Scratch Chess Engine - Game of Kings

S_P_A_R_T_Test

waabooboo wrote:
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Kaufman_Test

Have you guys tried this? I am curious how the other engines do. It's a good test and shouldn't be too much effort (took me maybe 20 minutes to set things up so Wolverine could automatically run through all the positions and get a score at the end).

Wolverine's results:

100k nodes per move – 5/25
1M nodes per move (similar to the 5 sec/move time control on my system) – 14/25
5M nodes per move – 17/25

Next time I find the time to work on WD / BC I'll add support for EPD testing and I'll let you all know WD + BC scores

internet44

waabooboo wrote:
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Kaufman_Test

Have you guys tried this? I am curious how the other engines do. It's a good test and shouldn't be too much effort (took me maybe 20 minutes to set things up so Wolverine could automatically run through all the positions and get a score at the end).

Wolverine's results:

100k nodes per move – 5/25
1M nodes per move (similar to the 5 sec/move time control on my system) – 14/25
5M nodes per move – 17/25

interesting! I have never seen that before, but that is for sure worth it as a means to compare our engines. I'll cobble something together real quick to get testing. just, well sb isn't set up for node limits, I'm counting nodes while undoing so it will always slightly overshoot the limit, I hope that won't skew results. first test looks acceptable tho, I set the limiter to 10000 and the search stopped at 10039. hopefully that's close enough to have a valid comparison

I suspect sb will do quite poorly on this lol

will report back with results in a couple minutes

ArnoHu

internet44 wrote:
waabooboo wrote:
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Kaufman_Test

Have you guys tried this? I am curious how the other engines do. It's a good test and shouldn't be too much effort (took me maybe 20 minutes to set things up so Wolverine could automatically run through all the positions and get a score at the end).

Wolverine's results:

100k nodes per move – 5/25
1M nodes per move (similar to the 5 sec/move time control on my system) – 14/25
5M nodes per move – 17/25

interesting! I have never seen that before, but that is for sure worth it as a means to compare our engines. I'll cobble something together real quick to get testing. just, well sb isn't set up for node limits, I'm counting nodes while undoing so it will always slightly overshoot the limit, I hope that won't skew results. first test looks acceptable tho, I set the limiter to 10000 and the search stopped at 10039. hopefully that's close enough to have a valid comparison

I suspect sb will do quite poorly on this lol

will report back with results in a couple minutes

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/7720081/

internet44

ArnoHu wrote:
internet44 wrote:
waabooboo wrote:
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Kaufman_Test

Have you guys tried this? I am curious how the other engines do. It's a good test and shouldn't be too much effort (took me maybe 20 minutes to set things up so Wolverine could automatically run through all the positions and get a score at the end).

Wolverine's results:

100k nodes per move – 5/25
1M nodes per move (similar to the 5 sec/move time control on my system) – 14/25
5M nodes per move – 17/25

interesting! I have never seen that before, but that is for sure worth it as a means to compare our engines. I'll cobble something together real quick to get testing. just, well sb isn't set up for node limits, I'm counting nodes while undoing so it will always slightly overshoot the limit, I hope that won't skew results. first test looks acceptable tho, I set the limiter to 10000 and the search stopped at 10039. hopefully that's close enough to have a valid comparison

I suspect sb will do quite poorly on this lol

will report back with results in a couple minutes

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/7720081/

ah, this has been discussed before? that was way before my time
anyway, here are SB's results (not great as I thought, I might try switching back to the old LMR config to see if that does better)

100k - 1/25
1m - 9/25
5m - 12/25

internet44

internet44 wrote:
ArnoHu wrote:
internet44 wrote:
waabooboo wrote:
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Kaufman_Test

Have you guys tried this? I am curious how the other engines do. It's a good test and shouldn't be too much effort (took me maybe 20 minutes to set things up so Wolverine could automatically run through all the positions and get a score at the end).

