< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Oct-12-13|| ||Karpova: Blindfold Simul Tour in <Oberösterreich>:|
Steyr: +9 -3* =0
Linz: +8 -1 =1
Wels: +6 -2 =2
Ebensee: +6 -4 =0
Braunau: +11 -0 =0
Overall score after 53 games: +40 -10 =3
* it says <(+9, 3)> but I deduced that it were 3 losses from the overall score
From page 109 of the April 1925 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung'
|Jun-06-14|| ||NeoIndian: <"The advantage of controlling an open file consists mainly in the chance of penetrating the enemy position and switching to horizontal activity.">|
This is my favourite chess quote of all time. I wonder whether he is smiling or groaning at us from up there.
|May-03-15|| ||TheFocus: <The battle for the ultimate truth will never be won. And that's why chess is so fascinating> - Hans Kmoch.|
|May-14-15|| ||TheFocus: <The preparation for active rook play entails what is called the opening of lines, which largely depends on pawn play, especially on the proper use of levers> - Hans Kmoch.|
|May-17-15|| ||TheFocus: <The battle for the ultimate truth will never be won. And that's why chess is so fascinating> - Hans Kmoch.|
|May-25-15|| ||TheFocus: <Devastating moves are like dissonant sounds; they shatter the eardrums. Their appeal is to an atavistic brutality in our natures, not to our finer sensibilities. In contrast, a "quiet" move is the epitome of finesse. A soft answer turns away wrath, but its subdued quality makes it no less efficient> - Hans Kmoch.|
|Feb-13-16|| ||TheFocus: Rest in peace, Hans Kmoch.|
|Jul-25-16|| ||TheFocus: Happy birthday, Hans Kmoch.|
|Jul-31-18|| ||Dijon15: In the Bio, do you think someone could replace 'Die Kunst der Verteidigung' with 'The Art of Defence?'|
|Jul-31-18|| ||Stonehenge: I can do it but I don't know if 1929 is correct. Was the English translation first published in 1929? Die Kunst der Verteidigung is from 1927.|
|Jul-31-18|| ||Olavi: Pawn Power in Chess was also originally Die Kunst der Bauernführung.|
|Jul-31-18|| ||Telemus: "Die Kunst der Bauernführung" was published in 1956.|
|Aug-01-18|| ||zanzibar: Kmoch was living in the US in 1956 right?
So, was his <Pawn Power in Chess> first published in English or German?
London/Bell, NY/McKay (1959)
<Telemus> what ref did you use for your 1956 date?
Looking on <DNB> I could only find this 1959 version:
but maybe I got lost due to language limitations (on my part)?
(There was also this version:
|Aug-01-18|| ||Stonehenge: I checked
but it doesn't seem to be there.
|Aug-01-18|| ||Telemus: <z: <Telemus> what ref did you use for your 1956 date?> The book itself. More precise: the German edition of 1956 published by the Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag, Berlin-Frohnau. It has also two forewords, both dated September 1956; one by Kmoch and the other one by Herbert Engelhardt for the publisher.|
The rights are described on an extra page. First there is a "All rights reserved" (in English), and then a selection of reseved rights follows in German, wherein translation is mentioned. It is not mentioned that this book is a translation itself. At the bottom of that page there is this text: "WorldCopyright [sic] 1956 by Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag" (again in English).
|Aug-01-18|| ||zanzibar: <Telemus> thanks for that info, I thought it might be the case.|
I'm disappointed in <worldcat.org>, which does have the 1956 entry, but makes it very hard to find via an internal search (almost impossible)...
(Search google for <"Die Kunst der Bauernführung" + site:worldcat.org> or google search <"Die Kunst der Bauernführung" 1956>)
Just to highlight worldcat.org's weirdness, click on "View all editions and formats" in the link above and one gets this:
where the 1956 edition is missing! And try to find the original German edition via a sense on the author - I went through 12+ pages without finding it.)
