Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

There is a clue unsolved right now on the Holiday Contest Clues Page!   [Official Contest Rules]
Please see this announcement for some updates. User Profile Chessforum

Member since Dec-31-08 · Last seen Jan-21-19
About Me (in case you care):

Old timer from Fischer, Reshevsky, Spassky, Petrosian, etc. era. Active while in high school and early college, but not much since. Never rated above low 1800s and highly erratic; I would occasionally beat much higher rated players and equally often lose to much lower rated players. Highly entertaining combinatorial style, everybody liked to play me since they were never sure what I was going to do (neither did I!). When facing a stronger player many try to even their chances by steering towards simple positions to be able to see what was going on. My philosophy in those situations was to try to even the chances by complicating the game to the extent that neither I nor the stronger player would be able to see what was going on! Alas, this approach no longer works in the computer age. And, needless to say, my favorite all-time player is Tal.

I also have a computer background and have been following with interest the development in computer chess since the days when computers couldn't always recognize illegal moves and a patzer like me could beat them with ease. Now itís me that canít always recognize illegal moves and any chess program can beat me with ease.

But after about 8 years (a lifetime in computer-related activities) of playing computer-assisted chess, I think I have learned a thing or two about the subject. I have conceitedly defined "AylerKupp's corollary to Murphy's Law" (AKC2ML) as follows:

"If you use your engine to analyze a position to a search depth=N, your opponent's killer move (the move that will refute your entire analysis) will be found at search depth=N+1, regardless of the value you choose for N."

Iím also a food and wine enthusiast. Some of my favorites are German wines (along with French, Italian, US, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, Spain, ... well, you probably get the idea). One of my early favorites were wines from the Ayler Kupp vineyard in the Saar region, hence my user name. Here is a link to a picture of the village of Ayl with a portion of the Kupp vineyard on the left:

You can send me an e-mail whenever you'd like to aylerkupp

And check out a picture of me with my "partner", Rybka (Aylerkupp / Rybka) from the Masters - Machines Invitational (2011). No, I won't tell you which one is me.


Ratings Inflation

I have become interested in the increase in top player ratings since the mid-1980s and whether this represents a true increase in player strength (and if so, why) or if it is simply a consequence of a larger chess population from which ratings are derived. So I've opened up my forum for discussions on this subject.

I have updated the list that I initially completed in Mar-2013 with the FIDE rating list through 2018 (published in Jan-2019), and you can download the complete data from It is quite large (~ 213 MB) and to open it you will need Excel 2007 or later version or a compatible spreadsheet since several of the later tabs contain more than 65,536 rows.

The spreadsheet also contains several charts and summary information. If you are only interested in that and not the actual rating lists, you can download a much smaller (~ 1 MB) spreadsheet containing the charts and summary information from You can open this file with a pre-Excel 2007 version or a compatible spreadsheet.

FWIW, after looking at the data I think that ratings inflation, which I define to be the unwarranted increase in ratings not necessarily accompanied by a corresponding increase in playing strength, is real, but it is a slow process. I refer to this as my "Bottom Feeder" hypothesis and it goes something like this:

1. Initially (late 1960s and 1970s) the ratings for the strongest players were fairly constant.

2. In the 1980s the number of rated players began to increase exponentially, and they entered the FIDE-rated chess playing population mostly at the lower rating levels. Also, starting in 1992, FIDE began to periodically lower the rating floor (the lowest rating for which players would be rated by FIDE) from 2200 to the current 1000 in 2012. This resulted in an even greater increase in the number of rated players. And the ratings of those newly-rated players may have been higher than they should have been, given that they were calculated using a high K-factor.

3. The ratings of the stronger of these players increased as a result of playing these weaker players, but their ratings were not sufficiently high to play in tournaments, other than open tournaments, where they would meet middle and high rated players.

4. Eventually they did. The ratings of the middle rated players then increased as a result of beating the lower rated players, and the ratings of the lower rated players then leveled out and even started to decline. You can see this effect in the 'Inflation Charts' tab, "Rating Inflation: Nth Player" chart, for the 1500th to 5000th rated player.

