Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 21:41:10 08/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2000 at 16:11:59, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 18, 2000 at 15:54:50, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 18, 2000 at 13:50:58, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On August 18, 2000 at 07:15:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On August 18, 2000 at 02:00:59, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 17, 2000 at 23:16:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 17, 2000 at 22:23:54, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 17, 2000 at 21:21:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>A few years ago (about 3) i claimed that searching 18-20 ply was possible >>>>>>>>with huge hashtables, nullmove, a good evaluation function, and >>>>>>>>several billions of nodes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>searching 18-20 plies with recursive null move pruning is possible and there is >>>>>>>no doubt about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You may miss things because of null move. >>>>>> >>>>>>Are you referring here that i need a bunch of plies more for a few >>>>>>very rare positions where way more as 2 nullmoves are not enough to >>>>>>see the truth? Just like my program won't find that huge mate as >>>>>>posted a bunch of messages below? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>I was considered nuts by half of the RGCC population, because no >>>>>>>>branching factor was capable of being that good, when you would >>>>>>>>search deeper, your branching factor would NOT get under 4.0, that >>>>>>>>was considered impossible by a lot of people even. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Obviously most people following: "i believe that i see in the ads >>>>>>>>or where i see the outputs from", they challenged me. Some went even >>>>>>>>that far and called me nuts, a liar and a frog and many other terms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I did not read RGCC but I believe that people called you a liar because you make >>>>>>>the impression that you can see everything in the next 18-20 plies except some >>>>>>>lines that you will look for only 14-16 plies because of null moves when the >>>>>>>fact is that you can miss also lines with 10 plies because you use recursive >>>>>>>null move pruning(I remember that this was my impression when I read your posts >>>>>>>here about 18-20 plies). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I do not say that using recursive null move is wrong but your 18-20 ply search >>>>>>>can miss 10 plies lines(If your evaluation is good enough these lines are >>>>>>>usually not important but I believe that there are cases when they are >>>>>>>important) >>>>>> >>>>>>This is incredible hard to believe. The number of positions where >>>>>>3 free moves + qsearch will fail. If that fails, then there must >>>>>>be something really wrong in evaluation! It sure can miss things, >>>>>>but the alternative is to search at most 12 ply fullwidth after >>>>>>a full night. Give me 18-20 plies then WITH nullmove please! >>>>>> >>>>>>So a zugzwang or 2 is no problem to detect then. Apart from that, the >>>>>>rare times we see a zugzwang arise in a game, that's usually already >>>>>>seen by my double nullmove. >>>>>> >>>>>>With a material only program proof isn't hard btw for this, >>>>>>as you can take openingsposition where my stupid experiment played >>>>>>1.a3 searching 30 plies. >>>>>> >>>>>>However, the whole discussion 3 years ago, >>>>>>when i cannot remember any person called Uri Blass posting at that time, >>>>>>was not a claim of mine that chess could be solved. >>>>>> >>>>>>In contradiction!!!!! >>>>>>Where Jaap v/d Herik writes in the start of the 80s in "computerchess" >>>>>>the next quote: "when software will search 10-11 ply then no human will >>>>>>be able to ever beat it". I completely have said the opposite, >>>>>>that after a ply or 12 only evaluation matters! >>>>>> >>>>>>Nowadays i would modify that already to 10 ply, noting that in difficult >>>>>>openingspositions the understanding of todays chess programs is still >>>>>>that bad that they need a few ply more to see some consequences there, >>>>>>so still that 12 there as found by De Groot to be the depth where the >>>>>>majority of short term plans are based upon is still valid! >>>>>> >>>>>>I said this partly based upon also experiences of my draughtsprogram >>>>>>which already for years can search easily 25-30 ply after a night, and >>>>>>the only way in which we (marcel monteba and me) could improve the >>>>>>search was by adding knowledge. This draughts program searches fullwidth >>>>>>by the way, as doing nothing is usually very well. I don't need to >>>>>>note that it sees all tactics of world champions within flashes of >>>>>>seconds, where even an average but smart national player can beat it >>>>>>pathetically. >>>>>> >>>>>>My claim was that branching factor above 10 plies was much better as >>>>>>i expected it to be, because of better working of hashtables, and >>>>>>more efficient search by means of a better evaluation which would >>>>>>basically research the same tree over and over again. Basically i >>>>>>claimed that with the number of nodes that Deep Blue searched, one >>>>>>could easily build a much better quality search in software. >>>>>> >>>>>>So what you write here above : "searching 18-20 ply is without doubt >>>>>>possible with nullmove", that's exactly what no one dared to say 3 years >>>>>>ago, and i'm happy you write it here! It proves how opinions have changed, >>>>>>as 3 years ago NO ONE dared to say that, except me. >>>>>> >>>>>>Now i don't want to sound like a profet, but i wanted to raise this >>>>>>discussion a bit to show how fullwidth search has superseded by >>>>>>nullmove driven search, and how these programs have progressed in search >>>>>>the past years and now are dominating the scene, where 10 years ago >>>>>>Genius with a fullwidth search, a few singular extensions, pruning and >>>>>>a clever selective search completely dominated the world of computerchess >>>>>>with tactics, only losing now and then from faster machines. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>In my experience, Genius is one of the most complete program in term of >>>>>knowledge, especially in the endgame. You'll have a hard time if you try to find >>>>>a position that Genius does not understand when other modern programs understand >>>>>it. >>>> >>>>Genius sees tactical a lot indeed, but it's knowledge is really outdated. >>>>It's a slaughter to play against Genius nowadays as it's missing too >>>>much knowledge and it sure isn't good in endgame, the more boring an >>>>endgame is, the bigger the chance it loses it! >>> >>> >>> >>>The only explanation I see is that we do not have the same Genius... >> >> >>Or our rating difference is 2255 points, that's also a possible reason. >>I just missed my IM norm 2 weeks ago. Hope to be IM before 2003. > >I guess that you mean that christophe is 2255 elo better than you(saying the >opposite is an illogical insult that is not based on facts and it is not allowed >in CCC so I must assume that you mean that he is 2255 elo better than you). > >Uri You must have missed Vincent's point. It is just his way of making new friends. Ed
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.