 12 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2984 24 -25 840 35% 3094 54 Deep Junior 10.1 Q6600 2.4 GHz 2969 23 -23 886 46% 2997 55 Wasp 2.01 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2960 32 -31 480 55% 2924 56 Fritz 12 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2951 25 -24 820 63% 2860 57 Revelation 2 Hiarcs 14.1 PXA320 800 MHz 2924 47 -46 220 55% 2889 58 Rybka 2.3.1 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2922 20 -20 1182 46% 2951 59 Fritz 11 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2912 23 -24 853 42% 2968 60 Rybka 1.2 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2907 25 -24 933 70% 2761 61 Jonny 4 Q6600 2.4 GHz 2902 26 -28 740 30% 3047 62 Deep Fritz 8 Q6600 2.4 GHz 2900 21 -22 1069 36% 2999 63 Deep Shredder 11 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2897 28 -29 574 45% 2932 64 Shredder 8 Q6600 2.4 GHz 2889 23 -24 968 34% 3002 65 Hiarcs 11.1 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2876 21 -21 1077 45% 2912 66 Junior 10.1 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2867 17 -17 1633 40% 2935 67 Chessmaster King 3.5 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 2861 24 -25 932 30% 3009 68 Deep Junior 8 Q6600 2.4 GHz 2860 22 -23 1052 31% 2998 69 Fritz 10 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2845 34 -32 458 64% 2745 70 Junior 10 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2842 22 -21 1082 63% 2751 71 Zap!Chess Zanzibar Athlon 1.2 GHz 2835 19 -19 1340 49% 2844 72 Hiarcs 10 HyperModern Athlon 1.2 GHz 2834 20 -19 1416 69% 2699 73 Fruit 2.2.1 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2830 18 -18 1465 59% 2768 74 Pro Deo 2.1 YAT Athlon 1.2 GHz 2826 32 -31 480 57% 2780 75 Shredder 10 UCI Athlon 1.2 GHz 2825 20 -19 1246 58% 2769 76 Spike 1.2 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2819 22 -22 932 49% 2823 77 Fritz 9 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2815 16 -16 1787 49% 2819 78 Shredder 9 UCI Athlon 1.2 GHz 2812 20 -20 1280 66% 2700 79 Chess Tiger 2007 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2805 20 -21 1325 31% 2946 80 Shredder 8 CB Athlon 1.2 GHz 2800 21 -20 1245 65% 2693 81 Shredder 7.04 UCI Athlon 1.2 GHz 2795 21 -20 1269 66% 2683 82 Pro Deo 2 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2794 30 -30 520 46% 2822 83 P.Fritz 4 Naum 4.2 Ipaq 214 624 MHz 2784 50 -47 210 60% 2710 84 Junior 9 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2783 25 -24 868 63% 2687 85 Deep Fritz 8 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2781 21 -20 1144 62% 2696 86 Rybka 1 Beta K6-2 450 MHz 2775 64 -70 115 38% 2859 87 Revelation Hiarcs 13.3 PXA255 500 MHz 2772 57 -52 177 66% 2661 88 Junior 8 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2769 21 -21 1065 55% 2732 89 Shredder 7 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2766 26 -25 841 69% 2631 90 Pro Deo 1.82 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2765 29 -30 546 41% 2832 91 Deep Fritz 7 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2764 24 -23 938 65% 2656 92 Pro Deo 1.86 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2763 28 -29 600 37% 2854 93 Spike 1.1 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2762 30 -29 537 57% 2710 94 Deep Junior 8 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2755 27 -26 687 61% 2679 95 Fritz 8 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2754 19 -18 1413 58% 2700 96 P.Fritz 4 Hiarcs 13 PXA310 624 MHz 2752 54 -51 180 61% 2677 97 Zap!Chess Athlon 1.2 GHz 2740 26 -26 702 47% 2759 98 Fritz 7 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2738 