Wolverine's results:

100k nodes per move – 5/25
1M nodes per move (similar to the 5 sec/move time control on my system) – 14/25
5M nodes per move – 17/25

interesting! I have never seen that before, but that is for sure worth it as a means to compare our engines. I'll cobble something together real quick to get testing. just, well sb isn't set up for node limits, I'm counting nodes while undoing so it will always slightly overshoot the limit, I hope that won't skew results. first test looks acceptable tho, I set the limiter to 10000 and the search stopped at 10039. hopefully that's close enough to have a valid comparison

I suspect sb will do quite poorly on this lol

will report back with results in a couple minutes

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/7720081/

ah, this has been discussed before? that was way before my time
anyway, here are SB's results (not great as I thought, I might try switching back to the old LMR config to see if that does better)

100k - 1/25
1m - 9/25
5m - 12/25

a little better:

100k - 2/25
1m - 11/25
5m - 12/25 (interestingly not the same 12 it found last time)

ArnoHu

internet44 wrote:
internet44 wrote:
ArnoHu wrote:
internet44 wrote:
waabooboo wrote:
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Kaufman_Test

Have you guys tried this? I am curious how the other engines do. It's a good test and shouldn't be too much effort (took me maybe 20 minutes to set things up so Wolverine could automatically run through all the positions and get a score at the end).

Wolverine's results:

100k nodes per move – 5/25
1M nodes per move (similar to the 5 sec/move time control on my system) – 14/25
5M nodes per move – 17/25

interesting! I have never seen that before, but that is for sure worth it as a means to compare our engines. I'll cobble something together real quick to get testing. just, well sb isn't set up for node limits, I'm counting nodes while undoing so it will always slightly overshoot the limit, I hope that won't skew results. first test looks acceptable tho, I set the limiter to 10000 and the search stopped at 10039. hopefully that's close enough to have a valid comparison

I suspect sb will do quite poorly on this lol

will report back with results in a couple minutes

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/7720081/

ah, this has been discussed before? that was way before my time
anyway, here are SB's results (not great as I thought, I might try switching back to the old LMR config to see if that does better)

100k - 1/25
1m - 9/25
5m - 12/25

a little better:

100k - 2/25
1m - 11/25
5m - 12/25 (interestingly not the same 12 it found last time)

GoK Classic:

100k:  8 / 25
  1m: 16 / 25
  5m: 19 / 25

Although I must admit two of the correct 100k findings were disposed again before reaching 1m. Do they still count for 100k? I thought yes, after all they were found at 100k.

Last edited by ArnoHu (Nov. 27, 2025 21:24:02)

waabooboo

ArnoHu wrote:
internet44 wrote:
internet44 wrote:
ArnoHu wrote:
internet44 wrote:
waabooboo wrote:
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Kaufman_Test

Have you guys tried this? I am curious how the other engines do. It's a good test and shouldn't be too much effort (took me maybe 20 minutes to set things up so Wolverine could automatically run through all the positions and get a score at the end).

Wolverine's results:

100k nodes per move – 5/25
1M nodes per move (similar to the 5 sec/move time control on my system) – 14/25
5M nodes per move – 17/25

interesting! I have never seen that before, but that is for sure worth it as a means to compare our engines. I'll cobble something together real quick to get testing. just, well sb isn't set up for node limits, I'm counting nodes while undoing so it will always slightly overshoot the limit, I hope that won't skew results. first test looks acceptable tho, I set the limiter to 10000 and the search stopped at 10039. hopefully that's close enough to have a valid comparison

I suspect sb will do quite poorly on this lol

will report back with results in a couple minutes

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/7720081/

ah, this has been discussed before? that was way before my time
anyway, here are SB's results (not great as I thought, I might try switching back to the old LMR config to see if that does better)

100k - 1/25
1m - 9/25
5m - 12/25

a little better:

100k - 2/25
1m - 11/25
5m - 12/25 (interestingly not the same 12 it found last time)

GoK Classic:
100k:  8 / 25
  1m: 16 / 25
  5m: 19 / 25
Although I must admit two of the correct 100k findings were disposed again before reaching 1m. Do they still count for 100k? I thought yes, after all they were found at 100k.