5. Once the middle rated players increased their ratings sufficiently, they began to meet the strongest players. And the cycle repeated itself. The ratings of the middle players began to level out and might now be ready to start a decrease. You can see this effect in the same chart for the 100th to 1000th rated player.

6. The ratings of the strongest players, long stable, began to increase as a result of beating the middle rated players. And, because they are at the top of the food chain, their ratings, at leas initially, continued to climb. I think that they will eventually level out and may have already done that except for possibly the very highest rated players (rated among the top 50) but if this hypothesis is true there is no force to drive them down so they will now stay relatively constant like the pre-1986 10th rated player and the pre-1981 50th rated player. When this leveling out will take place, if it does, and at what level, I have no idea. But a look at the 2017 ratings data indicates that, indeed, it has already started, maybe even among the top 10 rated players.

You can see in the chart that the rating increase, leveling off, and decline first starts with the lowest ranking players, then through the middle ranking players, and finally affects the top ranked players. As of today the average ratings of ALL the players, including the average of the Top-10 rated players, has been fairly constant since 2014.

It's not precise, it's not 100% consistent, but it certainly seems evident. And the process takes decades so it's not easy to see unless you look at all the years and many ranked levels.

Of course, this is just a hypothesis and the chart may look very different 20 years from now. But, at least on the surface, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

But looking at the data through 2018 it is even more evident that the era of ratings inflation appears to be over, unless FIDE once more lowers the rating floor and a flood of new and unrated players enters the rating pool. The previous year's trends have either continued or accelerated; the rating for every ranking category has either flattened out or has started to decline as evidenced by the trendlines.


Chess Engine Non-Determinism

I've discussed chess engine non-determinism many times. If you run an analysis of a position multiple times, with the same engine, the same computer, and to the same search depth, you will get different results. Not MAY, WILL. Guaranteed. Similar results were reported by others.

I had a chance to run a slightly more rigorous test and described the results starting here: US Championship (2017) (kibitz #633). I had 3 different engines (Houdini 4, Komodo 10, and Stockfish 8 analyze the position in W So vs Onischuk, 2017 after 13...Bxd4, a highly complex tactical position. I made 12 runs with each engine; 3 each with threads=1, 2, 3, and 4 on my 32-bit 4-core computer with 4 MB RAM and MPV=3. The results were consistent with each engine:

(a) With threads=1 (using a single core) the results of all 3 engines were deterministic. Each of the 3 engines on each of the analyses selected the same top 3 moves for each engine, with the same evaluations, and obviously the same move rankings.

(b) With threads =2, 3, and 4 (using 2, 3, and 4 cores) none of the engines showed deterministic behavior. Each of the 3 engines on each of the analyses occasionally selected different analyses for the same engine, with different evaluations, and different move rankings.

I've read that the technical reason for the non-deterministic behavior is the high sensitivity of the alpha-beta algorithms that all the top engines use to move ordering in their search tree, and the variation of this move ordering using multi-threaded operation when each of the threads gets interrupted by higher-priority system processes. I have not had the chance to verify this, but there is no disputing the results.

What's the big deal? Well if the same engine gives different results each time it runs, how can you determine what's the real "best" move? Never mind that different engines or relatively equal strength (as determined by their ratings) give different evaluations and move rankings for their top 3 move and that the evaluations may differ as a function of the search depth.

Since I believe in the need to run analyses of a given position using more than one engine and then aggregating the results to try to reach a more accurate assessment of a position, I typically have run sequential analyses of the same position using 4 threads and a hash table = 1,024 MB. But since I typically run 3 engines, I found it to be more efficient to run analyses using all 3 engines concurrently, each with a single thread and a hash table = 256 MB (to prevent swapping to disk). Yes, running with a single thread runs at 1/2 the speed of running with 4 threads but then running the 3 engines sequentially requires 3X the time and running the 3 engines concurrently requires only 2X the time for a 50% reduction in the time to run all 3 analyses to the same depth, and resolving the non-determinism issues.

