Reinhard:
Last time my time hasn't allowed me of properly testing Smirf and i feel ver sorry about this....I had millions things/tests to do with it, but all the situation -i had so many things to do back then (exams for university,football practice,studying 4 mathematical problems...etc)- prevented me from giving you any results since i run only a few games.....But this time is different. I have enough time to concentrate on Chess engines testing and Smirf.
So if you want to give me another chance i would be glad to test the newer Smirf.......

I'm the old "Chessmaster1000", George, so just tell me if you want another beta tester.....

The only tournament Smirf has participated has been in last November, where it tooks place four of eight in the Gothic Chess World Championship.

Today it will be 100% 2nd and ?% first........Assuming the strength of the opponents would be the same. If it's not then just the 100% would be 87%. The progress of Smirf is amazing....
I concluded the above from the 2 games you posted against Gothic Vortex and from some others....

Walter Montego: well, I am just about to fix an error inserting CRC PGN's into SMIRF's GUI from Brainking directly by cut and paste. So there soon will be a new beta, and I will describe here how to start beta testing (for those who are interested).

The only tournament Smirf has participated has been in last November, where it tooks place four of eight in the Gothic Chess World Championship. But Smirf just has been born that time. Today it should be stronger.

SMIRF Engine: Just let me know when the finished version is ready to go, or tell me how I can use the old version like I used to be able to.

Hey, did that computer Chess 8 X 10 tournament ever happen? How'd SMIRF do?

Walter Montego: Then I have to apologize to not have made the beta handling more secure.

SMIRF Engine: Frustration? You betcha! It would appear that I'm not the only one either. That's why I stopped playing it. It either played poorly or it kept asking me for keys after I downloaded the newer version. It is no longer fun to play even though it won every game before and now loses every game.

Walter Montego: indeed, but the new version seems to have produced some sort of frustration, I am not aware of.

SMIRF Engine: OK, I get the feeling that when I was playing against SMIRF on this site I was one of these beta testers, eh?

Walter Montego: I am not yet ready with SMIRF. As always specified SMIRF has been a beta. And unfortunately I have got only very few feed back. So I have to test and fix and to improve without nearly any detailed resonance. When I am convinced that SMIRF would be ready to be distributed, I will announce that. Eventually there again will be a new serie of betas with a limited testing period. I will decide tomorrow.

jolat: No, if SMIRF would not use its full power during the applied testing period, it would be an error. But to examine that, I need more details as I have explained before.

SMIRF Engine:
Does that want to say that the Version 1.1.0-0251-Beta
Test Smirf free until 2005/09/30 which I used, does
not have its maximum power and that one needs of the key even before the expiry the trial period to obtain that it plays on its maximum level?

SMIRF Engine: Well, why didn't you say so? How much does it cost? I can send you the money if I think it's resonable.

jolat: Just hearing you describe that is not how I remember SMIRF playing. I've played Sumerian/SMIRF engine around 25 games on this site. At first I held my own and would win a game on occasion, but it has won about 15 in a row as Richard has improved it. When he made the updated version for home use I figured I'd get that if only because it had new features for displaying the moves and set ups and stuff. Had I known it would not play good any more and make it so I couldn't play the old program I would not have ever downloaded it. At least I have good opponents on this site to play against and Richard still will have his SMIRF play me on occasion. He tried to explain to me what to do, but I'm not much for messing with the computer and have just decided to not ever play it again until I hear it plays or works like it used to. By the way, we play Janus Chess when I play against the SMIRF. He has made the program play a few Chess games besides Janus Chess.

Walter Montego: That is the way Shareware works. You could test its general abilities. But without having a personal key its strength is of course limited. Otherwise nearly nobody then ever would spend some money for SMIRF's development.

If you have installed the newer beta into the same folder as the old one, and you have NOT deleted the old INI file, then the new key would never have become valid. Because of that I have written such hints on my beta download page.

SMIRF has provided a two month valid free testing key, which just is expiring with October. If someone wants to test SMIRF's full abilities, he could request a personal limited testing key. But that is intended to be an exception.

