Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:51:50 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 19:53:35, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On June 18, 2001 at 13:18:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 18, 2001 at 10:25:36, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2001 at 10:01:45, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>> >>>>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 know that Junior and Rebel do not use null move but they use other pruning >>>techniques. >>> >>>I do not believe that the technique of no pruning+singular extension is good at >>>long time control and this is the point. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>This is like looking at an atomic bomb explosion and then trying to figure out >>how it was done. >> >>1. Several million crates of dynamite. >> >>2. Several million cases of nitroglycerine. >> >>3. Several million tons of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel. >> >>4. Several million cubic feet of gas + oxygen mixed. >> >>5. A mountain of fireworks. >> >>6. feed 10 million people baked beans and then light a candle. >> >>7. you-name-it. >> >>This is _exactly_ what is going on with the DB stuff, because _nobody_ knows >>exactly what they did, they only saw the final result. > >Right and because the cpu's only were working short before the match >this means that they couldn't test it, so they played with big crap. > >If i play with something untested then i lose game after game. Just >playing with an untested book is already a big shame nowadays, see i-csvn >and IPCCC2001 of DIEP. Apples and oranges. I certainly tested Cray Blitz on different hardware than what I ran on in ACM matches. They tested the software for a _long_ while, even without the newer chess processors. That didn't prevent them from testing and playing hundreds of games...
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.