So, if you typically run analyses of the same position with 3 engines, consider running them concurrently with threads=1 rather than sequentially with threads=4. You'll get deterministic results in less total time.


Any comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc. are both welcomed and encouraged.

------------------- Full Member

   AylerKupp has kibitzed 11950 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Jan-21-19 AylerKupp chessforum
AylerKupp: <Robed.Bishop> I'm glad that you enjoyed my discussion on ratings inflation. If you have a copy of Excel or another program such as https://microsoft-excel-viewer.en.s... (it's free) that will read files in Excel 2003 format you might want to download the ...
   Jan-21-19 Tata Steel Masters (2019) (replies)
AylerKupp: <<Pedro Fernandez> Let me see whether I understand this, i.e. is this if the WC participates in Candidates? If so, an additional match for the WCC would make no sense. > Well, you may be assuming that the defending WC would be one of the top 2 finishers in the ...
   Jan-21-19 Carlsen vs R Rapport, 2019 (replies)
AylerKupp: <espistle>, <safuna> If you were both banned from posting to the So page, welcome to the club. Like you, no reason was given to me. So I contacted So. He was gracious enough to read my note and, instead of ignoring it as a lesser person might have done, referred it to ...
   Jan-19-19 Robert James Fischer (replies)
AylerKupp: <<harrylime> Robert James Fischer was the internet in chess before there was an internet in chess.> Really? If so, what was his MAC address? I would like to send him an email to see if he agrees with you.
   Jan-17-19 Karpov - Fischer World Championship Match (1975) (replies)
AylerKupp: <<john barleycorn> After Fischer resigned the FIDE title in June 1974 how could he refuse to defend it in March 1975? Why would FIDE go on pretending it still could arrange a "title defence"? What were they smoking?> FIDE did not accept Fischer's resignation of his ...
   Jan-14-19 V S Gujrathi vs Carlsen, 2019 (replies)
AylerKupp: FWIW this has been a theoretical draw since 90...Rxe4 per the Lomonosov tablebases. And after 126...Kd4 it's still a theoretical draw. Of course, White could always make a mistake, but that's unlikely in such a simplified position.
   Jan-11-19 Stockfish vs AlphaZero, 2018 (replies)
AylerKupp: <Ron> My comment about "book" was largely tongue in cheek. But you make a good point. I had assumed that 6...Bxg5 had been pretty much discredited since the original game with this variation, and played only by those who, seduced by the gain of a pawn, did not fully ...
   Jan-11-19 J Therien vs E Hoehn, 1949 (replies)
AylerKupp: <lunchwithgina> My favorite GOTD pun for a game with the same player (I think), indeed my all-time favorite pun, was "I concede clearly now, Therain is gone."
   Jan-07-19 Ju Wenjun vs S Khademalsharieh, 2018
AylerKupp: So much for the argument that faster time controls produce more decisive games. ;-)
   Jan-06-19 Stockfish vs AlphaZero, 2018
AylerKupp: <<keypusher> SF was using tablebases, according to the learned poster quoted below.> Well, far be it for me to argue with such a learned poster. :-) Seriously, I keep getting the two matches mixed up; in the first match Stockfish did not have tablebase support but on ...
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

De Gustibus Non Disputandum Est

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 55 OF 55 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Mar-31-18  qqdos: <Dear AK> would you like to take a quick look at the invitation at Bobby's flawed Gem vs Geller [B89]. kind regards.
May-11-18  yskid: I've just posted on "Naiditch game" site ;
12.a3 line played in the correspondence championship game
May-18-18  djvanscoy: <AylerKupp> "It made me think of a recent book I was reading about linear algebra where they were characterizing sparse matrices as to whether they had block regions, regions of the matrix which had a lot of non-zero elements in a few localized and adjacent rows and columns but typically only non-zero elements in the rest of the rows and columns."

I'm guessing you meant to say, "...typically only zero entries in the rest of the rows and columns"? In other words, some block is dense but the rest of the matrix is sparse?

