Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:24:46 08/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2001 at 06:09:33, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 27, 2001 at 05:28:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 25, 2001 at 22:52:19, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On August 25, 2001 at 22:27:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>On August 25, 2001 at 19:55:45, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>In fact i prefer to play zugzwang, zugzwang at a 500 processor 21264 600Mhz >>>>21264 alpha. >>>> >>>>That's about 300Ghz or so. >>> >>>Not remotely. That machine used message passing. It's a miracle they made it >>>work at all. >>> >>>>Because a world championship IMHO is about letting the best programs play, >>>>no matter hardware. If a factor 4 speedup would be 100 rating points >>>>according to your calculations, then what rating would >>>>Zugzwang be at? >>>> >>>>Please consider that it lost from lambchop at wcc99. lambchop was searching >>>>most of the moves 8 ply and ran at a 450Mhz PII. >>>> >>>>Zugzwang ran at a processor or 500 at 450Mhz and all 21164s, starting >>>>with 13 ply out of hashtables or so. >>>> >>>>The 4 times faster is 100 rating points is nowadays complete nonsense. >>>> >>>>Speed says nothing if the conditions are met. Chess is about the weakest >>>>point. I'm sure that bugs in diep's eval are more important than getting >>>>another ply. >>> >>>Then why don't you play on a 386 if the speed is meaningless? I don't believe >>>it for a microsecond. Take the same algorithm and double the speed, it searches >>>deeper. If deeper is not better, your algorithm is a pure bug-pile. >> >>this is a very bad example. I've been about the only one saying >>that you first need 12-14 ply before eval starts to matter a lot. >> >>With nowadays extensions i use that'll be more like 11-13 than 12-14 though. >> >>The extra you win from getting a ply deeper is very little compared to >>a better evaluation. >> >>Good examples are for example the mistake tiger made against junior. >>Even after half an hour at the hotel room tiger still wanted to play f5?? >> >>This where a better eval would not do that even at a small depth. >> >>Let's put diep onto it. > >Do you talk about the commercial tiger or about the tiger in the >tournament(Tiger14.6)? junior-tiger 17..f5?? 00:01 0 0 28441 (403) 5 -0.519 h7-h5 Bc1-g5 Be7xg5 Re1xe4 Bg5-e7 Re4xd4 h5xg4 Rd 4xd8 Ra8xd8 ++ f7-f5 00:01 0 0 45106 (508) 5 -0.036 f7-f5 f3xe4 f5xg4 Re1-f1 Rh8-f8 Rf1xf8 Be7xf8 Qd1 xg4 00:02 0 0 98047 (15440) 6 -0.242 f7-f5 Ng4-h6 Be4-b7 Bc1-g5 Na5-c6 Qd1-b3 00:03 0 0 185852 (26344) 7 -0.518 f7-f5 f3xe4 f5xg4 Bc1-h6 Be7-f8 Bh6-f4 Na5-c4 b2-b3 ++ h7-h5 00:05 0 0 370482 (59999) 7 -0.249 h7-h5 Re1xe4 h5xg4 Bc1-g5 Ra8-a7 Bg5-f6 O-O Bf 6xd4 g4xf3 Qd1xf3 00:07 0 0 546089 (65803) 8 -0.249 h7-h5 Re1xe4 h5xg4 Bc1-g5 Ra8-a7 Bg5-f6 O-O Bf 6xd4 g4xf3 Qd1xf3 ++ f7-f5 00:26 0 0 2769623 (127227) 9 -0.017 h7-h5 Re1xe4 h5xg4 Bc1-g5 Na5-c6 Bg5xe7 Nc6x e7 Re4xd4 Qd8-c7 00:57 0 0 6493903 (159481) 10 -0.001 h7-h5 Re1xe4 h5xg4 Bc1-g5 Na5-c6 Bg5xe7 Nc6 xe7 Re4xd4 Qd8-b6 Kg1-h1 g4xf3 Qd1xf3 01:32 0 0 10906948 (329161) 11 -0.263 h7-h5 Re1xe4 h5xg4 Bc1-g5 Na5-c6 Bg5-f6 O- O Bf6xe7 Nc6xe7 Re4xd4 Qd8-b6 07:22 0 0 50954370 (1939303) 12 0.002 h7-h5 Re1xe4 h5xg4 Bc1-g5 Na5-c6 Bg5xe7 Nc 6xe7 f3xg4 Qd8-d6 h2-h3 d4-d3 Re4-e3 33:56 0 0 229808190 (91915155) 13 0.007 h7-h5 Ng4-h6 Be4xb1 Bc1-g5 Na5-c6 Ra1xb1 Ke8-f8 Qd1-b3 Rh8-h7 Bg5-c1 Nc6-a5 Qb3-d3 So about draw score. na 17..f5?? : 00:00 0 0 5 (0) 1 0.130 f3xe4 f5xg4 Bc1-h6 Na5-c4 00:00 0 0 118 (0) 2 0.278 f3xe4 f5xg4 Bc1-h6 Na5-c4 00:00 0 0 556 (55) 3 0.036 f3xe4 f5xg4 Bc1-h6 Na5-c4 00:00 0 0 5699 (577) 4 0.036 f3xe4 f5xg4 Bc1-h6 Na5-c4 00:00 0 0 16019 (2205) 5 0.001 f3xe4 f5xg4 Bc1-h6 Na5-c4 ++ g4-h6 00:00 0 0 23553 (2205) 5 0.351 Ng4-h6 Be4xb1 Ra1xb1 Na5-c6 00:00 0 0 31762 (3524) 6 0.545 Ng4-h6 Be4xb1 Ra1xb1 Na5-c6 00:00 0 0 63300 (11073) 