Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:17:12 07/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2003 at 16:12:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 29, 2003 at 00:31:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 28, 2003 at 20:59:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On July 28, 2003 at 19:16:08, Keith Evans wrote: >>> >>>>On July 28, 2003 at 16:52:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 28, 2003 at 16:45:33, Keith Evans wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 28, 2003 at 13:36:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Just compare the design of the move generator of Hsu with chrilly. It is a >>>>>>>*massive* difference already. >>>>>> >>>>>>There are other statements that you made that I could discuss, but this one >>>>>>caught my eye... >>>>>> >>>>>>What are you talking about? What's the difference? How do you know? You seem to >>>>>>be implying that Chrilly did a better job than Hsu which I don't believe. >>>>> >>>>>Yes massive better. >>>>> >>>>>Hsu has written many articles. >>>>> >>>>>here is a summary of what Chrilly has said in way more words (voice) >>>>>when he was staying here for a few days: >>>>> >>>>> Hsu was one of the first to make a move generator. He didn't write it in >>>>> verilog but in the direct logics of the chip. Very incompatible method. >>>>> Custom made by hand. It is incredible that he managed to write at such a >>>>> low level anyway. However, a bad result from writing at such a low level is >>>>> that the scale and size of the logics is so big that he must have >>>>> lost oversight. I write in a more compatible language called Verilog and >>>>> that is not comparable to C but way closer than the very 'assembly' way >>>>> in which Hsu has written his logics at. It means in short that Brutus >>>>> move generator therefore is very small. Note that i MUST make it small >>>>> because i am commercial and more gates is more money to pay for. In the >>>>> first chip i had just 50000 gates in total and that is very very little to >>>>> get a chessprogram working in. >>>>> From my viewpoint all the things i have seen so far is utmost beginners >>>>> level. This is logical, They are hardware designers, not chessprogrammers. >>>>> I focus upon the chess programming technical result. They had so much other >>>>> problems to deal with from hardware viewpoint that we can not even compare >>>>> it in that sense. >>>>> >>>>>Best regards, >>>>>Vincent >>>> >>>>I only know of a few architectures that have been used for building hardware >>>>move generators. >>>> >>>>1 - the Hitech style approach which is going to be very large. (Even with the >>>>latest and largest FPGAs I don't think that you would get 64 Hitech chips into >>>>one FPGA. It needs a ton of registers.) >>>> >>>>2 - the Belle style approach which returns moves in an MVV/LVA order and >>>>potentially based on centrality - hardly random but not SEE. Despite what >>>>Chrilly allegedly said, Hsu built an efficient move generator. You could fit a >>>>lot of those on the latest chips at 0.18 micron or below - much more efficient >>>>than anything going in an FPGA in terms of silicon area. It would also run quite >>>>fast. Hsu suffered through doing a hand layout, but the result was a really >>>>small move generator that would probably run insanely fast on today's >>>>technology. >>>> >>>>3 - some obscure architectures which had basically random move ordering. (You >>>>can find references in Ebeling's book.) >>>> >>>>Now from what you're saying I infer Chrilly came up with his own architecture. >>>>Do you have any idea what makes it novel? From what you're saying he's not >>>>planning on more than 2-3 plies of search in hardware so maybe he has a really >>>>simple move generator that has basically random move ordering? >>>> >>>>-K >>> >>>ok here is facts >>> a) DBII was more advanced than other tries like belle and some studentish >>>tries. >>> >>>What you find efficient perhaps in commercial terms is still terrible >>>inefficient. Some people are happy for example with bitboard move generator in >>>software. Well at 32 bits architecture i'm 2.2 times faster generating moves >>>than crafty. In fact around 73 million a second after 1.e4,e5 2.d4,d5 at a >>>2.127Ghz K7. >>> >>>That's including general code (so my move generator is not written out for white >>>and black, it is general code) and of course storage of moves and ordering >>>scores to the RAM. >>> >>>That's how you must compare brutus and deep blue with each other. >>> >>>both come from a different time zone. >>> >>>It is like comparing a sniper rifle from 2003 with a sniper rifle from world war >>>1. >>> >>>Distances they shot at in world war 1 and 2 with sniper rifles must have been a >>>few hundreds of meters. >> >>In WW1 my grandfather was a sniper. He shot at ranges up to 1000 yards. >> >>In WW2 my father was a sniper. He shot at ranges up to 1000 yards. >> >>Today, a neighbor down the street is a sniper. He shoots at ranges up to 1000 >>yards. >> >>_nobody_ shoots a sniper rifle at ranges of "kilometers" today. "kilometer" >>perhaps. With an occasional attempt at up to 2km with a big 50 cal "rifle". >> >>This is just another area where you know nothing, but write as though you are >>an expert. >> >>BTW, Hsu's move generator is _not_ a lot better than Belle. All you have to >>do is read his paper to see