* * * * *
OK, it seems that Kmoch wrote, and published, the German edition first. Given his origins in Vienna, it all makes sense. I do wonder who did the English translation - perhaps Kmoch himself, like Samuel Beckett did (with Beckett publishing both in French/English vs. German/English).
<Telemus>, does your version have a dustcover, and a photograph of the author in a frontpiece?
|Aug-02-18|| ||Telemus: <z: does your version have a dustcover> No. |
<and a photograph of the author in a frontpiece?> Yes.
|Aug-02-18|| ||Olavi: <zanzibar: <Telemus>>|
I have the 1967 second German edition by Schach-Archiv Verlag. It has both 1956 forewords and a new one, commenting on the changes and corrections.
|Aug-02-18|| ||zanzibar: I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to books, even if I'm not a collector myself. It's nice to know the history of editions, so my thanks to <Telemus> and <Olavi> (and others over time).|
It would be nice to get good scans of covers, frontpieces, copyright pages, and even prefaces...
(Which I think would qualify as "fair use").
Here's an example with Kmoch's picture and signature:
|Aug-03-18|| ||Telemus: <z: frontpiece/frontispiece> A little piece of etymology in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_... and http://www.worldwidewords.org/weird....|
|Aug-03-18|| ||zanzibar: Oh, <Telemus> I love etymology, and greatly appreciated your post.|
I should point out that <frontpiece>, vs. <fontispiece>, is basically taking the word's evolution to its logical conclusion - albeit accidentally so, I must admit!
|Aug-11-18|| ||AylerKupp: Recently an off-topic discussion started in Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 concerning Hans Kmoch's "instructive composition" from his "Pawn Power in Chess" in the chapter "The Sealer and the Sweeper":|
White moves and draws:
click for larger view
The "instructive composition" is by W.E. Rudolf from La Strategie 1912 and not by Hans Kmoch as I first thought. It was clearly off-topic for the Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 game so I've posted the relevant links here even though, since it wasn't composed by Hans Kmoch, some may consider it off-topic for this page also. Here are the links in case anyone is interested in what preceded this post.
Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #162)
Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #165)
Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #166)
Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #167)
Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #168)
Additional hopefully relevant posts to follow.
|Aug-11-18|| ||AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> If you are still mildly curious and came to read this, I ran an additional analysis overnight and beyond with Komodo 12 MTCS using only 1 core out of my 4-core machine. Again, it stopped (no activity) at d=35 after running for about 7 hours even though I ran the analysis for more than 13.5 hours. To get to the important thing first, Komodo MTCS using 1 thread did not find the drawing line either. Sometimes it evaluated 1.Ba4+ as one of its top 3 moves and sometimes it even evaluated it as the best move. But most of those times it continued with 1...Kxa4 2.exf6, even though it occasionally continued 1...Kxa4 2.b3+ Kb5. But then it invariably continued with 3.exf6. So I don't know if it would ever continue with 3.c4+. |
As far as the d=35 barrier, after reading <and understanding> the Komodo documentation, there is a formula that allows you to estimate the amount of time that you can run an MCTS-based analysis as a function of the amount memory you allocate to the MTCS table. And, if the MTCS table becomes full, the analysis just stops.
Sure enough, the number of nodes that it evaluated in all 3 MCTS-based analyses were about the same, so the MCTS table just got full. So, if I want the analysis to run to a greater search depth, I just have to make the MCTS table bigger. I just don't know how much bigger I can make it without the program starting to swap its code and data to disk and slow down to a crawl so I'll have to experiment. This might take some time.
Also mildly interesting and perhaps not surprising (but surprising to me), the analysis with 1 core required about 4X longer to reach d=35 than it took for the analyses using 4 cores. It was surprising to me because these multi-threaded algorithms do not typically scale linearly; in my computer an analysis using a "regular" engine with alpha-beta pruning (ABP) instead of MTCS takes roughly 2X as long with 1 core to reach the same search depth as the same analysis using 4 cores. Again, the Komodo 12 documentation alludes to this, saying that "we believe Komodo MCTS gains more than most normal engines from using multiple threads". I'm sure that they would be very interested in data that indicates that it benefits linearly rather than by a factor of SQRT(2).