27 -27 674 61% 2661 99 Hiarcs 9 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2738 17 -17 1562 47% 2760 100 Gandalf 6 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2733 22 -22 975 53% 2713 101 Gambit Tiger 2 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2725 24 -23 843 51% 2719 102 Chess Tiger 2004 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2725 21 -21 1088 52% 2708 103 Shredder 6 Paderborn UCI Athlon 1.2 GHz 2721 22 -21 1073 60% 2648 104 Chess Tiger 15 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2719 19 -19 1299 54% 2694 105 Chess Tiger 14 CB Athlon 1.2 GHz 2716 25 -25 757 55% 2683 106 Shredder 6 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2714 29 -28 587 60% 2645 107 Deep Fritz Athlon 1.2 GHz 2713 23 -23 871 51% 2710 108 Pro Deo 1.1 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2709 22 -22 956 55% 2672 109 P.Fritz 3 Hiarcs 12 PXA310 624 MHz 2706 45 -42 260 62% 2625 110 Chessmaster 9000 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2706 35 -34 396 54% 2677 111 Revelation Shredder 12 PXA255 500 MHz 2703 60 -58 140 56% 2663 112 Junior 7 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2697 20 -20 1128 50% 2698 113 Shredder 7 UCI K6-2 450 MHz 2691 24 -24 834 43% 2742 114 Pocket Shredder PXA310 624 MHz 2687 43 -42 260 56% 2648 115 Rebel 12 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2685 29 -29 566 51% 2680 116 Hiarcs 8 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2681 20 -20 1116 51% 2674 117 Ruffian 1.0.1 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2677 23 -23 896 48% 2693 118 Rebel Century 4 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2674 29 -28 590 60% 2605 119 Deep Sjeng 1.5a Athlon 1.2 GHz 2673 31 -31 493 52% 2661 120 Chess Tiger 15 K6-2 450 MHz 2670 24 -25 834 40% 2744 121 Shredder 5.32 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2663 22 -22 942 47% 2684 122 Deep Fritz 7 K6-2 450 MHz 2663 21 -21 1072 42% 2718 123 Gandalf 4.32h Athlon 1.2 GHz 2662 28 -28 604 52% 2651 124 Gandalf 5 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2654 36 -36 364 45% 2690 125 CEBoard Fruit 2.3.1 PXA255 400 MHz 2652 49 -48 200 55% 2621 126 Palm Hiarcs 13.1 Tungsten T5 416 MHz 2651 58 -57 143 52% 2636 127 Deep Fritz K6-2 450 MHz 2647 20 -20 1151 56% 2607 128 Gambit Tiger 2 K6-2 450 MHz 2644 24 -24 835 58% 2588 129 Palm Hiarcs 12.1 Tungsten T5 416 MHz 2642 58 -59 140 48% 2659 130 Chess Tiger 14 CB K6-2 450 MHz 2640 22 -22 973 54% 2615 131 Gandalf 5.1 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2638 25 -25 758 55% 2605 132 Fritz 7 K6-2 450 MHz 2635 36 -35 368 54% 2606 133 Ruffian 2.0.0 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2632 48 -49 205 46% 2661 134 Junior 7 K6-2 450 MHz 2631 20 -20 1200 56% 2589 135 Revelation Rybka 2.2 PXA255 500 MHz 2628 47 -44 240 62% 2545 136 Shredder 6 UCI K6-2 450 MHz 2618 42 -42 264 52% 2608 137 Crafty 18.12 CB Athlon 1.2 GHz 2615 20 -21 1141 39% 2691 138 Fritz 6 K6-2 450 MHz 2613 16 -16 1751 48% 2627 139 Gromit 3.11.9 Athlon 1.2 GHz 2611 43 -45 246 43% 2662 140 Shredder 5.32 K6-2 450 MHz 2609 19 -20 1242 42% 2668 141 Yace Paderborn Athlon 1.2 GHz 2608 35 -35 389 48% 2621 142 Chess Tiger 12 DOS K6-2 450 MHz 2600 18 -18 1448 48% 2613 143 Revelation Deep Sjeng 3 PXA255 500 MHz 2599 68 -76 100 37% 2692 144 Junior 6 K6-2 450 MHz 2596 13 -13 2677 43% 2647 145 Hiarcs 8 K6-2 450 MHz 2583 31 -33 480 39% 2663 146 Shredder 5 K6-2 450 MHz 2583 16 -16 1818 44% 2624 147 Shredder 4 K6-2 450 MHz 2572 22 -22 986 58% 2513 148 Rebel Century 4 K6-2 450 MHz 2569 51 -52 178
Recommended publications
  • Draft – Not for Circulation