what he did... > >Of course everyone can. It is described at several papers. What Brutus has is a >*lot* better i can garantuee it. > >Hsu didn't program in verilog or some hardware language. because of that it is >amazing he managed to get stuff bugfree to work. However you can't simply >compare all that university stuff with what Donninger has! Right. I also notice your "sniper expert" comments went away. Another "expert field" of yours down the drain... > >> >>> >>>Snipers now practice ranges of kilometers now with a single rifle. >>> >>>Deep Blue was created in a time that search efficiency was not important simply >>>because search depths were very small. At 8 ply search depth it doesn't matter >>>whether you have branching factor 6 or 8. >>> >>>What matters is tactics. >>> >>>In hardware advantage is brute force. Optimizing the thing for efficiency was >>>simply not needed. Hashtables were considered new. Nullmove considered dubious >>>if you used it anyway. >>> >>>A normal cpu's only a few had a big RAM. >>> >>>I remember Schach 3.0 from around 1997. That with hashtables up to 32 megabytes >>>(really a lot in those days) and it had singular extensions and of course >>>nullmove R=2. >> >> >>I assume you mean 1987. We played them in 1983. In 1983 32 megabytes was >>_not_ really a lot to _some_ of us... > >In 1997 the average hardware had 32MB ram. > >Note that Deep Blue had zero ram. It was in hardware. No hashtables. Again, _wrong_. DB only did hashing in the software search. Which omitted the last _few_ plies only. Can't you _ever_ get that straight??? > >So *some* of us who used supercomputers of course had more. I don't know about >crafty in those days. You always had a lot of RAM compared to the PC guys Bob! You said "32mb was really a lot in those days.". I said it wasn't. At least not to us. To chess 4.x. To Belle. To chaos. To phoenix. To lachex. TO L'xentrique. There are plenty of others... > >>> >>>But despite all those toys it had a branching factor of 10.0. >>> >>>Who cared? it outsearched everyone single cpu. It got 10 ply easily with a >>>quarter of a million nodes a second at a 133Mhz P5. >>> >>>Yes that's < 600 clocks a node. >>> >>>But if you can get 250k nps who cares for b.f. = 10 ? >>> >>>Now where everyone suffered from speed versus knowledge problems and only some >>>commercial programmers started to slowly agree in one of the many discussions at >>>the Aegon tournament 1997 that above 10 ply search depths the piece square table >>>programs would get outdated as they simply didn't play better (of course >>>assuming updating only in the root and only using those psq) it was trivial in >>>those days that everyone suffered from tactical problems. >>> >>>I remember how i in BLITZ could trick them. Yes in 1997. In blitz if a trick >>>looked to mee pretty deep, then i would gamble at it and win as they fell for >>>it. >> >>I've offered you the chance to put up and prove that statement, more than >>once. I used a P6/200 in 1996. I'll use a P6/200 today in a blitz match >>against you to let you "show" your blitz skills. > >What's this for crap statement? You keep claiming that a 1997 program could not beat you. I claim that is _crap_. I watched Crafty clean up GM players at blitz in 1997. I have a 1997 version of Crafty, and I still have my old quad P6-200 that I used in 1997. I simply challenged you to prove your ridiculous statement. Of course you won't. See below. > >My time is too expensive to waste. So unless you want to pay me for a match, >remember i'm a titled player, then stop such nonsense. You made the claim. I challenged you on it. As usual, you "run and hide". I won't pay you a cent to play a game. But anytime you want to demonstrate your "superiority" over a 1997 program at blitz, I stand ready to show you the error of that claim... whenever you want. I'd bet the "1997 program" will win 3/4 of the points played. > >You always want to see proof online. Yep, that's a horrible habit of mine. Wanting to see results rather than hand-waving, hot-air and miles of crap. > >SHOW UP AT THE WORLD CHAMPS AT YOUR p6/200 Bob and you'll know how much software >has progressed sincethen! You said _you_. Last time I looked _you_ are a human. Can't you even keep your own boastful statements clear? > >>You hardly won a game back then. You'll hardly win a game today. Stop >>stretching the truth so far that you look ridiculous. > >Get over here. Go sit in the tournament hall so that i can check you if needed >some operator. We put the clock to 5 3 (so that you will not forfeit and me >neither). > >I need to see you of course or some operator of yours. And i need money. Not >that much in fact. You need a lobotomy. I doubt you will get that _either_. > >If i cannot see you i don't trust you for an inch of course when we play for >money. I trust you less, of course. > >Crafty nowadays is way more aggressive. Aggressive king safety. Deadly in blitz. >in 1997 it didn't fear anything there. That's nonsense. And I'll be happy to put up a 1997 version on ICC for you to beat your face bloody against. > >>>Only the best commercial programs in those days, with very very little >>>chessknowledge inside could get through the tactical barrier just *a bit*. >>> >>>Remember fastest PC processor in 1997 was the not yet sold and very experimental >>>PII-300Mhz. >> >>That's baloney. I had a _dual_ PII/300 in 1997. > >October 1997 the PII300 