Talk:Chess engine

message: Is it possible to add information about the license of each engine, such as GNU, BSD, closed-source, or whatever? Nicholasink 15:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing 

message: This list is of dubious value. To the layperson, it is just random names. It does not distinguish between software and dedicated computers. It does not distinguish programs of historical interest from those of current interest. Half these engines are non-notable personal projects. Any static list will become obsolete almost immediately. I recommend removing the list entirely, perhaps merging the notable programs into computer chess, perhaps introducing categories instead. --IanOsgood 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia:Listcruft is exactly what I was talking about. I'd propose this page for deletion, but it seems to have a lot of history, therefore interest. Could we at least categorize the links on this page a little? I propose at least deleting every item that does not have an internal or external link. --IanOsgood 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List is of dubious value 

message: I propose that this page, currently at Chess engines should be move to Chess engine to conform with WP naming conventions regarding plurals of nouns. The page cannot be moved by a non-administrative user because the redirect page Chess engine has a history. BlueValour 23:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: move was made. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed page move 

message: Subject says it all Rocksong 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose - Computer chess is already long and a merge of the two articles would push it over the top. I agree that some rationalisation is needed but length indicates two articles though not necessarily split as now. BlueValour 05:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oppose - As per Bluevalour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aarontay (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oppose - This page started out as a "list" article, with only minimal explanatory paragraphs. Such a (large) article should remain separate from the (large) main topic article. I would instead suggest refactoring by moving content related to computer chess theory back into the main computer chess article. --IanOsgood 17:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not quite. Of course any chess program by definition would have an engine (the component that actually runs the algorithms), but in the Computer chess circles (as you probably already know), chess engine typically refers to the relatively new idea (1990s?) of splitting a chess program into two parts so the engine or brain can be ported to run on any other interface that runs the same protocol. It is allied to the concepts of Xboard Communication Protocol, UCI, etc and there has being a trend in the past 2 decades for modular engines to be released even by commercial packages. It is also a more specialized term than computer chess which is devoted generally to computer chess programming techniques (and history of).  You can argue whether this concept is notable, but it is clearly distinguishable from computer chess topic.Aarontay 07:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually that's what the article is about as can be seen by the first two sections , though it seems that it was duplicated in the main computer chess article as well. I agree "The increasing strength portion" is not quite relevant here. As you know, the main effect of this chess engine portability factor is that it makes engine versus engine contests a lot easier, and as a result, many hobbyist focus exclusively on chess engine strength that is perhaps why it was added here. If you give me a week, I can  expand the first two sections with more meat (history etc). A seperate issue is what to do with the lists of chess engines as discussed above, that one I'm not too concerned. I propose keeping the chess engine article, and moving the lists to another article. Aarontay 02:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But in any case, this article is not about "chess engines" as you have defined. It even lists dedicated hardware. If you look through the history of the article, you will see that until Oct-Nov 2006 it was almost nothing but a list of chess engines/computers. Since then well meaning editors have added extra comment, but honestly I think it is unnecessary and distracting, duplicating what is already in the very thorough Chess computers article. Now in my opinion, the fact that engines can be separate to the interface is pretty uninteresting, and really only deserves a sentence or two in Chess computers. (The real revolution has been that computers have become so powerful that almost all chess computers are now software - back in the 80s / early 90s you could buy a "chess computer", now these things I think are extinct.)  Let's just focus on improving the main computer chess article, rather than doing the same (or very similar) work in two different articles. Rocksong 06:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  IMHO This sounds a lot like  "I'm not interested hence it is not notable". I submit that the majority of editors including the originator of this article actually recognize this concept, though many are newcomers so they are not able to place it in context, but enough "well meaning editors" do. You are a well meaning editor as well, but correct me if I'm wrong but you are not quite familiar with computer chess as opposed to other well meaning editors in this article? Aarontay 14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh, above I accidentally wrote Chess computers instead of Computer chess. Ironically it turned out not to matter because Chess computers (and for that matter Chess computer) is a redirect to Computer chess). It really doesn't make sense to me that typing "Chess computers" brings up one article, while typing "Chess engines" brings up a quite different article, especially since the "Chess engines" article lists not only chess "engines", but also computers. I still think it makes sense to rename this article to "List of chess engines", and incorporate any discussion portions into Chess computers. Rocksong 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that people have being overly generous with the use of redirects.  But I suspect if it were up to you, there would only be one article - Computer chess. As I said, I don't particularly care for lists so if you want to move the lists to Lists of chess engines great, But Chess computers would imply hardware or even specialised hardware, so I'm not sure why you think the discussion here is suitable to be placed there. Aarontay 14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were up to me, there would be one main article - Computer chess - with lots of sub-articles. The reality is that chess computers have evolved gradually, from specialised-hardware-only 20 years ago, to almost invariably software-only now. Because the change was gradual, and the concepts overlap so much, the chess hardware and software articles need to be tightly coupled. In any case, there is no division at the moment: Computer chess has a lot on software-only, while Chess engine has some stuff on specialised hardware.  I don't want people to waste time on two parallel articles. Rocksong 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I don't want to dumb Wikipedia down. No offense but to say that software and hardware needs to be tightly coupled, shows a studied ignorance of the origins of the field. Computer chess as a field has always focused on AI and algorithmic advances (Turing and Shannon) independent of the exact medium used as typified by Turing's historic paper/hand simulation of a chess program. That has nothing at all to do with specialized hardware vs software.  Aarontay 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get my point, do you? That hardware and software can do the same thing. Look I'm not for dumbing down, I'm for avoiding duplication. I offered the suggestion to help avoid duplication. If you don't want to take that suggestion, than I guess I can't stop you. Also I strongly advise against calling other editors ignorant. Rocksong 08:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As a compromise, I've changed the chess computer redirect to point to chess engine. This seems more appropriate, looking at the backlinks. --IanOsgood 17:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should merge with [[Computer chess]] 

