Chess Engine

Sort:
philidorposition
Czech_M8 wrote:
djbl wrote:

as for those who say 2500 elo is enough...pfft, try using a 2500 elo engine to analyse corres' chess games and see how many beatings you take (and before you harp on about 'cheating', engine use is permitted on iccf, the official fide endorsed corres' chess site). 


Would that be the?? Because if you're talking about the     

, I couldn't seem to find anything in the rules permitting or advocating engine use during gameplay. Contrary to that, there does seem to be a lot of discussion in their forums that admonishes inappropriate use of engines. Proper use of engines would be for study or analysis after the fact, not for help in defeating an opponent. That would be considered cheating here and could get you booted.

You vs a human opponent, an engine around 2500 ELO is probably more than sufficient, unless you're a Master or something. The only reason you'd need an engine over 3000 ELO would be to compete with others who are using them. Myself I don't see the point of pitting engine against engine. The best and most fun chess is played between two human competitors using their own knowledge & abilities.


Czech_M8, he is right, it's well known that        does allow engine use, simply because they had no way of preventing it. It's obvious that a very large percentage of players would "cheat" if they had prohibited it, and they couldn't risk that because the stakes are much higher there as they give out official titles and hold official championships.

And about having a better engine instead of a worse engine. Call me silly but I'd prefer the better one against the worse. You don't have to be a cheater nor a master to go for the better one.

There's a huge difference in analyzing a game with Rybka Human and some random 2500 engine.

Czech_M8

philidor_position...I agree with you on both counts. However, while it may be well known that  allows engine use & I'm sure many if not most players there do, I don't recall seeing anything at all in their rules condoning, authorizing, or permitting the use of such engines to help you win games. Thats not to say using them to analyze or review other positions or games is not appropriate, just as it is here, but they shouldn't be used for on-going games. No matter how you look at it, that is cheating. If the  and their players want to pass out and hold official titles & championships based on the fact that one guy's computer beat the other guy's computer, they should include the words "computer chess champion" or "computer chess master" in all of them. 

And what I meant by using a 2500 vs 3000+ engine relates to the original poster looking for a good, cheap or free engine. The vast majority playing here, myself obviously included, will NEVER have a need for an engine with the analysis ability of something like Rybka. Unless you're taking chess THAT seriously & are progressing accordingly, the difference in the engines are not going to matter. I enjoy the heck out of Chessmaster 11 (est. ELO 2825) and that's well more than enough for me! If/when I can beat it, I need to quit my job installing satellite tv and become a professional chess player. But, to each their own...enjoy your chess any way you'll have it :)

PawnShadow

Robbolito is free, and better than rybka.

philidorposition
Czech_M8 wrote:

philidor_position...I agree with you on both counts. However, while it may be well known that   xxxx allows engine use & I'm sure many if not most players there do, I don't recall seeing anything at all in their rules condoning, authorizing, or permitting the use of such engines to help you win games. Thats not to say using them to analyze or review other positions or games is not appropriate, just as it is here, but they shouldn't be used for on-going games. No matter how you look at it, that is cheating. If the ICCF and their players want to pass out and hold official titles & championships based on the fact that one guy's computer beat the other guy's computer, they should include the words "computer chess champion" or "computer chess master" in all of them.


You're misinformed about xxxx rules and it's not a matter of how I or you look at it. Engine use is officially permitted in xxxx, therefore it's not cheating by definition.

Chess games at xxxx are much more than some guy's computer beating some other guy's computer, it seems you're inexperienced about using engines.

djbl

robbolito is a rybka 3 clone...which is why you wont see it in any engine lists. this is fairly old news now and very soon i suspect legal action will make robbclone extinct. as for iccf rules, engine use to generate moves, even all your moves is permited, how do i know, i have played on there for many years that is how. and for serious players a 2500 elo engine is just not enough. maybe you should look at iccf rules and not casual forum chat.

TheOldReb

ICCF isn't the only postal chess organization that allows engine use in the games. Its impossible to stop people from using them so some organizations dont even try to. 

djbl

a corres' chess GM will always be stronger than any engine, which is why since engine use was permitted on iccf the top players have remained the top players. engines are best in tactical positions, humans are best in long term strategic positions. an engine has a horizon effect meaning it will never see as far as a human...fact. and as for seeing nothing in iccf rules, i suggest you take a closer look.

Ziryab
Czech_M8 wrote:

And what I meant by using a 2500 vs 3000+ engine relates to the original poster looking for a good, cheap or free engine. The vast majority playing here, myself obviously included, will NEVER have a need for an engine with the analysis ability of something like Rybka. Unless you're taking chess THAT seriously & are progressing accordingly, the difference in the engines are not going to matter. I enjoy the heck out of Chessmaster 11 (est. ELO 2825) and that's well more than enough for me! If/when I can beat it, I need to quit my job installing satellite tv and become a professional chess player. But, to each their own...enjoy your chess any way you'll have it :)


I have Chessmaster 10 and cannot beat it. However, I can see errors in its game analysis. When I play set piece positions against an engine, I need something stronger than Chessmaster. Fortunately I have Hiarcs 12 and several free engines that are much stronger, and all the free engines run in the Fritz 11 GUI.

