Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 07:01:45 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 08:54:10, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 18, 2001 at 08:33:21, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>On June 18, 2001 at 08:28:08, Bas Hamstra wrote: >> >>>On June 17, 2001 at 01:09:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 16, 2001 at 22:59:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hello, >>>>> >>>>>From Gian-Carlo i received tonight a cool version of crafty 18.10, >>>>>namely a modified version of crafty. The modification was that it >>>>>is using a small sense of Singular extensions, using a 'moreland' >>>>>implementation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Instead of modifying Crafty to simulate Deep Blue, why didn't you >>>>modify Netscape? Or anything else? I don't see _any_ point in >>>>taking a very fishy version of crafty and trying to conclude _anything_ >>>>about deep blue from it... >>>> >>>>Unless you are into counting chickens to forecast weather, or something >>>>else... >>> >>>I don't agree here. It is fun. Maybe not extremely accurate, but it says >>>*something* about the efficiency of their search, which I believe is horrible. I >>>think using SE and not nullmove is *inefficient* as compared to nullmove. We >>>don't need 100.0000% accurate data when it's obviously an order of magnitude >>>more inefficient. >> >>May be you are right, if the program is running on a PC. However if you can >>reach a huge depth anyway because of hardware, may be you can afford to use >>this, because it doesn't matter too much wasting one ply depth ? > >It is not about wasting one ply but about clearly more than it and >it is clear that not using null move is counter productive when the difference >becomes bigger and not smaller at longer time control so the fact that they had >better hardware only supports using null move. How can you be so sure ? Do you really know that all of the top programs are using null move. I wouldn't bet too high on this. There may be viable alternatives to this, though not being published. I can imagine very well, that it is possible to develop a strong program without null move technique. > >I suggest that you try Deep Fritz without null move and you can see that at long >time control it clearly suffers. Of course. Fritz has been "designed around the null move algorithm" as has been stated by the authors. If you remove the basic design element from a program, it will suck. This doesn't prove anything. Uli > >Here is a simple test >Deep Fritz(pIII800 64 mbytes) needed 16 hours and 29 minutes with null move >pruning to find g5 > >Please test it without null move pruning. >I have not time to do it but I bet that it cannot see g5 even if you give it >200 hours. > >I will be surprised if the price at long time control is not more than 3 plies. > >Abir Har aven - Uri Blass >2kr4/pppq1pp1/2nb1n2/3p4/5Pb1/2PPP2r/PP1BB1NP/R2QKN1R b KQ - 0 1 > >Analysis by Deep Fritz: > >13...Bxe2! > = (0.22) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 >13...Bxe2! 