message: What is the purpose of these without qualifying why they are here? (i.e. defeated a nother notable program) People can't buy or even download these and it doesn't seem much more than a list of names, less useful than the freely downloadable programs that we are not allowed to add to the page. Laetoli
:Good point. This section is perhaps a relic of the initial categorization of the flat list of names. The only two notable ones are Ikarus and Ferret (winners of the World Computer Speed Chess Championship). I would not mind deleting the section entirely. --IanOsgood 18:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section and added a reference line to Ikarus & Ferret at the end of the list of free engines.Laetoli  —Preceding comment was added at 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal programs 

message: I have removed the text "results are statistically significant" because the engines are rarely differentiated from those a few places above and below them to a 95% statistical significance. For example, if you look at http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/ you will see that most of the engines could rise or fall several places within the given margins of error. On this list, only the top engine, Rybka, is safe in its position within the given margins of error. The 21st placed engine, Delfi, could fall to 28th place within the given margins of error even if those below 28th failed to rise (which they probably would if Delfi lost games to them, as may well be the case in this scenario). Laetoli
:There was a similar wording at Chess engine rating lists:
::[...] list uses statistically significant measurements of chess engine strength, [...]
:I changed it to:
::[...] list uses confidence interval estimates of chess engine strength, [...]
:which is hopefully more to the point here. GregorB (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess engine rating lists 

message: I'm sorry if I not some semantic genius, but when I type in "Chess Computer" I would expect to go to the article describing the history of chess-playing computers, not this article. At the least, the top of this article should contain a link to Computer Chess. 129.210.217.63 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess Computer should redirect to Computer Chess, not here 

message: The article is pretty good in my opinion, thought its coverage just right...--Billymac00 (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads well 

message: Weid chess engine doesn't have any engine downloads.  Just an opening book that's all... So is that really an engine if there is no engine? :) 72.245.213.213 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with Weid, but if it is as you say, then it is not an engine.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weid doesn't have any downloads 

message: Could anyone tech savvy enough center the text in most of the columns? I think it will look much better. Especially the column for Engine/platform entries. Year started and Rating could also use centering. Nghtwlkr (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I centered the text in the ratings table. The other tables look best left-justified. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings table 