Yes, in the two games against Zillions, it is astonishing all the same that SMIRF could be let take, without counterpart, either a Bishop or a Rook.

jolat: I used to have the old beta SMIRF program. I never once beat it. Then he updated the program and something happened when I played it, it moved fast and made bad moves. It also kept asking me for keys and things that the older version never asked for. Unfortunately, the new version took over the old one and I can't run the old one any more. So I stopped playing against the SMIRF.

Zillions is not a program specific to a type of game. It
is a multi-games program without specific engine for each game. For the majority of the games, it plays on a very low level.
I thus hoped that SMIRF plays in a higher way so that it can be taken as model to improve my personal play.
I would thus wait to buy SMIRF the
future improvements.

rabbitoid: Well, it is hard to make a distant analysis for that situation. The cache used should be sized between 40 MB and half of the available memory. And having two programs playing one against another at a single computer without several processors will make no sense if any of those programs would be pondering or (as possible in SMIRF) has activated its permanwent brain. Equal play could be awaited only at equally distributed resources.

Nevertheless SMIRF is no magic or divine program. It will be always subject for improvements.

SMIRF Engine: maybe both programs were running at the same time?

All my Capablanca Random games seem to have empty boards...

jolat: To inspect the cache size simply watch under options, where the cache could be doubled or halved. And the other program should know, whether it would be pondering or not.

SMIRF Engine:
OK thanks!
I cannot answer you on that: that exceeds my data-processing
competences :-)

jolat: well, you could see it yourself. Whenever Smirf's evaluation gets very low compared to the previous one, there it might have been a better move. SMIRF has not been designed primarily for blitz. So it actually could find its master there. Nevertheless I wonder about the circumstances. What has been the cache size? Was the other program always running (pondering)?
P.S. when I try to reconstruct it, on my computer I set 23 sec/move to get the first two answers. Already the third one would be f5. So there must be something what slows down SMIRF at your computer. Either you have other programs running or you have set the cache size very low.

SMIRF Engine:
OK, below the PGN of a second second (I had not saved the
first). For this second, I reversed the colors: SMIRF has the blacks
for this game.
As for the first game, I regulated the two programs with 30 sec. per move.
I stopped the game at the 40° move because SMIRF had
already a Rook + 2 pawns in less.

[Event "SmirfGUI Computerchess Game"]
[Site "Jolat"]
[Date "2005.09.29"]
[Time "15:25:16"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Test Smirf free until 2005/09/30"]
[Black "Test Smirf free until 2005/09/30"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Test Smirf free until 2005/09/30"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rjnbkqbnjr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RJN
BKQBNJR w sKQkq - 0 1"]

{The time limit has been passed.} 1. Jh3 f6 {(10.01) -0.212} 2. e3 Be6 {(08.34)
+0.074} 3. Bg4 Bxg4 {(11.00) +0.068} 4. Jxg4 Ng6 {(09.18) +0.070} 5. Jc3 Nd6
{(07.05=) +0.358} 6. Nd3 Jc6 {(10.04+) +0.327} 7. Nb4 Je4 {(10.02) +0.314} 8.
Jxe4 Nxe4 {(12.14) -1.081} 9. Qb5 e6 {(11.01) -1.595} 10. Qxb7 a5 {(09.27)
-1.172} 11. Nd3 f5 {(10.14) -5.279} 12. Je2 Jj6 {(10.01) -5.313} 13. Qxa8 Jh4
{(09.14=) -5.552} 14. Qxa5 Jxi2 {(08.31) -4.513} 15. Ni3 Bxi3 {(09.35) -4.826}
16. Ri1 Jh4 {(10.46) -5.758} 17. Rxi3 Jxg2+ {(09.17) -5.608} 18. Kd1 Kd8
{(09.39) -5.847} 19. f3 Nd6 {(10.01) -7.064} 20. Nc5 Nh4 {(08.25) -8.466} 21.
Rxi7 Jxf3 {(10.01) -7.814} 22. Jxf3 Nxf3 {(12.01=) -8.349} 23. Qa8+ Nc8
{(13.01=) -8.611} 24. Qxf3 Qxc5 {(12.02) -8.970} 25. Qi3+ Ke8 {(12.02+) -9.259}
26. Ri8+ Rxi8 {(14.01=) -8.616} 27. Qxi8+ Qf8 {(13.01=) -8.927} 28. Qxh7 Nd6
{(12.06=) -8.622} 29. Qxj7 Qf6 {(11.09) -8.807} 30. d4 Qg5 {(12.25) -8.234} 31.
Bf2 Ne4 {(12.02+) -8.322} 32. Qj3+ Kf8 {(13.01) -7.535} 33. Ke2 Qg2 {(12.17)
-7.546} 34. Qj8+ Ke7 {(14.01) -7.220} 35. Qj6 Qxh2 {(11.29) -6.797} 36. Qh4+
Qxh4 {(16.01=) -8.189} 37. Bxh4+ g5 {(15.01) -8.209} 38. Bi3 Ke8 {(15.02=)
-8.198} 39. Bh2 g4 {(14.02=) -8.376} 40. Bxc7 d6 {(13.01) -8.621} *

