Check out Grant Acedrex, our featured variant for April, 2024.

Enter Your Reply

The Comment You're Replying To
🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Mon, Mar 20, 2023 02:06 AM UTC:

Since the Ludii Player has many engines (or agents) to choose from, I had it do an analysis to find the best player for Chess. The analysis was quick, and it said "Best predicted agent is AlphaBeta". But I already found that it played poorly against Ludii. In case more thinking time would eventually give Alpha-Beta an edge, I increased the thinking time to 5 seconds for another game between Ludii as White and Alpha-Beta as Black. Ludii won this game with checkmate. During the game, it showed an analysis of each engine, and Ludii, identified here as UBFM consistently had a higher search depth than Alpha-Beta.

UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 4:
best value observed at root 0.13999999,
1196 different states were evaluated
50 iterations, with 134 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.20000005,
909 different states were evaluated
30 iterations, with 68 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 1.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 4:
best value observed at root 0.54125,
1014 different states were evaluated
33 iterations, with 97 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.6924999,
1002 different states were evaluated
28 iterations, with 75 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 1.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 6:
best value observed at root 1.2237501,
837 different states were evaluated
32 iterations, with 110 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 4:
best value observed at root 0.7437501,
878 different states were evaluated
37 iterations, with 114 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.66375005,
881 different states were evaluated
36 iterations, with 72 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 4:
best value observed at root 0.7237501,
883 different states were evaluated
35 iterations, with 101 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 2:
best value observed at root 0.6237501,
894 different states were evaluated
33 iterations, with 65 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 1.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 4:
best value observed at root 0.9375,
908 different states were evaluated
24 iterations, with 65 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 1.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.9112501,
918 different states were evaluated
25 iterations, with 63 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.9512501,
1025 different states were evaluated
39 iterations, with 80 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.77125,
900 different states were evaluated
35 iterations, with 71 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 2:
best value observed at root 0.9112501,
909 different states were evaluated
34 iterations, with 67 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.73125005,
912 different states were evaluated
34 iterations, with 69 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 2:
best value observed at root 0.6712501,
794 different states were evaluated
22 iterations, with 43 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 1.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.68000007,
803 different states were evaluated
20 iterations, with 55 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.6575,
875 different states were evaluated
23 iterations, with 50 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 4:
best value observed at root 0.87125003,
920 different states were evaluated
22 iterations, with 60 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.90250015,
1043 different states were evaluated
26 iterations, with 70 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 4:
best value observed at root 1.15625,
1223 different states were evaluated
32 iterations, with 98 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.8962499,
1111 different states were evaluated
44 iterations, with 88 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 0.9849999,
1272 different states were evaluated
51 iterations, with 108 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 1.2962499,
1107 different states were evaluated
26 iterations, with 66 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 1.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 1.0362499,
1006 different states were evaluated
32 iterations, with 65 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 1.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 4:
best value observed at root 1.7525,
1297 different states were evaluated
35 iterations, with 100 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 2.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 5:
best value observed at root 1.6012498,
1267 different states were evaluated
49 iterations, with 187 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 3.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 3:
best value observed at root 1.68125,
1304 different states were evaluated
41 iterations, with 99 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 3.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 9:
best value observed at root 1.6675,
1278 different states were evaluated
101 iterations, with 398 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 3.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 7:
best value observed at root 1.5674999,
1288 different states were evaluated
107 iterations, with 429 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 3.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 5:
best value observed at root 1000000.0,
954 different states were evaluated
323 iterations, with 1225 calls of minimax
Alpha-Beta (player 2) completed search of depth 0.
UBFM (player 1) completed an analysis that reached at some point a depth of 4:
best value observed at root 1000000.0,
1237 different states were evaluated
753 iterations, with 1541 calls of minimax

Here is the game:

  1. (Move E2-E4)
  2. (Move E7-E5)
  3. (Move D1-H5)
  4. (Move D8-H4)
  5. (Remove H4)
  6. (Move G7-G5)
  7. (Remove G5)
  8. (Move D7-D5)
  9. (Move F1-B5)
  10. (Move C7-C6)
  11. (Remove E5)
  12. (Move E8-D8)
  13. (Move E5-G5)
  14. (Move D8-C7)
  15. (Move G5-E5)
  16. (Move C7-B6)
  17. (Move B5-E2)
  18. (Move C8-G4)
  19. (Remove G4)
  20. (Move B8-D7)
  21. (Remove D7)
  22. (Move B6-A6)
  23. (Move G1-E2)
  24. (Move F8-B4)
  25. (Move B2-B3)
  26. (Move F7-F5)
  27. (Move A2-A3)
  28. (Move B4-C5)
  29. (Move A1-A2)
  30. (Move G8-F6)
  31. (Move C1-B2)
  32. (Remove F2)
  33. (Move E1-D1)
  34. (Remove D7)
  35. (Remove F5)
  36. (Move H8-G8)
  37. (Remove F2)
  38. (Move D5-D4)
  39. (Remove D4)
  40. (Move D7-C5)
  41. (Remove C5)
  42. (Move A8-D8)
  43. (Move B3-B4)
  44. (Move B7-B5)
  45. (Move D1-C1)
  46. (Move D8-D7)
  47. (Move F2-F6)
  48. (Move A6-B7)
  49. (Move H1-D1)
  50. (Move D7-D4)
  51. (Remove D4)
  52. (Remove G2)
  53. (Move F6-F7)
  54. (Move B7-C8)
  55. (Move D1-F1)
  56. (Remove E2)
  57. (Move F7-G8)
  58. (Move C8-D7)
  59. (Move F1-F7)
  60. (Move D7-D6)
  61. (Move G8-D8)
  62. (Move D6-E6)
  63. (Move F7-F6)

Edit Form

Comment on the page Ludii Portal

Conduct Guidelines
This is a Chess variants website, not a general forum.
Please limit your comments to Chess variants or the operation of this site.
Keep this website a safe space for Chess variant hobbyists of all stripes.
Because we want people to feel comfortable here no matter what their political or religious beliefs might be, we ask you to avoid discussing politics, religion, or other controversial subjects here. No matter how passionately you feel about any of these subjects, just take it someplace else.
Quick Markdown Guide

By default, new comments may be entered as Markdown, simple markup syntax designed to be readable and not look like markup. Comments stored as Markdown will be converted to HTML by Parsedown before displaying them. This follows the Github Flavored Markdown Spec with support for Markdown Extra. For a good overview of Markdown in general, check out the Markdown Guide. Here is a quick comparison of some commonly used Markdown with the rendered result:

Top level header: <H1>

Block quote

Second paragraph in block quote

First Paragraph of response. Italics, bold, and bold italics.

Second Paragraph after blank line. Here is some HTML code mixed in with the Markdown, and here is the same <U>HTML code</U> enclosed by backticks.

Secondary Header: <H2>

  • Unordered list item
  • Second unordered list item
  • New unordered list
    • Nested list item

Third Level header <H3>

  1. An ordered list item.
  2. A second ordered list item with the same number.
  3. A third ordered list item.
Here is some preformatted text.
  This line begins with some indentation.
    This begins with even more indentation.
And this line has no indentation.

Alt text for a graphic image

A definition list
A list of terms, each with one or more definitions following it.
An HTML construct using the tags <DL>, <DT> and <DD>.
A term
Its definition after a colon.
A second definition.
A third definition.
Another term following a blank line
The definition of that term.