Author: Graham Laight
Date: 05:13:01 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2000 at 07:31:37, Uri Blass wrote:
>On October 10, 2000 at 07:05:45, Graham Laight wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that PCs' results against GMs are tapering off into a flat line.
>>The current style of program may have come as far as they can go.
>>
>>The battle to generate the highest NPS score is no longer improving the
>>computers' performance against humans. Even Deep Junior running on a quad
>>processor is only able to score 4.5/9 against the top players.
>
>Only???
>
>4.5/9 is a wonderful result.
Of course it's a wonderful result!
>No longer improving the computers performance???
>
>4.5/9 against players with average rating of 2700 is the best result of
>computers against humans(if I do not include the result of Deeper blue).
>
>It is even better than the result of deep blue(1996) against kasparov.
I agree with everthing above. However, on a quad PC, with full 5 piece
tablebases, it should have been challenging for the title, not proud to be mid
table. Single processor PCs may have been able to do just as well if they had
been given the opportunity. Genius 3 beat GK and others (at G/25) about 9 years
ago.
While 4.5/9 is a brilliant performance against average 2700 elo, it was
disappointing in terms of what one would have hoped for with this setup.
>>
>>With dozens of programmers competing to make the "final push" to get programs
>>ahead of humans, to impartial observers it looks like the harder they push, the
>>more the bandwagon gets stuck in the mud.
>>
>>Programmers also have to remove knowledge from their eval fns to score higher
>>against their computer opponents.
>
>This is your opinion.
>This is not the programmers opinion.
>
>I see that Programmers add knowledge to their programs in order to have better
>score against computers.
Ed Schroder has told us that Rebel Century can have a knowledge setting of
several hundred. However, to get best results against other computers, the
optimum setting is 25.
>GambitTiger has knowledge about king safety and I can see it winning computers
>by sacrifices that other programs do not understand.
That's GOOD news!
Has GambitTiger won any computer v computer competitions?
>>
>>Looks like a doubling of NPS no longer provides an extra 50 Elo rating against
>>humans - nothing even close, in fact.
>
>I am not sure about the nothing even close.
>>In other words, shooting up, plateauing for a while, then shooting up again -
>>and so on. It's possible that, because chess programmers vary the amount of
>>expertise between 20 and (say) 500 distinct pieces of knowledge, they've found a
>>plateau (probably the 2nd one), and, angry about being beaten by someone with
>>less knowledge but higher NPS, have refused to go down the knowledge route
>>seriously. Also, from many years of reading postings in this group, it is
>>apparent that NPS, and techniques to raise it, is where the focus lies with this
>>particular group of people.
If this thread continues, I think it will be important to have the diagrams - so
here they are again:
I think we mostly assume that the return on both knowledge and speed look like
the picture below:
|
|
| **
| **************************
| **
ELO | *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
|*
|*
|*
|---------------------------------------------------------------
Either Speed or Knowledge
But what if, in reality, one or both of them actually looked like this?
| *
| *
| *
| *
| **
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| **
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| **
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
ELO | *
| *
| **
| *
| *
|*
|*
|---------------------------------------------------------------
Either Speed or Knowledge
>I disagree.
>I know cases when the new version of chess programs have smaller nps.
>
>One example:Fritz6 is alower in nps than Fritz5.32
>
>Uri
But can you put your hand on the bible and swear that this is because of
significant extra knowledge, or might some of it be because franz has discovered
that at this speed, one must reduce the amount of root processing (for example)?
I actually think that Fritz is getting cleverer - at the WMCCC in London, it
played some exchange sacs without being able to see far enough ahead to know for
sure that this would be beneficial.
-g
This page took 0.01 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.