jolat:
Your version is the current beta.

If you would post the PGN (Edit -> Copy as -> PGN, then insert it here), I will check it.

What do you want to say?
Don't I have the last version?
I specify that at the 20° move against Zillions, SMIRF lost a Bishop against a Pawn.

jolat: there are (hidden) possibilities to download earlier versions, thus it is important to know details.

Hard to say without having the game. Maybe Zillions is better. ;-)

SMIRF Engine:
As I wrote in my preceding message, I downloaded SMIRF this morning.
Here provided indications in "Help" --> "About" :
Version 1.1.0-0251-Beta
Test Smirf free until 2005/09/30

jolat:
Which version (via Help -> About ...), Cache size, any of the programs pondering?

When a testing period has expired or no user key is present, SMIRF answers immediately (low quality).

I downloaded this morning the version of test of SMIRF.
To give me an idea of the level of this program, I made play SMIRF
against Zillions for the game of Janus chess with the adjustment of 30 sec. by move.
I was very surprised to note that after about the 20 first moves, Zillions had taken the advantage clearly.
Can you explain me the reasons?

Is this someone knows a internet link of a site which proposes a list
of openings for Janus chess?

noursix: Congrats! Sleep well in the future :-)

pierot: You are correct. Fencer & the guy who holds the patent for Gothic Chess cannot come to an agreement. The guy is known to rub a lot of people the wrong way. It's sad that things cannot be worked out, but we are better off without Gothic Chess AND the baggage that comes with it than we are being forced to dance thru the patent holder's hoops.

pierot: You might try Grand Chess or Janus Chess. They are similiar games, though have major differences. Grand Chess uses the same pieces as Gothic Chess, but has a larger board and mobile Rooks from the beginning. Pawn promotion is different and there's no castling. Janus Chess has a piece called the Janus which identical to the Archbishop of Gothic Chess. Each player gets two Januses and is played on an 10 X 8 like Gothic Chess. There isn't ay piece like the Chancellor in Janus Chess.

I asked Fencer if he would add Embassy Chess. He said he would look into it. It is almost the same game as Gothic Chess though it is not patented. The King and Chancellors are switched in starting position. The other change is the Chancellor is named Marshall and the Archbishop is the Cardinal. Castling works the same with the King moving three squares towards the Rook. So this will have a slight difference in end position from the Gothic Chess set up since the King starts one square to the side as compared to Gothic Chess. The game was created to fix the flaws of Bird's and Capablanca's set ups using the same pieces as was Gothic Chess.

If I understood well, Gothic chess will disappear from this
site to be replaced by Capablanca Random Chess. Is this well that?
If it is the case, we will not be able to play any more Gothic chess in turn based since there will be no more site which proposes it.
I saw that there is a site to play this game on line but in what relates to me, I prefer to play in turn based.
I thus find very damage this project of suppression.

noursix: félicitations!

