Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:21:06 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 14:11:19, Christophe Theron wrote: >On July 08, 2002 at 13:27:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 08, 2002 at 12:48:58, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On July 08, 2002 at 11:34:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>>I too am a DB fan. Just like Bob. >>>>> >>>>>But I actually agree with you here. I don't think DB did anything >>>>>*spectacular*. >>>> >>>>I totally disagree. Their speed _was_ "spectacular". And that was _the_ >>>>point of Deep Blue, after all. Not the point everyone _wants_ to be the >>>>point of deep blue, but _the point_ the team developed over 10 years... >>>> >>> >>>Here is a crazy thought, why not simulate DB? >>>Given all the papers, I think it should be possible to modify Craft to use the >>>same eval and extensions. We turn off hashing, nullmove, SEE and whatever DB >>>didn't have. Then we find a slow machine for Tiger and a super fast one for >>>Crafty, so Crafty (in DB-mode) has a 200 nps fold advantage. >>> >>>Ok lot of work, but seems this is the never ending story :) >>> >>>-S. >> >> >>This would be great if we had some of the DB guys helping. Unfortunately, >>while they revealed a lot about various parts of DB, there is no single >>comprehensive source paper to use as a reference. IE what are those 8,000 >>unique eval terms in DB (some of those terms actually represent a matrix with >>multiple values so it is actually more complex than that)? > > > >Sorry but the "8000" includes every entry of every matrix. Not according to the things I have seen written. But it really doesn't matter to me either way. I don't have anywhere _near_ 8000 terms in my evaluation. I don't have 1000 unique terms, even counting all the piece/square tables. > >It's like saying that a piece square table program is composed of 768 unique >eval terms (64 squares x 6 piece types x 2 colors). Even if that were done, that is only 10%. What about the other 90%? You have a _lot_ of counting to go to reach 8000... > >If I count this way, I guess that Chess Tiger must have something like 50000 >unique eval terms... :-) > > > > Christophe > > > > >> Ditto for some of >>their search algorithms. They have given lots of 'hints' about things, but >>significant implementation details are not available. >> >>IE something like trying to build a F-1 by looking at it run around the track. >>There are _significant_ details that are not readily apparent from such >>observations...
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.