Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:54:52 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2000 at 09:59:40, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 10, 2000 at 08:13:01, Graham Laight wrote: > >>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. > >It was game/25 and kasparov thought that he was playing genius2. I don't see the point. What's the problem with Kasparov thinking it was Genius2? It would have changed nothing if he'd known it was Genius2.9. >Other programs got worse results against humans and I did not see a reason to >expect a very big improvement. > >100 elo improvement relative to single processor is very good and Deep Junior >got more than it because programs never got performance of 2600 before. > > > >> >>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. > >I expected it to do less than 50% with this setup so I do not think that 50% is >disappointing. >> >>>> >>>>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. > >This is the case for Rebel but it is not always the case with other programs. > >I think that one of the problems with Rebel is that it changes its mind more >often with bigger chess knowledge and the result is that it cannot get big >depth(the problem is not only nodes per second). > >It is interesting to know if Century with knowledge=500 is better than century >with knowledge=25 assuming the same number of nodes(I am not sure about it) Knowledge==xx does not do what you think it does. So this discussion will lead you exactly nowhere. >>>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? > >Yes >It won the french championship with 8 out of 9. Yes, it was just 2 days ago! Christophe >Gambittiger is not slower in nps and the programmer tries to add knowledge >without doing the program slower. >> >>>> >>>>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 > ><snipped> >>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 do not know. >I am not the programmer of Fritz but I believe that it has more knowledge. > >Uri
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.