7 0.449 Ng4-h6 Be4xb1 Ra1xb1 Na5-c6 00:01 0 0 132693 (29505) 8 0.718 Ng4-h6 Be4xb1 Ra1xb1 Na5-c6 00:09 0 0 1043156 (249306) 9 0.377 Ng4-h6 Be4xb1 Ra1xb1 Na5-c6 00:41 0 0 4597756 (1174175) 10 0.568 Ng4-h6 Be4xb1 Ra1xb1 Na5-c6 03:21 0 0 22776313 (5118709) 11 0.350 Ng4-h6 Be4xb1 Ra1xb1 Na5-c6 11:55 0 0 80638252 (22565950) 12 0.627 Ng4-h6 Be4xb1 Ra1xb1 Ke8-f8 Bc1-f4 Qd8-b6 Qd1-d3 Ra8-e8 Rb1-c1 Na5-c4 b2-b3 Be7-d6 18:22 0 0 122784931 (27510589) 13 0.627 Ng4-h6 Be4xb1 Ra1xb1 Ke8-f8 Bc1-f4 Qd8-b 6 Qd1-d3 Ra8-e8 Rb1-c1 Na5-c4 b2-b3 Be7-d6 So up 0.627 for white. BIG BIG difference between f5?? and h5. >I understood that Tiger14.6 had a big fail low after f5 Nh6 >The commercial version does not see a big fail low after f5 Nh6. Diep does about 0.62 pawn difference. >I also suggest that you put Diep onto the position when it missed >g4 against shredder. I didn't miss g4 at all. I'm having major bugs in passed pawn code, which is explaining everything. Note that long before the position got onto the board where i missed g4 there were more wins for diep, like short before g4 even the move fxg3 instead of f4-f3 is already worth a great try. In short the position where g5-g4 might be winning or might not be winning, the whole point here is that this position is such a mess that DIEP should have prevented that mess. Note in the same kind of mess junior won from Shredder. My viewpoint is: prevent such a mess, because if you have a mess something went wrong. if you don't have a mess you hardly have tactics! >You said that it failed low on g4. >My guess is that if you continue to search deeper >it is going to fail high again and find g4. I'll have a try. I've got a dual 1.2 idling anyway now :) >I understood that diep search 13 plies against shredder >so it seems that 13 plies are not enough and search is important >even later. >I usually give my programs hours to search in my correspondence games >because I know they can find better moves if you give them more time >and one better move in a game may be enough to change >the result of the game. This is a wrong assumption completely. My assumption is that with a better evaluation you don't need to spit out all kind of tough positions, they already win based upon the knowledge then instead of antipositional chess which is tacitcal possible. Especially crafty has a way of playing which is unhealthy, it always grabs a pawn in such a way that the opponent has compensation. If you don't take the pawn or take it in such a way that the opponent doesn't have compensation, now that's REAL high level chess! >I posted in the past a position when Deep fritz find a good move after >more than 16 hours and I have more examples when Deep fritz could find after a >long search a better move that >it cannot find at tournament time control. aha the g7-g5 position, well about that position, doesn't Re8 win anyway? My score jumps up a pawn after a few hours for Re8 to +1.666 for black up. >I believe that I win the Israeli championship thanks for the >massive use of computers and there are games when I win simply because >my programs searched for more time and >outsearch the opponent's programs. I believe that if i'd join a corr champ i hardly would need computer analysis and hardly would need depth to win the championship. I know so many corr players now and all of them got dutch champion corr chess now and some of them went on playing worldwide levels, but only the players with a high FIDE rating, they make sound moves, the others rely basically upon anti positoinal play and deep tactical analysis. The FIDE rated players however play more sound moves and simply only react if they receive a very antipositional move! With only 1/100 of the analysis the computers of their opponent did, they can win the games then! >I use also my brain in the games but I am very careful with it and >only in rare cases I choose a move that none of my programs like. > >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.