Yes, that's how I scored things as well. I just gathered the moves suggested after 100k, 1M, and 5M. I'm not sure how often Wolverine changed its mind between those three checks, but usually once it finds the right move it doesn't look back…

internet44

I just found a fairly major bug related to TT horizon flags. here's the results of the test with this taken care of:

100k - 4
1m - 15
5m - 16

I'll do some more testing and then push that to main later probably. I doubt I would have noticed that if it wasn't for you bringing up the kaufman test @waabooboo, so thanks for that. this explains the weirdly inconsistent results of the last 2 tests and probably some of the blunders from recent games

Destructor_chess

nodes count is for this depth only, time from the beginning.
1. depth 12, 6.6Mnodes, not found (55 seconds)
2. depth 5, 31Knodes, found (0.45 seconds)
3. depth 8, 896Knodes, found (stopped to think about the bad move at depth 8 and found the 1st bm at depth 8, according to stockfish)
4. depth 9, 706Knodes, found (4.1 seconds)
5. depth 8, 213Knodes, found (1.5 seconds)
6. depth 8, 201Knodes, found (stopped to think about the bad move at depth 8 and found the 2nd bm at depth 8, according to stockfish)
7. depth 4, 8.2Knodes, found (0.16 seconds)
8. depth 13, 12.8Mnodes, not found (53 seconds)
9. unfinished depth 13, found (1 minute)
10. depth 8, 105Knodes, found (1.7 seconds)
11. unfinished depth 14, found (1 minute)
12. depth 13, 2.3Mnodes, not found (31.5 seconds)
13. depth 11, 1.64Mnodes, found (7.4 seconds)
14. unfinished depth 12, found (1 minute)
15. depth 4, 24Knodes, found (0.2 seconds), stopped to see, depth 7, 246Knodes (1.2 seconds), re-found, depth 10, 8.5Mnodes (42 seconds)
16. unfinished depth 23, found (1 minute)
17. depth 7, 183Knodes, found (1.1 seconds)
18. depth 14, 8.1Mnodes, not found (59 seconds)
19. depth 5, 74Knodes, found (0.5 seconds)
20. depth 18, 11.3Mnodes, found (40 seconds)
21. depth 18, 10.4Mnodes, found (35 seconds)
22. depth 21, 4.1Mnodes, not found (56.5 seconds)
23. depth 10, 2Mnodes, not found (16.5 seconds)
24. depth 12, 353Knodes, found (3 seconds)
25. depth 17, 5.3Mnodes, not found (31 seconds)

that's for turboknight 5 of course

Last edited by Destructor_chess (Nov. 28, 2025 18:12:31)

ArnoHu

Kaufman Test with current GoK Classic:

Problem    Found    Nodecount (k)    Comment
 1:          Y              4,154
 2:          Y                155
 3:          Y                  7    Lost again at 101k
 4:          Y              1,127
 5:          Y                248
 6:          Y                  0    Lost again at 22k
 7:          Y                253
 8:          Y               1341
 9:          Y                397
10:          Y                 40
11:          Y                131
12:          
13:          Y                618
14:          Y              1,859
15:          Y                285
16:          Y                106
17:          Y                167
18:          
19:          Y                 59
20:          Y                565
21:          
22:          Y                  2
23:          Y                  1    Lost again at 647k
24:          Y                 52
25:

Last edited by ArnoHu (Nov. 28, 2025 20:08:00)

ArnoHu

GoK Classic vs. Wolverine, 96% vs. 92%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/aO9x4U1b

GoK Classic vs. White Dove, 91% vs. 88%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/VQnEaCQP

GoK Classic vs. Black Crow, 95% vs. 91%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/kmFnI52B

Last edited by ArnoHu (Nov. 28, 2025 23:56:00)

waabooboo

ArnoHu wrote:

Kaufman Test with current GoK Classic:

Problem    Found    Nodecount (k)    Comment
 1:          Y              4,154
 2:          Y                155
 3:          Y                  7    Lost again at 101k
 4:          Y              1,127
 5:          Y                248
 6:          Y                  0    Lost again at 22k
 7:          Y                253
 8:          Y               1341
 9:          Y                397
10:          Y                 40
11:          Y                131
12:          
13:          Y                618
14:          Y              1,859
15:          Y                285
16:          Y                106
17:          Y                167
18:          
19:          Y                 59
20:          Y                565
21:          
22:          Y                  2
23:          Y                  1    Lost again at 647k
24:          Y                 52
25:

Nice! 21-25 are really more about endgame knowledge than tactical strength. 25 seems particularly tough for HCE engines – the king and pawn ending is clearly winning, but the engines have to calculate very deeply before trading for the “weak” minor piece.