14.Qxe2 > ³ (-0.38) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 >13...Bf5! > ³ (-0.41) Depth: 1/6 00:00:00 >13...Bf5 14.Ng3 > ³ (-0.28) Depth: 2/4 00:00:00 >13...Bxe2! > ³ (-0.38) Depth: 2/5 00:00:00 >13...Bxe2! 14.Qxe2 Re8 > ³ (-0.44) Depth: 2/6 00:00:00 >13...Bxe2 14.Qxe2 Re8 15.0-0-0 > ³ (-0.28) Depth: 3/8 00:00:00 >13...Be6! > ³ (-0.31) Depth: 3/8 00:00:00 >13...Be6! 14.Ng3 > ³ (-0.34) Depth: 3/8 00:00:00 >13...Be6 14.Rg1 Re8 15.Qb3 > ³ (-0.31) Depth: 4/12 00:00:00 1kN >13...Bxe2! > ³ (-0.34) Depth: 4/12 00:00:00 1kN >13...Bxe2! 14.Qxe2 > ³ (-0.38) Depth: 4/12 00:00:00 2kN >13...Bxe2 14.Qxe2 Re8 15.0-0-0 Qe7 16.Ng3 > = (-0.25) Depth: 5/16 00:00:00 10kN >13...Be6! > ³ (-0.28) Depth: 5/16 00:00:00 10kN >13...Be6! 14.Rg1 Re8 15.Qb3 Qe7 > ³ (-0.34) Depth: 5/16 00:00:00 10kN >13...Rdh8! > ³ (-0.38) Depth: 5/20 00:00:00 16kN >13...Rdh8! 14.Bxg4 Nxg4 15.Qb3 Qe6 16.c4 dxc4 > ³ (-0.50) Depth: 5/20 00:00:00 19kN >13...Rdh8 14.Bxg4 Nxg4 15.Qb3 Qe6 16.c4 dxc4 17.Qxc4 Qxc4 > ³ (-0.50) Depth: 6/28 00:00:00 31kN >13...Rdh8 14.b4 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Ng4 16.b5 Ne7 17.b6 cxb6 > ³ (-0.50) Depth: 7/27 00:00:00 109kN >13...Rdh8 14.b4 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Qe6 16.b5 Ne7 17.Rg1 Nf5 > ³ (-0.44) Depth: 8/27 00:00:00 337kN >13...Rdh8 14.b3 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Ng4 16.0-0-0 Nxh2 17.e4 Ba3+ 18.Kb1 Nxf1 19.Rhxf1 > ³ (-0.59) Depth: 9/30 00:00:01 928kN >13...Rdh8 14.b3 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Ng4 16.e4 Nxh2 17.Rxh2 Rxh2 18.exd5 Re8 19.Nxh2 > ³ (-0.59) Depth: 10/29 00:00:02 1468kN >13...Rdh8 14.b3 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Ng4 16.e4 Nxh2 17.Rxh2 Rxh2 18.exd5 Re8 19.Nxh2 > ³ (-0.59) Depth: 11/39 00:00:05 3114kN >13...Rdh8 14.b3 Qe6 15.Rc1 g6 16.c4 d4 17.c5 Be7 18.Rc4 dxe3 > ³ (-0.56) Depth: 12/36 00:00:27 17417kN >13...Re8! > ³ (-0.59) Depth: 12/36 00:00:39 25411kN >13...Re8! 14.b4 Ne7 15.Bxg4 Nxg4 16.Qe2 Reh8 17.e4 Nxh2 18.Rxh2 Rxh2 19.e5 > ³ (-0.69) Depth: 12/39 00:01:03 40480kN >13...Re8 14.Rc1 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Nh5 16.e4 f5 17.e5 Bxe5 18.fxe5 Nxe5 > ³ (-0.69) Depth: 13/40 00:02:50 109196kN >13...Re8 14.b4 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 d4 16.0-0-0 Nd5 17.b5 dxc3 18.bxc6 cxd2+ 19.Kb2 > µ (-0.81) Depth: 14/41 00:07:09 267888kN >13...Re8 14.Bxg4 Nxg4 15.Qe2 d4 16.0-0-0 dxe3 17.Be1 Ne7 18.Bg3 Nd5 19.c4 > µ (-0.97) Depth: 15/43 00:20:24 781259kN >13...Re8 14.Bxg4 Nxg4 15.Qe2 d4 16.0-0-0 dxe3 17.Be1 Ne7 18.Bg3 Nd5 19.Rg1 > µ (-0.94) Depth: 16/44 00:30:51 1201442kN >13...Re8 14.Bxg4 Nxg4 15.Qe2 d4 16.0-0-0 dxe3 17.Be1 Nh6 18.Bg3 Nf5 19.d4 > µ (-1.09) Depth: 17/47 01:37:59 3892964kN >13...Re8 14.Bxg4 Nxg4 15.Qe2 g5 16.fxg5 Nce5 17.d4 Nf3+ 18.Kd1 Nxg5 19.Kc1 > µ (-0.97) Depth: 18/49 03:08:17 7642666kN >13...Re8 14.Bxg4 Nxg4 15.Qe2 f5 16.Rg1 d4 17.0-0-0 dxe3 18.Be1 Qe6 19.Kb1 > µ (-1.03) Depth: 19/48 09:21:04 23586724kN >13...g5! > µ (-1.06) Depth: 19/50 16:29:00 42245850kN >13...g5! 14.fxg5 Ne5 15.Nf4 Nf3+ 16.Kf2 Bxf4 17.exf4 Nxd2 18.Ng3 Bxe2 19.Kxe2 > µ (-1.16) Depth: 19/51 19:22:30 49709144kN > > >Uri
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.