    Draft – Not for Circulation

    A Gross Miscarriage of Justice in Computer Chess by Dr. Søren Riis Introduction In June 2011 it was widely reported in the global media that the International Computer Games Association (ICGA) had found chess programmer International Master Vasik Rajlich in breach of the ICGA‟s annual World Computer Chess Championship (WCCC) tournament rule related to program originality. In the ICGA‟s accompanying report it was asserted that Rajlich‟s chess program Rybka contained “plagiarized” code from Fruit, a program authored by Fabien Letouzey of France. Some of the headlines reporting the charges and ruling in the media were “Computer Chess Champion Caught Injecting Performance-Enhancing Code”, “Computer Chess Reels from Biggest Sporting Scandal Since Ben Johnson” and “Czech Mate, Mr. Cheat”, accompanied by a photo of Rajlich and his wife at their wedding. In response, Rajlich claimed complete innocence and made it clear that he found the ICGA‟s investigatory process and conclusions to be biased and unprofessional, and the charges baseless and unworthy. He refused to be drawn into a protracted dispute with his accusers or mount a comprehensive defense. This article re-examines the case. With the support of an extensive technical report by Ed Schröder, author of chess program Rebel (World Computer Chess champion in 1991 and 1992) as well as support in the form of unpublished notes from chess programmer Sven Schüle, I argue that the ICGA‟s findings were misleading and its ruling lacked any sense of proportion. The purpose of this paper is to defend the reputation of Vasik Rajlich, whose innovative and influential program Rybka was in the vanguard of a mid-decade paradigm change within the computer chess community.
  • Move Similarity Analysis in Chess Programs

    Move Similarity Analysis in Chess Programs

    Move similarity analysis in chess programs D. Dailey, A. Hair, M. Watkins Abstract In June 2011, the International Computer Games Association (ICGA) disqual- ified Vasik Rajlich and his Rybka chess program for plagiarism and breaking their rules on originality in their events from 2006-10. One primary basis for this came from a painstaking code comparison, using the source code of Fruit and the object code of Rybka, which found the selection of evaluation features in the programs to be almost the same, much more than expected by chance. In his brief defense, Rajlich indicated his opinion that move similarity testing was a superior method of detecting misappropriated entries. Later commentary by both Rajlich and his defenders reiterated the same, and indeed the ICGA Rules themselves specify move similarity as an example reason for why the tournament director would have warrant to request a source code examination. We report on data obtained from move-similarity testing. The principal dataset here consists of over 8000 positions and nearly 100 independent engines. We comment on such issues as: the robustness of the methods (upon modifying the experimental conditions), whether strong engines tend to play more similarly than weak ones, and the observed Fruit/Rybka move-similarity data. 1. History and background on derivative programs in computer chess Computer chess has seen a number of derivative programs over the years. One of the first was the incident in the 1989 World Microcomputer Chess Cham- pionship (WMCCC), in which Quickstep was disqualified due to the program being \a copy of the program Mephisto Almeria" in all important areas.
  • New Architectures in Computer Chess Ii New Architectures in Computer Chess

    New Architectures in Computer Chess Ii New Architectures in Computer Chess

    New Architectures in Computer Chess ii New Architectures in Computer Chess PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Tilburg, op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. Ph. Eijlander, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de aula van de Universiteit op woensdag 17 juni 2009 om 10.15 uur door Fritz Max Heinrich Reul geboren op 30 september 1977 te Hanau, Duitsland Promotor: Prof. dr. H.J.vandenHerik Copromotor: Dr. ir. J.W.H.M. Uiterwijk Promotiecommissie: Prof. dr. A.P.J. van den Bosch Prof. dr. A. de Bruin Prof. dr. H.C. Bunt Prof. dr. A.J. van Zanten Dr. U. Lorenz Dr. A. Plaat Dissertation Series No. 2009-16 The research reported in this thesis has been carried out under the auspices of SIKS, the Dutch Research School for Information and Knowledge Systems. ISBN 9789490122249 Printed by Gildeprint © 2009 Fritz M.H. Reul All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the author. Preface About five years ago I completed my diploma project about computer chess at the University of Applied Sciences in Friedberg, Germany. Immediately after- wards I continued in 2004 with the R&D of my computer-chess engine Loop. In 2005 I started my Ph.D. project ”New Architectures in Computer Chess” at the Maastricht University. In the first year of my R&D I concentrated on the redesign of a computer-chess architecture for 32-bit computer environments.
  • FUEGO – an Open-Source Framework for Board Games and Go Engine Based on Monte-Carlo Tree Search