21 is a bit broken, looks like it's a tablebase win for black no matter what. But any sane human player takes the knight, because you have much better practical drawing chances with the bishop endgame.

New Wolverine version released today – I got LMP working and retuned the search parameters. I'll run it through the gauntlet, see if the 17/25 can be improved upon

waabooboo

waabooboo wrote:
ArnoHu wrote:
Kaufman Test with current GoK Classic:
Problem    Found    Nodecount (k)    Comment
 1:          Y              4,154
 2:          Y                155
 3:          Y                  7    Lost again at 101k
 4:          Y              1,127
 5:          Y                248
 6:          Y                  0    Lost again at 22k
 7:          Y                253
 8:          Y               1341
 9:          Y                397
10:          Y                 40
11:          Y                131
12:          
13:          Y                618
14:          Y              1,859
15:          Y                285
16:          Y                106
17:          Y                167
18:          
19:          Y                 59
20:          Y                565
21:          
22:          Y                  2
23:          Y                  1    Lost again at 647k
24:          Y                 52
25:          
Nice! 21-25 are really more about endgame knowledge than tactical strength. 25 seems particularly tough for HCE engines – the king and pawn ending is clearly winning, but the engines have to calculate very deeply before trading for the “weak” minor piece.

21 is a bit broken, looks like it's a tablebase win for black no matter what. But any sane human player takes the knight, because you have much better practical drawing chances with the bishop endgame.

New Wolverine version released today – I got LMP working and retuned the search parameters. I'll run it through the gauntlet, see if the 17/25 can be improved upon

For the new Wolverine:

1) 3504k
2) 446k
3) 649k
4) 290k
5) 110k
6) 220k
7) 198k
8) 1995k
9) 546k
10) Not found within 10M nodes
11) 661k
12) 435k
13) 69k
14) 2047k
15) 1039k
16) 261k
17) 1076k
18) Not found within 10M nodes
19) Not found within 10M nodes
20) 1075k
21) 0k
22) 0k
23) 0k, but discarded later
24) 0k
25) Not found within 10M nodes

ArnoHu

waabooboo wrote:
ArnoHu wrote:
Kaufman Test with current GoK Classic:
Problem    Found    Nodecount (k)    Comment
 1:          Y              4,154
 2:          Y                155
 3:          Y                  7    Lost again at 101k
 4:          Y              1,127
 5:          Y                248
 6:          Y                  0    Lost again at 22k
 7:          Y                253
 8:          Y               1341
 9:          Y                397
10:          Y                 40
11:          Y                131
12:          
13:          Y                618
14:          Y              1,859
15:          Y                285
16:          Y                106
17:          Y                167
18:          
19:          Y                 59
20:          Y                565
21:          
22:          Y                  2
23:          Y                  1    Lost again at 647k
24:          Y                 52
25:          
Nice! 21-25 are really more about endgame knowledge than tactical strength. 25 seems particularly tough for HCE engines – the king and pawn ending is clearly winning, but the engines have to calculate very deeply before trading for the “weak” minor piece.

21 is a bit broken, looks like it's a tablebase win for black no matter what. But any sane human player takes the knight, because you have much better practical drawing chances with the bishop endgame.

New Wolverine version released today – I got LMP working and retuned the search parameters. I'll run it through the gauntlet, see if the 17/25 can be improved upon

Congrats to the new Wolverine version, it looks very strong.

The previous GoK Classic was lucky to draw these two games:

https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/ye99xDJU
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/P2WeK47m