...one for each of his first magnificent thousand heartbeats!

Phlorix and I are happy to announce the birth of our son Michel september 21. The baby and his mother are all rigt (and also the father!).

Nah, even after a billion of games here, the percentage of draws will be more or less the same......Why?
A-80%)Because the strength of most players is on beginner's level........
B-20%)There are many time-outs......

CardinalFlight: That would be LAW of great numbers, sorry :)

CardinalFlight: I would say the percentage of DRAWS is unusually low :) But give it a few more millions of games and the percentages will be closer - hail to the low of great numbers!

Chess:
White won 20172 (46.93 %)
Black won 20990 (48.83 %)
Draws 1817 (4.22 %)

The stats on this site do not generally represent the feeling about black vs white. Here black wins more than white, which is very unusual for chess.

Who ever wanted to know, which Gothic Chess program might be the strongest, actually could watch a long-time fight between Gothic Vortex Gold and SMIRF Beta. Average thinking times are floating between 1/2 hour and several hours, thus the playing level is of course impressing. It is also interesting to see the evaluation functions differ sometimes more than one Pawn unit. You will find more on this and also interesting comments at: http://s13.invisionfree.com/Gothic_Chess_Forum/index.php

Statistics
White won 1048 (48.92 %)
Black won 1035 (48.31 %)
------Draws 59 (2.75 %)

This supports, but doesn't prove, my belief that the game is equal for either side. There's always play two games with each player having each color to level it out too. Even in single game matches the results on this site look pretty even to me.

Pythagoras: This is what I agreed with with from Sumerian:

"Those statements simply reflect the absence of opening knowledge, thus merely prove to be caused by psychological effects without a real base."

Take what you disagreed with and quailfy it with what I quoted.

mahavrilla:
S-1:That seems like an accurate statement.
S-2:Janus seems way too complicated for its value on the first move to be decided at this point.


You agree with the Sumerian's statement of having white a 3/10 Pawn starting advantage(S-1) AND you believe that Janus is way too complicated for any speculation about the starting advantage of any player(S-2)????????????????

That's crazy........!

Sumerian: That seems like an accurate statement. Janus seems way too complicated for its value on the first move to be decided at this point. But I was hoping their claims would go beyond the "feels" like black is better to a respected statistical statement. Ed did a good job arguing his case on the piece placement of Bird's chess, and why his suggested improvement works better. I was hoping for something along those lines.

In contrast to claimed unspecified advantages of Black within Janus Chess I am convinced of White being about 3/10 Pawn units ahead in its beginning. Similar statements have been done by chess players first being faced to some Chess960 / FRC starting arrays. Those statements simply reflect the absence of opening knowledge, thus merely prove to be caused by psychological effects without a real base.

For Chess there is the general idea that black has to fight (not hard) to gain equity first and then if he succeeds he can look for a win.
For Gothic Chess the same is not valid and both sides seems to have equal chances.
For Janus Ed Trice mainly and i -in a much smaller degree- have the opinion that Black has "something" better. I don't know what is this "something" but i can feel it.....Black seems to me, to have more attacking chances.....

I am curious on this idea that Black has an advantage in Janus. Does he also have an advantage in Gothic chess? And if only in Janus, why not in Gothic? Are these claims supported by several statistics, or between 2 people, which could be explained away simply by style. Funny enough, I know of a chess player who always loses as white but wins as black!, because she studies only black defenses. :-) In short, how do GMs fair with black gainst white in Janus. I know that Leko, Korchnoi, and Yuspov play Janus. Does anybody know how to retrieve their results? I would think that the best way to know the answer to this question is to set up 2 powerful chess engines against each other. Interestingly, this problem of the first move lives in classical chess too, and is only solved by having the players play 2 game matches. This will always solve the problem if there were ever an instance of the first move proving to be advantagous or not.

Yep........
I thought it would be more than obvious.....