    FUEGO – an Open-Source Framework for Board Games and Go Engine Based on Monte-Carlo Tree Search

    FUEGO – An Open-source Framework for Board Games and Go Engine Based on Monte-Carlo Tree Search Markus Enzenberger, Martin Muller,¨ Broderick Arneson and Richard Segal Abstract—FUEGO is both an open-source software frame- available source code such as Hoffmann’s FF [20] have had work and a state of the art program that plays the game of a similarly massive impact, and have enabled much followup Go. The framework supports developing game engines for full- research. information two-player board games, and is used successfully in UEGO a substantial number of projects. The FUEGO Go program be- F contains a game-independent, state of the art came the first program to win a game against a top professional implementation of MCTS with many standard enhancements. player in 9×9 Go. It has won a number of strong tournaments It implements a coherent design, consistent with software against other programs, and is competitive for 19 × 19 as well. engineering best practices. Advanced features include a lock- This paper gives an overview of the development and free shared memory architecture, and a flexible and general current state of the FUEGO project. It describes the reusable components of the software framework and specific algorithms plug-in architecture for adding domain-specific knowledge in used in the Go engine. the game tree. The FUEGO framework has been proven in applications to Go, Hex, Havannah and Amazons. I. INTRODUCTION The main innovation of the overall FUEGO framework may lie not in the novelty of any of its specific methods and Research in computing science is driven by the interplay algorithms, but in the fact that for the first time, a state of of theory and practice.
  • Rybka Investigation and Summary of Findings for the ICGA Mark Lefler, Robert Hyatt, Harvey Williamson and ICGA Panel Members 12 May 2011

    Rybka Investigation and Summary of Findings for the ICGA Mark Lefler, Robert Hyatt, Harvey Williamson and ICGA Panel Members 12 May 2011

    Rybka Investigation and Summary of Findings for the ICGA Mark Lefler, Robert Hyatt, Harvey Williamson and ICGA panel members 12 May 2011 1. Background 1.1 Purpose: To investigate claims that the chess playing program Rybka is a derivative of the chess programs Fruit and Crafty and violated International Computer Games Association (ICGA) Tournament rules. Rybka is a program by Vasik Rajlich. Fruit was written by Fabien Letouzey. Crafty was written by Robert Hyatt. 1.2 Allegations. Allegations have surfaced that Rybka 1.0 beta and later versions are derivatives of Fruit 2.1. Fruit 2.1 source code was distributed with a specific license in the copying.txt file. Part of this license reads: "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights." Allegations point out that by distributing Rybka, if it is based on Fruit, this GNU license was violated (http://icga.wikispaces.com/Open+letter+to+the+ICGA+about+the+Rybka- Fruit+issue). If versions of Rybka are derived from Fruit and participated in ICGA tournaments, then Rybka has also violated ICGA Tournament Rules. Specifically, the rules state: "Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in the details of their submission form.
  • Beyond the 3000 Elo Barrier a Glance Behind the Scenes of the Rybka Chess Engine by HARALD FIETZ

    Beyond the 3000 Elo Barrier a Glance Behind the Scenes of the Rybka Chess Engine by HARALD FIETZ

    Beyond the 3000 Elo barrier A glance behind the scenes of the Rybka chess engine by HARALD FIETZ t the end of 2005, the worked in the computer field. My looked very promising and scary for world of chess computers mother is also a trained mathematician. the opponent when I played them, but suddenly changed when an I have two younger brothers. We moved in a post-mortem Rybka sometimes engine with the name back to Prague when I was three weeks revealed them as crazy blunders. I A of Rybka appeared from old and stayed in the Czech Republic believe that using Rybka can help to virtually nowhere. At the prestigious until I was 11 The whole family develop an intuition about which International Paderborn Computer moved back to the USA at that time. I sacrifices actually work. For sure using Chess Championship the new program studied computer science at MIT Rybka has some influence on my by the American developer Vaclav (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) openings – I think that my repertoire is Rajlich – whom everybody simply calls near Boston and worked as a software getting much stronger thanks to my Vasik or Vas as his first name – won developer at Texas Instruments (Dallas, work with the engine.” a clear point ahead of established USA), Triada, a company specialized in machines such as Zappa, Spike, data compression, (Ypsilanti, USA), A programmer’s everyday life Shredder, Fruit or Jonny. Out of the Ford (Detroit, USA), at the Environ- and visions blue, Rybka skyrocketed to the top of mental Research Institute of Michigan, the Swedish computer rating list, which was developing radar imaging However, the improvement of a which had been regarded for a long systems (Ann Arbor, USA), and Option, sophisticated program also requires a time as the equivalent of the FIDE a leading company in the field of lot of support from other sources: rating list in the chess computer sector wireless communication technology “There are tons of people who are (cp.http://web.telia.com/~u85924109/ss (Adelsried, Germany), over the last involved in the project in various ways.
  • Imperial College London Arxiv:1509.01549V2 [Cs.AI] 14 Sep