Which then leads me to run more analyses to try to find out if:
(a) Komodo MCTS is deterministic just like Komodo "normal" when using only 1 core.
(b) Komodo MCTS can find the full drawing line, even if it doesn't declare the result a draw, if I increase the size of the MCTS table to the maximum that my computer will allow.
|Aug-12-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,
Thanks. I suspected a super-duper box might toil because it is rather long - it has to get to the 50 moves marker to make a draw and there are quite a few pieces left on the board.
A reasonable human player can see within seconds it's a draw but the box has to calculate.
No harm done. It's a freak position as far as a computer goes.
Thanks - in this case humans:1
The super-duper Carlos Fandango computer: 0
|Aug-13-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> Yes, at this point I would say that it's humans:1, computers:0. But, frankly, Stockfish exceeded my expectations because I didn't think that it could find the drawing line at all, much less in a reasonable amount of time (if you consider 2 hours and 42 minutes "reasonable"), even though it didn't recognize it as the drawing line. I'm still puzzled how it selected 5.e6+ allowing 5...Kxd8 and leaving White B+2R behind instead of, say, 5.Bxa5 which after 5...Rxa5 would leave it "only" 2Rs behind. Well, there seemed to be only one way to find out.|
So I started the analysis in the position after 1.Ba4+ Kxa4 2.b3+ Kb5 3.c4+ Kc6 4.d5+ Kd7
click for larger view
To my surprise, delight, and puzzlement, Stockfish selected 5.e6+ as its 3rd best move with an evaluation of [-15.27] at d=27 and 9 seconds of calculation and selected it as its best move with a [-15.28] evaluation at d=31 after 35 seconds of calculation, doable under classic time control conditions. After d=35 and a little bit over 8 minutes of calculations it evaluated 5.e6+ as the only move to avoid mate.
I'm puzzled why it did that. After 5.e5+ dxe8 6.f5 looking at its material deficit alone and using the classic piece values (Q=9, R=5, B=3, N=2, P=1) the evaluation would have been [-13.00] (down a bishop and 2 rooks) while after 5.exf6 exf6 6.Bxf6 its evaluation would have been [-9.00] (down two rooks but up a pawn). So, for some reason, it evaluated Black's positional disadvantage after 5.e5+ much less than after 5.exf6. I still have no idea why but that's a mystery for another day (and for another person!)
And, like I said, I hardly have a super-duper box. I did some more calculations and I projected that, in my computer, it would take Stockfish 9 about 1,250 hours or 52 days for it to reach d=57 and determine that the position is a draw. But after it evaluated all moves except 5.e5+ as leading to a forced mate, it began to reach additional search depths quicker. And after it passed d=60 I realized that I had made a foolish mistake. It's not a 50 <ply> draw rule, it's a 50 <move> draw rule. So instead of needing to reach d=57 it would need to reach d=114, and I projected that it would take about 850 hours on my machine for it to do that. No thanks, I don't have that much patience to wait to see if its evaluation of 5.e5+ would really be [0.00] at around d=114. So I pulled the plug at d=75 after about 15 hours of calculation. Maybe someone like <RandomVisitor> with his powerful hardware might be interested in seeing if he can get Stockfish 9 to run long enough to give 5.e5+ a [0.00] evaluation.
The other thing I did establish after another analysis run with Komodo MCTS is that, unlike "classical" chess engines which use handcrafted evaluation functions, and minimax-based move selection, combined with alpha-beta pruning, running Komodo MCTS with threads=1 is also non-deterministic. Which in retrospect should have been obvious since MCTS involves running game simulations (playouts) using a random number generator so it would have been <very> surprising if two successive analyses with Komodo MCTS of the same position would yield the same results. Still, it's good to have confirmation even though 2 analysis runs is hardly a statistical sample.
Oh well, there is a saying that "The more you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets." I think I've gotten this dead cat as flat as I can get it so I'll stop. Thanks for your patience in reading all this useless junk.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·