21–30 of 39 posts
Interestingly, asm.js has an advantage in Firefox and Chrome for me, but not in Safari.
I played 4 times on Safari with varying settings and it always converged into 50%/50% play ending in a draw.
Whereas in Firefox or Chrome sometimes even after 10-15 turns, the asm.js version had 98-100% chance of winning.
Interesting. I slowed a game down to 1000ms per move so I could realistically follow what was going on. The game started 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.e4? So White sacrifices (loses?) a pawn for no compensation on move 2. Not really sure what this says in respect of the experiment in general, but it does smell a little. Also; Showing the dark squares would be a massive usability advance! And it would be nice if they respected some sim…
It's almost certainly playing out of an opening book. There is a move history, but you have to expand it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost certainly playing out of an opening book. There is a move history, but you have to expand it.
How does playing out of an opening book explain the opening blunder 2. e4?
Though in this case, I think it's almost certainly a blunder, that line does not appear to be a well known opening.
When you push it up to 1000ms per move, since the difference between 15 moves ahead and 16 moves ahead is so large, both engines end up making 15 moves ahead and win / lose about half the time, even though asm.js is visiting more nodes.
An interesting tidbit (chrome): When you push it up to 1000ms per move, since the difference between 15 moves ahead and 16 moves ahead is so large, both engines end up making 15 moves ahead and win / lose about half the time, even though asm.js is visiting more nodes.
> Refresh page to play again This was very infuriating. The server seemed to be under load and took several minutes to load. I was not going to wait for it load again to retry the simulation.
Seriously. Came here to say this. How hard is it to add a button that says "play another".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does playing out of an opening book explain the opening blunder 2. e4?
Well, I guess if it really was out of a book, it would imply that the quality of the engine itself wasn't at fault, but rather a bad opening book. Also, without that line being thoroughly researched, it'd be difficult to say whether it's a blunder, or a clever sacrifice. Again, it could be an incomplete opening book which led the engine to offer the sacrifice, but then didn't have info on how to capitalise on it. Tho…
It's not a serious opening though, it looks frivolous - could be played in simultaneous games, or in bullet chess for its surprise value etc.
If you optimize the opening book to include serious games only, you're unlikely to come across this line. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=98&move=2&moves...
Given the insame amount of opening theory research humanity has done by now, if e4 on the third move here was even remotely close to a clever sacrifice, chess community would have noted it by now.
Ran it in chrome and it came out to a draw.