"But I have no doubt that if the top players from other eras; the Capablancas, Alekhines, Fischers, Spasskys, etc. were somehow transported into the current time and given adequate time and exposure to current chess analysis tools that they would be able to hold their own against today's best players."

I agree with you, and indeed I couldn't help but think that Carlsen's rook-and-pawn endgame blunder on move 54 of his game against Caruana in the first round of the 2018 GRENKE tournament (Caruana vs Carlsen, 2018) would not have been made by Capablanca. But maybe in this case I'm afflicted with a bit of hero-worship.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<FSR> You're right - 13-12! I can't imagine that there are many tournaments, at whatever time control, where Black wins more often than White.>

Thanks for the link to your fine article. Itís good to see that others recognize that the percentage of draws increases as the rating of the players increases. Which is not surprising given that itís generally (not unanimously) accepted that in order for one player to win a game the other player must make at least one mistake or a series of inaccuracies. So, since the higher rated the player the better he generally is, itís not surprising that the higher rated the players the less the likelihood that one of them will make a mistake. Hence, the greater the percentage of draws.

One good way to see this is to look at the database. In addition to listing the win/lose/draw result percentages for all the games in its database, it gives you the ability to filter the games according to the rating of the 2 players; 2200+ (both players rated higher than 2200), 2300+ (both players rated higher than 2300), etc.

So here are the current (todayís) database snapshot from Whiteís perspective:

Rating # Games Win % Draw % Loss %

All 3,459,235 38.4% 31.4% 30.2%

2200+ 1,712,350 35.1% 39.5% 25.5%

2300+ 1,176,981 33.5% 43.0% 23.4%

2400+ 692,046 31.9% 46.8% 21.3%

2500+ 266,553 30.0% 50.9% 19.1%

2600+ 73,269 29.4% 51.9% 18.6%

2700+ 16,510 28.7% 52.2% 19.1%

Clearly the number of draws increases as the ratings of the players increases. The percentages, however, are somewhat ďcontaminatedĒ since the database includes games at classic, rapid, and blitz time control as well as blindfold, exhibition, etc. And itís not easy to filter the various categories other by looking at the names of the events, and those are not always sufficiently descriptive.

Sep-05-18  SChesshevsky: I've been watching TCEC season 13 and have a couple of questions that only someone very knowledgeable about computer chess can probably answer:

When a time limit for their games decreases, say 90 min down to 30 min, are the programs adjusted to save time? Do they try to keep the same depth but maybe limit the number of variations or maybe keep the number of variations the same but not look as deep?

Who and why decided that some computer games/divisions go with 90 minutes plus? Do computers really need that much time to produce their 3000 elo play? It's just about unbearable to try to watch those 90 min games and it seems a waste if 60 min or less produces relatively same game.

Thanks for any info.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<SChesshevsky> I've been watching TCEC season 13 and have a couple of questions that only someone very knowledgeable about computer chess can probably answer>

OK, until you find such a person I'll give it a try.

1. <When a time limit for their games decreases, say 90 min down to 30 min, are the programs adjusted to save time? >

Time management is an important feature in chess engines and differs between engines. But, yes, the time that the engine uses to determine what move to play varies from move to move depending on many factors. I would think that prior to starting the analysis of its move the engine will calculate the average time that it should take for its analysis taking into account the time remaining before the time control and the number of moves that it has to make. Then it can extend or shorten the time it spends calculating its next move depending on the circumstances.

For example, if an engine finds itself in check and it has only one legal move then they <may> recognize that there is no point in taking the time to search deeply, and it can respond immediately. It would then have more time for subsequent moves.

There might be other factors that the engine considers. If the engine is keeping track of the complexity of the position, however it estimates that, then it might take longer (or less) to calculate playing it's next move. And if the engine is calculating a series of forcing moves when its "time to move" timer goes off, it will probably extend its time limit until it reaches a quiescent position. Likewise, if it's probing a tablebase it will probably wait until the result of the position is determined.