    Imperial College London Arxiv:1509.01549V2 [Cs.AI] 14 Sep

    Imperial College London Department of Computing Giraffe: Using Deep Reinforcement Learning to Play Chess by Matthew Lai Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc Degree in arXiv:1509.01549v2 [cs.AI] 14 Sep 2015 Advanced Computing of Imperial College London September 2015 Abstract This report presents Giraffe, a chess engine that uses self-play to discover all its domain-specific knowledge, with minimal hand-crafted knowledge given by the pro- grammer. Unlike previous attempts using machine learning only to perform parameter- tuning on hand-crafted evaluation functions, Giraffe’s learning system also performs automatic feature extraction and pattern recognition. The trained evaluation function performs comparably to the evaluation functions of state-of-the-art chess engines - all of which containing thousands of lines of carefully hand-crafted pattern recognizers, tuned over many years by both computer chess experts and human chess masters. Giraffe is the most successful attempt thus far at using end-to-end machine learning to play chess. We also investigated the possibility of using probability thresholds instead of depth to shape search trees. Depth-based searches form the backbone of virtually all chess engines in existence today, and is an algorithm that has become well-established over the past half century. Preliminary comparisons between a basic implementation of probability-based search and a basic implementation of depth-based search showed that our new probability-based approach performs moderately better than the established approach. There are also evidences suggesting that many successful ad-hoc add-ons to depth-based searches are generalized by switching to a probability-based search.
  • Gentlemen, Stop Your Engines!

    Gentlemen, Stop Your Engines!

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Central Archive at the University of Reading 150 ICGA Journal September 2007 GENTLEMEN, STOP YOUR ENGINES! G. M cC. Haworth1 Reading, England ABSTRACT For fifty years, computer chess has pursued an original goal of Artificial Intelligence, to produce a chess-engine to compete at the highest level. The goal has arguably been achieved, but that success has made it harder to answer questions about the relative playing strengths of man and machine. The proposal here is to approach such questions in a counter-intuitive way, handicapping or stopping-down chess engines so that they play less well. The intrinsic lack of man-machine games may be side-stepped by analysing existing games to place computer- engines as accurately as possible on the FIDE ELO scale of human play. Move-sequences may also be assessed for likelihood if computer-assisted cheating is suspected. 1. INTRODUCTION The recently celebrated Dartmouth Summer Workshop of 1956 (Moor, 2006) coined the term Artificial Intelli- gence. The AI goal most clearly defined was to create a chess engine to compete at the highest level. Moore’s law plus new versions and types of chess engine such as FRUIT, RYBKA and ZAPPA, have increased the likeli- hood that this goal has now been reached. Ironically, recent silicon successes in man-machine play have made this claim harder to verify as there is now a distinct lack of enthusiasm on the human side for such matches, especially extended ones. Past encounters have often been marred by clear blunders2, highlighting the unsatis- factory nature of determining the competence of homo sapiens by the transitory performance of one individual.
  • Draft – Not for Circulation