I then improved and reactivated internal iterative deepening and internal iterative reductions, and Classic managed to win on the same opening, still quite a fight at 91% vs. 88%:

https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/o4Z1KWVx

And after two evaluation bugfixes, 95% vs. 91%:

https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/cY0AaaSI

Last edited by ArnoHu (Nov. 29, 2025 16:56:14)

waabooboo

ArnoHu wrote:
waabooboo wrote:
ArnoHu wrote:
Kaufman Test with current GoK Classic:
Problem    Found    Nodecount (k)    Comment
 1:          Y              4,154
 2:          Y                155
 3:          Y                  7    Lost again at 101k
 4:          Y              1,127
 5:          Y                248
 6:          Y                  0    Lost again at 22k
 7:          Y                253
 8:          Y               1341
 9:          Y                397
10:          Y                 40
11:          Y                131
12:          
13:          Y                618
14:          Y              1,859
15:          Y                285
16:          Y                106
17:          Y                167
18:          
19:          Y                 59
20:          Y                565
21:          
22:          Y                  2
23:          Y                  1    Lost again at 647k
24:          Y                 52
25:          
Nice! 21-25 are really more about endgame knowledge than tactical strength. 25 seems particularly tough for HCE engines – the king and pawn ending is clearly winning, but the engines have to calculate very deeply before trading for the “weak” minor piece.

21 is a bit broken, looks like it's a tablebase win for black no matter what. But any sane human player takes the knight, because you have much better practical drawing chances with the bishop endgame.

New Wolverine version released today – I got LMP working and retuned the search parameters. I'll run it through the gauntlet, see if the 17/25 can be improved upon
Congrats to the new Wolverine version, it looks very strong.

The previous GoK Classic was lucky to draw these two games:

https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/ye99xDJU
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/P2WeK47m

I then improved and reactivated internal iterative deepening and internal iterative reductions, and Classic managed to win on the same opening, still quite a fight at 91% vs. 88%:

https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/o4Z1KWVx

And after two evaluation bugfixes, 95% vs. 91%:

https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/cY0AaaSI

Thanks! I'll work on search a bit more – Wolverine still can't solve test position #19, which GoK got quickly. Probably a futility pruning thing, I'll take a look… And there's still work to do on the evaluation

ArnoHu

waabooboo wrote:
ArnoHu wrote:
waabooboo wrote:
ArnoHu wrote:
Kaufman Test with current GoK Classic:
Problem    Found    Nodecount (k)    Comment
 1:          Y              4,154
 2:          Y                155
 3:          Y                  7    Lost again at 101k
 4:          Y              1,127
 5:          Y                248
 6:          Y                  0    Lost again at 22k
 7:          Y                253
 8:          Y               1341
 9:          Y                397
10:          Y                 40
11:          Y                131
12:          
13:          Y                618
14:          Y              1,859
15:          Y                285
16:          Y                106
17:          Y                167
18:          
19:          Y                 59
20:          Y                565
21:          
22:          Y                  2
23:          Y                  1    Lost again at 647k
24:          Y                 52
25:          
Nice! 21-25 are really more about endgame knowledge than tactical strength. 25 seems particularly tough for HCE engines – the king and pawn ending is clearly winning, but the engines have to calculate very deeply before trading for the “weak” minor piece.

21 is a bit broken, looks like it's a tablebase win for black no matter what. But any sane human player takes the knight, because you have much better practical drawing chances with the bishop endgame.

New Wolverine version released today – I got LMP working and retuned the search parameters. I'll run it through the gauntlet, see if the 17/25 can be improved upon
Congrats to the new Wolverine version, it looks very strong.

The previous GoK Classic was lucky to draw these two games:

https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/ye99xDJU
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/P2WeK47m

I then improved and reactivated internal iterative deepening and internal iterative reductions, and Classic managed to win on the same opening, still quite a fight at 91% vs. 88%:

https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/o4Z1KWVx

And after two evaluation bugfixes, 95% vs. 91%:

https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/cY0AaaSI
Thanks! I'll work on search a bit more – Wolverine still can't solve test position #19, which GoK got quickly. Probably a futility pruning thing, I'll take a look… And there's still work to do on the evaluation

Two more games with current versions:

https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/R3EWhRqV
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/T1PXShRm

Last edited by ArnoHu (Nov. 30, 2025 08:52:54)

ArnoHu

GoK Classic has just been updated.