There's a lot more to analysis than just being able to beat the engine. Chessmaster is terrific software for the price, but at 1/3 the price of Fritz, Fritz is the bargain.

In any case, the original poster was looking for effective analysis that he can download for free. Arena is free and can be downloaded with strong engines. http://www.playwitharena.com/, including Rybka 2.2. Stockfish 1.6 is exceptionally strong as can be downloaded through Chess.com and installed in Arena.

Czech_M8

Excerpt from the book, "Winning At Correspondence Chess" by Tim Harding, 1996 - 

ICCF has never said that computers may be used. The matter was discussed in the Rules Commission (in 1992) and in my report I said that any rule to ban the use of computers would react unfairly upon honest players who would abide by it. Therefore a rule to ban computers was not recommended.”
ICCF president Henk Mostert expressed firm views to me in a conversation during the 1994 ICCF Congress. He said he saw no objection to the use of databases for openings, but he has strong objections to the use of computers to produce moves which a player sends to his human opponent. The only reason ICCF chose not to forbid the use of computers, is that such a rule would be unenforceable. Similarly, seeking the advice of other (human) players is not explicitly forbidden in the ICCF or BPCF rules that does not mean it is condoned.
Mr Mostert considers that CC is essentially an amateur game (sic!) in which computers have no place. He knows there may be some people who (for instance) want the ICCF IM title at any cost and might use a computer to help them get it, but “they will know in their own heart that they are not an IM, that the computer did it for him (no her, Mr Harding?, jp). What satisfation can there be in this?” Moreover, he believes that there is some artistry in playing chess which is not there when a machine is calculating the move and the human operator is only pressing a button. I am sure that many players share Mr Mostert’s view, but many people who have grown up with the computer may see nothing wrong with using a computer aid in any aspect of their lives.

Henk Mostert (now deceased), was the President of ICCC for 10 years. I've done stirred up the conversation enough and will leave it now. I'm off to play some human chess, fellas :)

philidorposition
djbl wrote:

a corres' chess GM will always be stronger than any engine.


 Maybe in the 80's... not in 2010.

Ziryab
philidor_position wrote:
djbl wrote:

a corres' chess GM will always be stronger than any engine.


 Maybe in the 80's... not in 2010.


In the 1980s, normal masters were stronger than any chess engine. In the 1990s, most grandmasters were stronger than most chess engines, and at correspondence time controls top correspondence appeared better than any engines.

Today, humans are patzers compared to the top dozen engines.

djbl

can you tell me why you have just revealed my name over teh net???

djbl

hang on, someone is listing an artical written in 19996 as proof of iccf engien policy now..iccf allows engien use...fact, im not even gonna argue that point anymore. do your research.

Ziryab
djbl wrote:

can you tell me why you have just revealed my name over teh net???


It's deleted. I'm sorry.

But, you did ask us to look, and your real name is on your homepage. If you want to protect your identity, start there.

djbl

yes, i asked you to look, does not mean reveal my name online, but anyway, apology accepted. and for those who do bother, i say this, note that i have never lost an iccf game and only drawn one!! i have won both my games for england and i am quite proud of my perfomance on there. and ratings are not marked up after every game on iccf, they are only recorded every 3-4 months, and ratings are only calculated after 20 finished games. as a game can last up to 2 years that is why i have no rating yet. but when i do i feel sure it will be well over 2000. but this point was originally about the french, and i was merely demonstarting that unlike what a poster said i do understand how to play against it, as i think in that game clearly shows.

djbl

and real names have to be used on iccf. so i had very little choice in that matter.

TheOldReb

You give your real name on your profile here so why get upset if someone uses it in a forum ?! 

RetGuvvie98

Reb,

      some people fail to comprehend that by posting their real name on their profile allows ANYONE who joins this site as a free member to obtain their real name, and they continue to think that although it is on their profile, somehow it is private in some way.

 

  shortsighted?  yes.   once it is posted on the profile, it is in the public domain.

philidorposition
Ziryab wrote:
philidor_position wrote:
djbl wrote:

a corres' chess GM will always be stronger than any engine.


 Maybe in the 80's... not in 2010.


In the 1980s, normal masters were stronger than any chess engine. In the 1990s, most grandmasters were stronger than most chess engines, and at correspondence time controls top correspondence appeared better than any engines.

Today, humans are patzers compared to the top dozen engines.


I agree with what you said, but I'm not sure if any correspondence GM would be better than any engine in the 90s. Junior, Fritz & Hiarcs were giving Kasparov a very hard time already. 

I really feel very sorry to have missed those super exciting matches between Kasparov and various engines (deep blue, fritz, junior), I mean, competition in chess hardly gets any better than that.

I had already started my chess adventure when Kramnik took Fritz 10, but I didn't know enough about the game to enjoy it very much, and besides, Fritz 10 was a clear favorite, although Kramnik actually put up a good fight.

DaveBunn

In chess, learn a few tips in the opening line. Then, try to experiment with few repertoires in the middle game (try to make full use of your good learning experience from good Vote Chess game). The endgame is what you need to improve on.

Anyway, as a premium member, I always try to get the analysis from chess.com done for my interesting games - be it winning or losing. It really helps to improve your next game. But of course, an ordinary chess player like us can't afford not to blunder sometime. After all we are not machine...