OpenChess

orgfert wrote:

kingliveson wrote:

Uly wrote:Any chance of getting an executable out of this?

Under assumption you aren't willing to install Linux, the best approach at current will be to install VirtualBox for Windows hosts, and download openSUSE Live, preferably, KDE.

Live system allows you to run Linux without actually installing it. If burnt to a CD-ROM, you can boot from it. VirtualBox however, allows you to run the ISO inside your Windows without even burning it to a CD-ROM.

You can and should add a shared directory between the host OS (Windows) and guest OS (Linux). Run the script in this directory so the database is accessible to the host. If further assistance is needed, please post it here.

Installing CYGWIN is another easy option for Windows users.

Yes, cygwin is excellent alternative, though a bit slower than native environment:

Hey kingliveson, can you add Komodo 4 SP so that it scores 35 ELO better than Komodo 3 SP? I think you can beat the IPON at getting results that would be indistinguishable from them FIRST (since they don't provide games), so that the argument of "IPON's value is that it tells you what values to use in a weighted simulator" becomes moot

IPON rating list would probably be one of the more accurate since I believe he uses opening positions rather than books, at least from what he says anyways...

But Ingo doesn't share the games...

kingliveson wrote:IPON rating list would probably be one of the more accurate since I believe he uses opening positions rather than books, at least from what he says anyways...

The accuracy has some dependence on the 50 starting positions he uses. We have to trust Ingo concerning the quality of those positions.

Adam Hair wrote:

kingliveson wrote:IPON rating list would probably be one of the more accurate since I believe he uses opening positions rather than books, at least from what he says anyways...

The accuracy has some dependence on the 50 starting positions he uses. We have to trust Ingo concerning the quality of those positions.

The same could be said for books, but overall, positions are better because you have equal opportunity with reverse colour.

I can deduce that the 50 positions used aren't representative enough of chess.

Because:

If the positions were representative of chess, then, people tuning for them would be tuning for chess itself.
Tuning for chess itself is a natural process in chess engines, so it's something that wouldn't worry Ingo.
Ingo doesn't share the games because he's afraid people would tune their engines to perform better on the positions.

Therefore, tuning for those positions isn't tuning for chess itself, and they're not representative of it.

kingliveson wrote: positions are better because you have equal opportunity with reverse colour.

??? In matches with books you can do the same!

But not if you add a third engine.

Say, engine 1, engine 2 and engine 3 are up for testing:

Engine 1 gets Position A against Engine 2.
Engine 2 gets Position A against Engine 1 (reversed colors).

That's fine.

However:

Engine 3 doesn't get to play Position A against Engine 1 nor 2.
Engine 3 will play Position B against Engine 1 (and again with reversed colors)
Engine 3 will play Position C against Engine 2 (and again with reversed colors)
Engine 1 and 2 will NOT get to play positions B or C against each other (nor with reversed colors).

See what a mess? And it gets worse with more engines!

With positions instead of a book, you get:

Engine 1 will play Position A against Engine 2 (and again with reversed colors)
Engine 1 will play Position A against Engine 3 (and again with reversed colors)
Engine 2 will play Position A against Engine 3 (and again with reversed colors)

Absolute fairness.

Uly wrote:But not if you add a third engine.

Of course I meant (individual) matches
Best wishes for 2012 (after all, you're close to the Mayas...)