    Draft – Not for Circulation

    Søren Riis is a Computer Scientist at Queen Mary University of London. He has a PhD in Maths from University of Oxford. He used to play competitive chess (Elo 2300). A Gross Miscarriage of Justice in Computer Chess by Dr. Søren Riis Introduction In June 2011 it was widely reported in the global media that the International Computer Games Association (ICGA) had found chess programmer International Master Vasik Rajlich in breach of the ICGA’s annual World Computer Chess Championship (WCCC) tournament rule related to program originality. In the ICGA’s accompanying report it was asserted that Rajlich’s chess program Rybka contained “plagiarized” code from Fruit, a program authored by Fabien Letouzey of France. Some of the headlines reporting the charges and ruling in the media were “Computer Chess Champion Caught Injecting Performance-Enhancing Code”, “Computer Chess Reels from Biggest Sporting Scandal Since Ben Johnson” and “Czech Mate, Mr. Cheat”, accompanied by a photo of Rajlich and his wife at their wedding. In response, Rajlich claimed complete innocence and made it clear that he found the ICGA’s investigatory process and conclusions to be biased and unprofessional, and the charges baseless and unworthy. He refused to be drawn into a protracted dispute with his accusers or mount a comprehensive defense. In his only public statement on the matter to date he said Rybka does not include game-playing code written by others, aside from standard exceptions which wouldn’t count as ‘game-playing’. Rajlich added that the ICGA’s action would not deter him from continuing to improve Rybka and sell it commercially, as he has done successfully for the past five years, and that his program would be willing to compete in a match or tournament with any worthy challenger.
  • The SSDF Rating List, 2019-07

    The SSDF Rating List, 2019-07

    The SSDF rating list, 2019-07 Article Accepted Version Sandin, L. and Haworth, G. (2019) The SSDF rating list, 2019- 07. ICGA Journal, 41 (3). p. 177. ISSN 1389-6911 doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/ICG-190113 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/85331/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . Published version at: https://content.iospress.com/articles/icga-journal/icg190113 To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ICG-190113 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 THE SSDF RATING LIST 2019-07-08 150612 games played by 384 computers Rating + - Games Won Oppo ------ --- --- ----- --- ---- 1 Stockfish 10 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3529 33 -31 577 72% 3365 2 Stockfish 9 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3493 30 -28 722 73% 3315 3 Komodo 13.02 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3482 52 -48 200 61% 3402 4 Komodo 12.3 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3454 28 -26 720 67% 3328 5 Stockfish 9 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3445 34 -33 431 57% 3399 6 Komodo 12.3 x64 Q6600 2.4 GHz 3443 43 -41 280 59% 3382 7 Stockfish 8 x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3432 26 -24 1100 77% 3217 8 Komodo 13.02 MCTS x64 1800X 3.6 GHz 3424 51 -48 205 62% 3334 9 Stockfish 8 x64 Q6600 2.4
  • Gnuchess.Pdf

    Gnuchess.Pdf

    GNU Chess for version 6.2.8, 24 March 2021 http://www.gnu.org/software/chess This manual is for GNU Chess (version 6.2.8, 24 March 2021), which is a complete chess program, frequently used as a chess engine. Copyright c 2001{2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled \GNU Free Documentation License". i Table of Contents 1 Overview :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 2 Contact info ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2 3 Running gnuchess ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3 3.1 Invoking gnuchess :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3 3.2 Interactive game ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4 3.3 Command list :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4 3.4 Environment variables:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 7 3.5 Configuration file::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 7 3.5.1 Structure:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 7 3.5.2 Options ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 8 3.5.3 Workarounds ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 11 3.6 Output files ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 12 3.7 XBoard chess engine :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 13 3.8 UCI chess engine::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
  • No Miscarriage of Justice - Just Biased Reporting

    No Miscarriage of Justice - Just Biased Reporting

    No Miscarriage of Justice - Just Biased Reporting By David Levy [ICGA President] Introduction In his four-part article on Chessbase.com about the Rybka scandal (see www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7791 et seq.) Dr Søren Riis has tried very hard to defend Vasik Ralich’s actions that led the ICGA to find him guilty of breaking ICGA Tournament Rule 2. As a historical review of progress in computer chess Riis’s article contains important and interesting information and comments. Unfortunately, however, his thesis lacks objectivity because it circles the core question and attempts to defend Rajlich by attacking the rule he was accused of breaking, attacking the investigative process in various ways and attacking some of those involved in that process. When a defendant is brought before a court of Law, what is in question is whether or not (s)he broke the Law and not whether the Law itself is appropriate. And so it is with the ICGA rules. In considering the Rybka case the ICGA’s task was to decide the matter on the basis of its Tournament Rule 2, not to question the rule itself. ICGA Tournament Rule 2 applies to the World Computer Chess Championships and states: “Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice.