chenxiaoyuer ha scritto:
How to do match in banksia?
There is the option New Tournaments on menu
Freeware against commercial chess software: Arena 3.5.1 vs Chessbase Fritz 17
Sort:
Alendrew11 ha scritto:
jjlai1111 wrote:
Can you give the link of Killfish?? I can't find the link.
Yes, you can find here https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killfish
Are you there? SSD issue solved, I'll continue to update SuperBlitz 32... suggest me other strong engines & updates 
Chessbase is the name of the company that produces Fritz 17. It's like Mercedes Class A.
Since 10 years they produce the same graphical interface, changing a little the colours and publishing it only for Windows. After Fritz 13, all their engines are much weaker than Stockfish, so finally they decided to rip-off and sold this work of a community of very skilled open source programmers. Instead of paying a lot of money for Chessbase 16 database (made usings the games of best players worldwide) you can have a very good pgn database, and opening books bin, abk and bkt, for free.
It is interesting almost all the top players use chessbase. Few if any top players use Arena. a 5 minute game is blitz
Engine verses Engine is for bad players.
Despite the many verbose posts, there is no answer that will please everyone or is absolutely correct because all people will have different opinions (a good thing) when the original question is asking readers to choose between two options. It seems the best response is to choose the one that you think is best for you....not me or anyone else...but you. For many folks, Arena meets their needs and is just fine. On the other hand, for others, they prefer Chessbase products and that is fine.
Not every person needs Chessbase products but if you can afford them and you like their products, then decide for yourself. There are so many options today that one need not limit themselves to merely Arena or Chessbase and their products. It's your money. Spend it as you wish. Get both. Get neither. You decide. It does not matter what the "top players" use but rather what fits your chess needs, budget, goals, etc. Do your own research. Make an informed decision based on your own research. Opinions are far to subjective to provide any meaningful answer that is not based on emotion and preconceived ideas that create unintentional bias.
I use Chess Assistant and do not care at all what anyone else thinks. It works for me. That is what matters.
LastCheetah ha scritto:
Despite the many verbose posts, there is no answer that will please everyone or is absolutely correct because all people will have different opinions (a good thing) when the original question is asking readers to choose between two options. It seems the best response is to choose the one that you think is best for you....not me or anyone else...but you. For many folks, Arena meets their needs and is just fine. On the other hand, for others, they prefer Chessbase products and that is fine.
Not every person needs Chessbase products but if you can afford them and you like their products, then decide for yourself. There are so many options today that one need not limit themselves to merely Arena or Chessbase and their products. It's your money. Spend it as you wish. Get both. Get neither. You decide. It does not matter what the "top players" use but rather what fits your chess needs, budget, goals, etc. Do your own research. Make an informed decision based on your own research. Opinions are far to subjective to provide any meaningful answer that is not based on emotion and preconceived ideas that create unintentional bias.
I use Chess Assistant and do not care at all what anyone else thinks. It works for me. That is what matters.
My concern is mainly about the strength of proprietary ChessBase engines. I agree that database functions are far better on Fritz 17 and Chessbase 16 (so it's the right choice for professionals) , but WHY they cannot produce an *original* Fritz 18 paying absolutely top programmers (not Albert Silver that has asked the help of the Brasilian Uranga to *apply* 
his ideas ?) With tuned Powerbooks, improved 40 MB NNUE and 7-man ONLINE tablebases they could be really number 1 and they could honestly sold it for 99$ instead of simply rip-off the work of others Fritz 17 is even not betweet the TOP 32 best engines!!!
ericthatwho ha scritto:
It is interesting almost all the top players use chessbase. Few if any top players use Arena. a 5 minute game is blitz
Engine verses Engine is for bad players.
Why? You can enjoy chess in various way. Also watching 3000+ ELO computer matches is interesting.
jjlai1111 ha scritto:
Please don't be rude. I'm here lol
Updated SuperBlitz 32 cross table. Added also Stockfish 13 FF2 AKA Chessbase Fat Fritz 2.1 and Komodo 14.1 ... Marvin 5.0 is out from TOP 32. I keep 33 in table so it is shown also who has been eliminated.
Mar 13, 2021
0
#91
I'm frankly quite puzzled by why players - of any level - prefer to use the 'best' engine. Who says that the best move with perfect play is the best move in human play?
I quite recently added a new engine to my Arena Chess GUI called Fruit, which has adjustable parameters to fit one's personality. I'm quite a wild player, and I'm willing to sacrifice a piece to get a lead in initiative in the game. I've been looking for an engine that can more accurately tell me the usefulness of my sacrifices, or my moves in general.
I feel like analyzing games with an engine that looks for piece activity and king safety moreover than just the material count and the standard piece values is a bonus even when the engine is inferior to Stockfish (or any other engine) simply because the moves it makes are more useful in human games. Stockfish can tell you in an instance that Be2 is the best move but does that really develop the bishop in an active way?
This is where I feel is a shortcoming of engines.
Mar 13, 2021
0
#92
Best engines don't only count the material and they are usually right as they count on perfect play from both sides. That being said, there might be some situations where their best moves are practically not ideal. For instance, when you are already down in material and objectively losing, they will calculate the longest path to a loss and exchange the queens even though the queen is giving you some counterplay.
The other example is the opposite - when you are winning and want to exchange pieces in order to win easily. Engine will say that queen trade is not as good (but will still show that you are winning) because it calculates that you will win faster with the queens on the board.
Engines are generally great when things are equal, but nothing wrong with finding a more clear move that gives you +1 instead of +1.2. But if you make a sacrifice that works for every move except one where you will be -3, that move is objectively not good. It might work in a fast game or if the opponent makes a mistake, but it is not objectively better than a sound move that gives you a small advantage, even though you might win some games with it. Hope chess is not recommended.
Wildekaart ha scritto:
I'm frankly quite puzzled by why players - of any level - prefer to use the 'best' engine. Who says that the best move with perfect play is the best move in human play? [...]
I agreed with you. I have read that Stockfish isn't used for correspondence chess and professionals prefers to use CorChess or Komodo that have a better positional knowledge. Times ago I was surprised by the first versions of LC0. It was very weak on endgames but able to find very originals draw positions also with less material. I'm looking for engines with a very aggressive play, so I'm very interested by Alpha SubZero 310.2 and other only neural networks based engines, that are difficult to find. It would be very interesting if top grandmasters would accept to play regular long times matches against engines, not only blitz with 2 more pawns as recently done by GM Nakamura, also to level over-estimated computer ELO.
nklristic ha scritto:
Best engines don't only count the material and they are usually right as they count on perfect play from both sides. That being said, there might be some situations where their best moves are practically not ideal. For instance, when you are already down in material and objectively losing, they will calculate the longest path to a loss and exchange the queens even though the queen is giving you some counterplay.
The other example is the opposite - when you are winning and want to exchange pieces in order to win easily. Engine will say that queen trade is not as good (but will still show that you are winning) because it calculates that you will win faster with the queens on the board.
Engines are generally great when things are equal, but nothing wrong with finding a more clear move that gives you +1 instead of +1.2. But if you make a sacrifice that works for every move except one where you will be -3, that move is objectively not good. It might work in a fast game or if the opponent makes a mistake, but it is not objectively better than a sound move that gives you a small advantage, even though you might win some games with it. Hope chess is not recommended.
Thank you, interesting observations!
Using any engine for correspondence (at least chess.com thinks so) is illegal so you all must be "latent" cheaters.
jjjlai1111 I'm tryng to compile It for Linux or Mac, since Igel 3.0 doesn't work on my system
Apr 10, 2021
0
#99
ericthatwho wrote:
Using any engine for correspondence (at least chess.com thinks so) is illegal so you all must be "latent" cheaters.
no correspondence chess allows engines https://iccfwebfiles.blob.core.windows.net/rules/2021/ICCF%20Rules%20update%20for%201-1-2021%20-%20finalized%2012-30-20.pdf check article 2.2.6 in page 41
How too do match in banksia?