GoK Classic vs. White Dove, 93% vs. 90%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/VIKihROw

GoK Classic vs. Wolverine 2, 96% vs. 91%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/T1PXShRm

GoK Classic vs. Black Crow, 90% vs. 91%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/kzkdF7Tx

GoK Classic vs. TurboKnight 5, 91% vs. 89%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/hsiOa53c

GoK Classic vs. Wolverine 2, 93% vs. 87%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/O9jpMC3t

GoK Classic vs. Delta, 97% vs. 89%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/XQ2dgj4U

GoK Classic vs. Shallow Blue 3 NNUE, 93% vs. 90%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/U1VwFQpS

GoK Classic vs. White Dove, 98% vs. 92%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/N0Im9Cjc

Two improvements merged to GoK NNUE:

GoK NNUE vs. Black Crow, 98% vs. 94%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/JUhj2fEe

Last edited by ArnoHu (Nov. 30, 2025 22:34:11)

coooolboy55

ArnoHu wrote:
Connect 4 Bot Game Series

I am conducting a Connect 4 Bot test game series played by Game of Connect (GoC).

The results will be updated in this posting over time. They will cover the Scratch runtime and TurboWarp (TW only if an engine takes advantage of the additional performance there), with both sides as starting players once (as far as the projects allow). When several playing levels exist, games will be played on highest level available for the runtime.

The Bots
Connect 4 - “GoC”: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/1114744709/ (by ArnoHu)
Connect Four AI: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/1109505895 (by BirdRacerThree)
Connect 4 AI (GreenLocked): https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/42395968 (by PullJosh)
Connect 4 AI: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/802293688 (by Spentine)
Online Connect 4: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/685271634 (by AnotherKidOnScratch)
Connect 4 vs. Computer: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/16243147 (by A_big_cow)

Scratch 3
Starting Side       Responding Side

GoC              -  CFAI (BirdRacer)     1  -  0    (win at ply 41)
GoC              -  C4AI (Spentine)      1  -  0    (win at ply 29)
GoC              -  C4AI-GL (PullJosh)   1  -  0    (win at ply 25)
GoC              -  OC4 (AKOS)           1  -  0    (win at ply 33)
GoC              -  OC4VC (ABC)          1  -  0    (win at ply 31)

CFAI (BirdRacer) -  GoC                0.5  -  0.5
C4AI (Spentine)  -  GoC                  0  -  1    (loss at ply 34)
TurboWarp
Starting Side       Responding Side

GoC              -  CFAI (BirdRacer)     1  -  0    (win at ply 31)
GoC              -  C4AI (Spentine)      1  -  0    (win at ply 39)

CFAI (BirdRacer) -  GoC                0.5  -  0.5
C4AI (Spentine)  -  GoC                  0  -  1    (loss at ply 42)
Note: GoC and BirdRacer's CFAI are think-time bound, hence not deterministic. They will play according to system speed (means, better on faster systems).

If you reply to this post, I suggest to link to it and remove the copied content, otherwise we will have outdated results copied over the forum. Here is the link to the original: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/8319884/

Will you be running another Connect 4 tournament?

waabooboo

https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/57T1Kkle

Ok, this one's pretty egregious. That endgame is an easy draw, just keep the black king in the light squared corner and sac bishop for g pawn. I didn't bother adding special knowledge for drawn KPB v K endgames, maybe I should… But Wolverine should be able to draw that through calculation alone, just avoiding the paths where white queens.

ArnoHu

ArnoHu wrote:
GoK Classic has just been updated.

GoK Classic vs. White Dove, 93% vs. 90%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/VIKihROw

GoK Classic vs. Wolverine 2, 96% vs. 91%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/T1PXShRm

GoK Classic vs. Black Crow, 90% vs. 91%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/kzkdF7Tx

GoK Classic vs. TurboKnight 5, 91% vs. 89%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/hsiOa53c

GoK Classic vs. Wolverine 2, 93% vs. 87%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/O9jpMC3t

GoK Classic vs. Delta, 97% vs. 89%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/XQ2dgj4U

GoK Classic vs. Shallow Blue 3 NNUE, 93% vs. 90%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/U1VwFQpS

GoK Classic vs. White Dove, 98% vs. 92%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/N0Im9Cjc

Two improvements merged to GoK NNUE:

GoK NNUE vs. Black Crow, 98% vs. 94%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/JUhj2fEe

GoK Classic update:

GoK Classic vs. Wolverine 2, 96% vs. 93%:
https://lichess.org/study/SaWdnTo2/35WL1dFZ

Discuss Scratch