was not yet on the market. Surprisingly several >participants had it at the world champs. > >My PII300 i had because i was sponsored by intel. It was a hell to get the >machine. They couldn't deliver it in france. Had to carry it by train to the >tournament hall and back. In had a PII/300 before you had seen one. They were available in the stores over here. I had it playing on ICC while I was waiting for my P6/200 to be delivered, if you recall. Just because they are hard to find over _there_ doesn't mean the same over here. You said the _same_ thing about my dual xeon if you recall, yet dell was shipping them by the thousands when you said "they don't exist." > >> >>> >>>Of course there were also alpha's 21164 at 633Mhz experimental (and overclocked >>>with kryo to 767Mhz at -40C at world champs Paris 1997). >>> >>>So basically the programs which were not piece square table based were >>>struggling incredible to play tactical a bit better. I remember how with a lot >>>of effort i searched 8 ply in world champs 1997. >> >>Strange. I searched 11-12 plies in 1996 in Jakarta. And in 1997 in Paris. > >You lost in jakarta the same game like you lost in 1999 against rebel and the >same game you lost in another world championship again (2000 or 2001 forgot >which of the 2). > >Same line. Same opening. Same way to lose it. > >Also tactical strength of crafty in 2000 still was very poor despite 13 ply or >something at an alpha. > >Take DIEP-crafty > >Crafty was out of book at a position where h5 is the best move. I was predicting >the move in time of the opponent (but i was also in book) yet Crafty didn't even >manage to find it. Simple tactical trick... > >So Crafty lost. Someone tried it at home when i posted it back then. Crafty >didn't find it after 4 hours of search either. A simple tactical trick! > >To quote Donninger: "You have thin plies, and you have thick plies" > >In a black&white surrounding i sure know what color crafty has :) I know by _example_ what kind your program has too. Results speak louder than hand-waving and excuses... > >>>I remember how happy i was that Fritz thought for a long period of time against >>>DIEP at a critical moment when diep was predicting the correct move. >>> >>>Only because of that fritz thought for 12 minutes, diep could reach the >>>INCREDIBLE DEPTH of 10 ply. So the losing move it had planned at 8 and 9 ply >>>failed low at 10 and it played a move that saved the game there. >>> >>>Imagine my happyness reaching 10 ply back then in the ENDGAME after 12 minutes >>>of search. >>> >>>Most programmers therefore were dubiously forward pruning. From which Rebel is >>>best example. See how buggy all the forward pruning is as posted at the >>>homepage. Brilliant for 1990 perhaps. But even in 1997 it was looking dubious. >>> >>>Nullmove by Hyatt & co was considered just another dubious form of forward >>>pruning. >> >>Eh? Everyone was using it in 1996. Me. Bruce (Ferret). Fritz. I don't know >>of many that were not, in fact. > >Are you denying that you posted in 1997-1999 that when asked why Deep Blue >searched only 10-12 ply and software was getting above that depth a lot that you >said that all those programs are dubiously searching because they use nullmove >and therefore they were a big crap and deep blue's 10-12 ply would destroy any >search depth they dubiously got thanks to superb extensions of deep blue and not >using nullmove? > I've said that many times. It is _still_ true. Given the choice of 12 plies with null-move or 12 plies without, I'll take _without_ every last time and beat your brains out with it. >Note that at that time you didn't know that many programs were using in fact >already SE. Most were _not_. IN fact, you don't know what a real SE implementation looks like. > >>> >>>Now comes deep blue which searches 10 ply fullwidth with a bunch of extensions. >>>So that's called 12.2 ply then (extensions are simply added to the iteration >>>depth). Let's be clear it did *not* search on average 12.2 ply. Its iteration >>>depth was like 11 ply on average at most. More like 10.9 ply >>> >>>But it extended all checks. It extended loads of captures. Forced moves. >>> >>>So tactical it was equal to Schach at a 800Mhz PIII. >>> >>>However, there were no 800Mhz PIIIs at that time. >>> >>>So where 12 ply looks normal in 2003 as a depth which most programs get, >>>in 1997 it was not a normal depth for programs doing a gnuchess a look like >>>evaluation. >>> >>>Gnuchess was considered to be using a too heavy evaluation in fact. Mobility >>>sucked ass because it slowed you down incredible. I remember at the time a >>>statement of Frans about that. >>> >>>"only search depth counts, as you learn through search, not through evaluation". >>> >>>So deep blue chips not using killermoves in hardware is no problem. Inefficient >>>search in hardware? no problem! >>> >>>Only the nodes a second counts! >>> >>>More nodes a seconds means more tactical strength! >>> >>>Gnuchess with singular extensions and checks in qsearch and more recapture >>>extensions for sure will be finding the same type of tactics like deep blue and >>>will agree with everything with deep blue positional spoken. >>> >>>But now we are in 2003. >>> >>>Search no longer can be done in a rude primitive way. >>> >>>Not even in hardware. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Vincent
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.