Also, if Ponder=ON then the engine can use their opponent's thinking/calculating time to determine what their opponent's best replies will be and, if their opponent's next move is one of those replies, then assuming that it has calculated what it considers to be sufficiently deeply to have reasonable confidence in its evaluation, it knows what its best reply to that reply will be and will make its next move fairly quickly. If the opponent's move is not one of its analyzed replies then it has to begin the analysis from the beginning and it will take longer to move.

From personal experience I found that Rybka had a tendency to get into time trouble. I was watching a game between Rybka and Houdini where Rybka took a long time in its early moves. Then, as the time control approached, it spent less time per move and could only reach lower and lower search depths as time went on. As a result the quality of its play decreased dramatically and, from an equal position, Houdini began to outplay it and won the game.

And engines do change the number of variations they check according to the move number. When a game first starts the number of possible variations is relatively small and the engine looks at all possible moves. Soon the number of possible moves grows exponentially and so the engine starts to prune its search tree to set a limit to the number of variations it will examine. And the amount of search tree pruning varies from engine to engine and some engine even allow you to specify the amount of pruning that you are willing to tolerate.

2. <Who and why decided that some computer games/divisions go with 90 minutes plus?>

I would assume that those who set up the engine vs. engine tournament determine the time controls and it would to some extent depend on the number of players. In a knockout type tournament like TCEC with a large number of players in the early rounds faster time controls would likely be used to reduce the time required to play the round and with a smaller number of players in the later rounds the slower time controls could be used and still finish the round in a reasonable amount of time.

3. <Do computers really need that much time to produce their 3000 elo play?>

A good question to which I don't have an answer. Some researchers have indicated that an engine's playing strength increases as a factor of its search depth but the increase is not linear and eventually the engine reaches the point of diminishing returns and additional search depth does not substantially increase the engine's playing strength. And, of course, the point at which diminishing returns occur varies from engine to engine as well as the complexity of the position.

Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: If you look at the Fischer/Spassky 1972
page, it appears one with a better computer has determined Game1 is drawn after Bxh2. Fischer's losing mistake
was at move ...39.

I seem to remember you thinking it was a win???

I tried to go back and look at your posts but found it difficult to follow.

He's also done much work on many of the other games. Showing even the drawn games to be double edged and exciting.

Very interesting.

Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: Oh yeah, he also found the link
to Fischer/Spassky clock times.

I believe he posted it in the Game 13 thread.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<diceman> I seem to remember you thinking it was a win??> - Yes

<I tried to go back and look at your posts but found it difficult to follow> - Yes

Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: AylerKupp: I have a question that I'd like to address to you because you understand, as well as anyone, engine chess and also ratings.

We all know that engines are stronger than humans, when playing with the same time control. Is there a time control at which they are equal, if we allow the human more time than the engine? That would mean that the engine would have to have "ponder" off, so that it cannot use the human player's time.

Concerning ratings, engine rating are higher than human ratings by about 300-400 points. Some, a few, of us know that that difference is meaningless, because the ratings are based on an entirely separate pool of games and players. Just as Carlsen's 2939 blitz rating does not mean that his chess improves by 100 points when he plays fast. So here is the question: what time control is used when engine ratings are established?

I suspect that engines play worse chess in their world championships, because of fast time controls, than humans play in theirs, at classical time controls.

Evidence: humans draw more often in their championships than engines do in theirs. Basis: decided games are evidence of weak play.

Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Tiggler:

Is there a time control at which they are equal>

If you have a very fast time control for the computer, you handicap its ability to calculate, making it an easier opponent.

"Equal" would depend on the human players strength, since there isn't a set human level.

<Basis: decided games are evidence of weak play.>

First it would depend if the humans are
actually playing to win. They can select drawish openings, play drawish variations. They get to choose when they go for a win. They get to adjust play based on their position and standing.

Computers only play their best move,
and only their best move. They lose
because they can only see so far.
(their horizon)
As the game moves forward, they see
their evaluation slip, but it's too late.