message: Ok, right now the grammar in the lead paragraph is so horrible I can barely make heads or tails of the thing nor do I find the content informative in the least regard. I'm thinking we can just restart the thing fresh from scratch again. How about something more like: “A chess engine, in computer architecture, is the core and most important chess component distinct from all the other components, such as the user interface and move history, encompassing both hardware and software capable of searching and/or analyzing chess positions striving to find the best move for a particular side in a given situation.”?
I know, its one massive run-on but I think it does the article justice -- in contrast with what we have now. Any other options? --Thelazyleo (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just rewrote the lead paragraph. Please check it and make further improvement if you can. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  revamping the lead paragraph 

message: Is the x64 really needed? Each and every entry has a x64 at the end - it is standard nowadays! It might be better to enter 32b in case a 32 bit engine apears in the top 3.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.10.41 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed your original post. There is no law of nature that says the top-rated programs all have to be x64, even though they currently are. The author of, say, Redqueen could come up with a clever improvement next week that catapults the strength of his 32-bit chess engine to the top of all the ratings lists. Or it could happen that in a few years Intel will bring out a 128-bit CPU and Stockfish will be immediately recompiled for it, gaining strength and putting it at the top of the list. If you knew for a fact that all future top chess engines will be x64 forever, I would agree with the deletion, but you don't know that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, there is no law for that, but there is the general rule of avoiding redundances! Right now ALL Engines ARE 64bit and that is well know. In case a (one) 32bit engine or in the future a (one) 128bit engine might come up one can name that in the beginning and when it becomes standard it can be removed again. I will remove the X64 again!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.209.110.45 (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted your attempt to shove your version down our throats. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  x64 in Rating list table 

message: What are the criteria for inclusion in the list of "private" engines? Should this list even be in the article? - dcljr (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it belongs.  I wrote more at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Chess engine, but that discussion hasn't garnered much participation yet. Quale (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted that entire section per discussion at the external links noticeboard. Of course the question of criteria for classifying chess engines still exists -- it has just moved to list of chess engines.Oops. Didn't follow the link. It redirects here. Perhaps we should talk about having a "List of chess engines" page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private 

message: If I can find enough well-sourced material, I would like to add a section to the article about test positions that are constructed to test / confuse chess engines.  I found a couple at
http://blog.chess.com/zaifrun/cool-endgame-study---test-your-engines
http://blog.chess.com/zaifrun/test-your-chess-engine
but I have a feeling that there might be a collection of them somewhere. Does anybody know of one? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess engine torture tests 

message: What about hash sizes for engines, doesn't that also determine the playing strength of the engine by changing the speed it calculates? Houdini 3 came with a manual that states a formula to calculate the ideal hash size given the average search speed of the engine on one's hardware and the average time per move but my own testing has showed Houdini gets faster node searches with basically no hash. Is this a situation like Houdart described for hyperthreading, where hyperthreading increases the search speed but makes the whole process less efficient therefore is not recommended? 108.223.240.62 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a lot more complex than that. See [ http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/digital-butterflies-and-prgs/ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Hash Size?

message: Can a person beat a program if the person has no time controls and can use other programs and can take back as many moves as they want? I came here hoping to find answer  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.72.78.79 (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  takeback 

message: I'm new to wikipedia so forgive me. But shouldn't the AI engine that can consistently BEAT Stockfish 9 be mentioned? Should an AI Engine section be added? What about Leela AI?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBunco (talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: AlphaZero would probably be fine for the "dedicated hardware" section, or a new "AI engine" section; feel free to add either. But (a) the latest information I can find says that it was tested against Stockfish 8, not 9, and (b) since Stockfish was on significantly inferior hardware compared to AlphaZero - and the hardware wasn't even optimized for Stockfish's approach whereas AlphaZero's was - saying that it can "consistently beat Stockfish" is a bit unfair. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alpha Zero 

message: Section needed on use of chess engine in cheating 217.155.25.156 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  cheating