Playing Strength

As mentioned in the preface of this book, writing a chess engine can be a rewarding endavour. It takes a long time to write a very strong engine, especially if you are just starting out. It takes some knowledge about programming and chess, lots of time, and often, perseverance, to get the first basic version up and running. After this version works and plays legal and somewhat decent chess, it can be improved incrementally. If done correctly, each new feature will add playing strength.

This is no different with Rustic. The first version, Alpha 1, is the baseline version. It only has the minimal amount of features to play legal, but decent chess:

  • The board representation (Bitboards)
  • Move generator (Fancy Magic Bitboards)
  • Make/Unmake move on the board
  • Alpha-Beta search
  • Quiescence search
  • Check extension
  • MVV-LVA move sorting
  • Evaluation (Material counting and PST's)
  • UCI communication protocol

All other versions build on top of the previous version. The table below provides an overview of the added features per version and the gain in playing strength they provide. Please note that this will be different from other engines: adding the features in a different order, will give different results.

Reading the table works like this: Rustic Alpha 1 is the baseline version. On top of that, the transposition table is added, using only hash cuts (+40 Elo). Then TT Move ordering is added after that, on top of the TT hash cuts, with a further improvement of +112 Elo. That version of the engine turned into Rustic Alpha 2. This version is tested by CCRL, to have a rating of 1815 Elo. The "Test" column shows the rating obtained in my own testing procedure.

Progress per feature and version

Alpha 1Baseline version1675-1677
Transposition Table171540
TT Move sorting1827112
Alpha 218271815
Killer Moves?
History Heuristic?
Aspiration Window?

Determining progression and playing strength

It is impossible to define the strength of a chess engine, or a human player for that matter, by an exact number. This is because of how the Elo-rating system works. The rating system works with a pool of players, and it determines their relative strength, from one player to another. Not every player can play every opening or time control equally well. It also happens that a certain player A consistently performs better against B than expected, but also consistently plays worse than expected against player C.

The list above is created by running my own tournaments, where different Rustic versions play against a set of other engines. This results in a rating list where Rustic Alpha 1 is set to strength 0. To make this list easier to relate to, it is calibrated against the CCRL Blitz list, in which Rustic Alpha 1 performs around 1675-1680 Elo.

Because the list above and the CCRL Blitz list (or any other rating lists) use different opponents, time controls and opening books, the results in different lists cannot be compared directly. A Rustic version in one list can have a different rating from the same version in another list. This is the reason why Rustic has different ratings in the Test and CCRL columns.