There is also the efficiency of the software.
With the same computer, and the same "thinking"
time, different programs will reach different

I'm not an expert, but I'm sure if I'm wrong
Ayler will yell at me. :)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <diceman>: <If you have a very fast time control for the computer, you handicap its ability to calculate, making it an easier opponent.>

The same, of coarse, is true for a human. I had assumed that this was so obvious that to say so would be superfluous.

<Computers only play their best move, and only their best move.>

Computers also have a knob to twiddle (I forget what it is called), to adjust their level of aggressiveness. Oh, I remembered, it's called "contempt".

Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Tiggler: <diceman>: <If you have a very fast time control for the computer, you handicap its ability to calculate, making it an easier opponent.>

The same, of coarse, is true for a human.>

Are you talking about faster speeds for both?

I was thinking of just handicapping the computer side, the human would get to play "normal" chess.
We're basically trying to blind it so it
becomes an easier opponent.

<Computers also have a knob to twiddle>

I wonder how much testing they actually do on those things?

Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <AylerKupp> I think maybe I owe you an apology for some irritable and disrespectful posts on the WC forum. You are a respected and usually trusted poster, without doubt. But, I wish to say, with that comes a responsibility to be right, and it upsets me when you post erroneous info.

I hope we're all good.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: Read your own post above:

AylerKupp chessforum

Perhaps that will refresh your memory.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: My post of 3-23-2016, to which you refer, is here:

Tiggler chessforum

Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: Solution of the 4-game rapid match problem is given in a new post here:

Tiggler chessforum

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Tiggler> So here is the question: what time control is used when engine ratings are established?>

It depends. Unlike FIDE there is no one organization that establishes engine ratings. So the ratings depends on the organization conducting the engine vs. engine tournaments and the hardware that they are using. These organizations also conduct engine tournaments at different time controls so, like the different ratings for humans in Rapid and Blitz, each engine has different ratings at different time controls. And the ratings will also depend on the engine and GUI settings.

The two sites I prefer are CCRL ( and CEGT (, primarily because (1) they seem to have the most engines in their tournaments, (2) they are updated at least monthly, and (3) they provide ratings for the same engine in 4-core and 1-core configurations. But there are several others such as IPON which sets Ponder=ON (the engine waiting for its opponent to move can use the waiting time to analyze it's opponent's most likely responses).

CCRL conducts its tournaments at 40/4 and 40/40 time controls and CEGT conducts its tournaments at 40/4, 40/20, and 40/120 time controls plus 5 min/3 sec increments, so their ratings are not directly comparable. And they use different hardware (and sometimes different testers in the same site use different hardware) so the ratings between the two sites are not directly comparable even if the tournaments are conducted using the same time controls. But all of that is explained on their sites.

For comparison the last TCEC tournament ( was conducted at different time controls, with the fastest being 30 mins + 10 sec increment per move for the whole game for divisions 2-4 and 60 mins + 10 sec increment per move for the whole game for division 1 (the strongest). Then the time was increased depending on the level reached by the engines with the slowest time control being 120 mins + 15 sec increment per move for the whole game. And the games were played on a 44 (!) core computer, much more capable than the 1-core to 4-core computers used in the CCRL and CEGT sites. So, needless to say, the engine ratings between the TCEC and CCRL/CEGT sites are also not directly comparable.

Sorry for my usual verbose response but if that' is good enough for you then you won't need to visit the individual pages. It reminds me of the old joke about one guy showing off his new watch to his friend. The guy says: "This is my new Albert Einstein watch. It not only tells you what time it is but why."

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Tiggler> But, I wish to say, with that comes a responsibility to be right, and it upsets me when you post erroneous info. I hope we're all good.>

If you think that it upsets you when I post some erroneous information I can assure you that's nowhere as much as it upsets me when I post some erroneous information. Usually it's the result of rushing, carelessness, and not paying enough attention. It's also due to a mild dyslexia and my eyes not being as good as they used to be so when looking at numbers in a (row, column) intersection I sometimes "see" the wrong row and/or column.

And those are just explanations, they are not intended as excuses. There aren't any. Other than the state of my eyes I simply have to be more careful and slow down somewhat. And after the fact all I can do is admit that I was wrong and apologize for my mistakes as soon as they are pointed out by anyone. Hopefully I've done that most of the time.

Which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that I will always agree with the "correction". In that case I try to simply indicate why I disagree with the "correction" and say that we'll just have to agree to disagree or something equally trite and then move on.

As far as being good, sure. We were never "not good" as far as I'm concerned.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Tiggler> Read your own post above. Perhaps that will refresh your memory.>

See what I mean? I obviously (well, maybe not obviously) meant to say SQRT(2) = 10/7 = 1.428... and instead I visualized 7/10 = 0.7. Again, no excuse, just an irrelevant explanation.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <As far as being good, sure. We were never "not good" as far as I'm concerned.> Nor from my point of view, and I am happy to read your response. I don't think either of us is inclined to waste our energy railing against the nonsense posted by those who never have shown a sign of knowing better, but if you find me posting mistakes of fact, not opinion, I expect you to take me to task.
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: Why is your avatar blurry, <AK>?

And, does your user name indirectly indicate that you are a fan of Anatoly Karpov ?

(initials of AK?)

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<thegoodanarchist> My avatar is blurry because the image that I used had low contrast and, when shrunk to the required display size, became what was referred to by, I think <morfishine>, as a "fuzzy diploma>. I started to try to clean it up pixel by pixel but I lost my work after a disk crash and I haven't started to try to do it again.

And, no, it has nothing to do by any particular appreciation for Karpov, for which I have no more than my appreciation for any top-level player except perhaps Tal. I just happen to be a wine enthusiast and some of my favorite wines are German wines, particularly Riesling. One of the wines for which I developed an early appreciation were the wines of the Ayler Kupp vineyard in the Saar valley, hence the derivation of my user name. And my avatar is a label from one of the owners of that vineyard (Bischofliches Konvict in this case, there are many as is typical in most areas of the world).

Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <AylerKupp> I enjoyed your discussion on ratings inflation. While I do not have the impetus to check your underlying data, your explanation, at least on its face, seems reasonable. Time will tell the tale.

Regarding "Chess Engine Non-Determinism," is it possible that the same engine gives different moves for the same position on subsequent analyses simply because it has already analyzed the position? Does it remember?

Please excuse me if the question is nonsense as I do not use an engine and do not play against any. Simply stated, I really do not know how the engines work, though I have done some reading on AlphaZero.

Thank you.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Robed.Bishop> I'm glad that you enjoyed my discussion on ratings inflation. If you have a copy of Excel or another program such as https://microsoft-excel-viewer.en.s... (it's free) that will read files in Excel 2003 format you might want to download the file and look at the pictures. I think that the trends will be clear, but please form your own opinions.

As far as engine non-determinism, no question is nonsense, just some of the answers, including mine. In fact, some poster at this site might say "specially mine" :-) As far as how engines work AlphaZero is probably not a good place to learn from since it is very different, at least for now, from I will call "classic" chess engines. Here is a simple overview that might be of help: https://electronics.howstuffworks.c....

One thing that the article does not describe is the hash or transposition table. In all top engines the results of the computer's analysis of a position is stored in the table. As the computer is looking at a position it first looks at the table to see if it has analyzed the position before. If it has, there is no need to analyze it again. This saves a lot of time because looking for and finding a position's analysis in the table if very fast compared to re-analyzing the position. And, the bigger the table (up to a point), the better.

When a chess engine starts it has no knowledge of what positions it previously analyzed. If, after you stop the analysis you restart it again without clearing the table, it will know that it has previously analyzed millions of positions and it will use that information instead of re-analyzing them. This will save a lot of time and so will allow the engine to search more deeply in the same amount of time and possibly reach different conclusions. But even if you clear the table before you start an analysis (which I always do), you will get different conclusions.

Let me know if you have any questions and I will be happy to try to answer them.

Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 55)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 55 OF 55 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Participating Grandmasters are Not Allowed Here!

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC