Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:56:01 03/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2004 at 05:56:40, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 11, 2004 at 05:21:03, Fabien Letouzey wrote: > >> >>On March 10, 2004 at 22:39:48, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >> >>>Fruit is a very nice new program that can be freely downloaded from Dann >>>Corbit's ftp site. It is a UCI engine and can run either under Arena or the CB >>>GUI. I tried it in a very short match (played at quick blitz controls) against >>>one of the older Crafties (18.12) and it did not have much of a real chance to >>>score. It does seem to be very promising though as it had a couple of playable >>>and perhaps winnable positions, but due to the apparent lack of knowledge it >>>lost even these games. I think that game 4 could be very telling for the >>>programmer who said that he was a little disappointed with CCC. Ahem, he should >>>know that all things that matter in life usually take time, and CCC is just like >>>that especially at the beginning. He will surely be overwhelmed eventually with >>>the amount of feedback by CCC members. >> >>Fruit is of course not in the same league as Crafty. >> >>The lack of knowledge is real, not apparent :))) > >The lack of knowledge in crafty is also real. >Crafty does not know things like ETC. ETC is _not_ "knowledge". It is a modification to move ordering only. If you look at comments in main.c, I tried ETC more than once. I reported here that it was worse for Crafty, as it is a speed slow-down, and the goal is for the speed cost to be offset by less work due to a quicker hash cutoff. It was _slower_ for me, so the fact it is not in is not an oversight, it is a design choice. It might work fine for you, but it was worse for me and I got rid of it... > >>I am well aware of it, and no I don't intend to leave it that way forever. >> >>About CCC sure, time will tell. I am a bit stressed because of the imminent >>release so I was not too happy not to find mcuh help when I needed it. Next >>week after version 1.0 is out, things will be more quiet. >> >>>Anyway, I used the CB GUI as the "arena" (pun intended) (wishing to find out if >>>Fruit would run there; it did, splendidly so). Both programs used Powerbook >>>2003 as the opening database; hash was set at 64MB, the machine an AMD Athlon >>>2800+ (Tbred, 2250Mhz). Krafty is still a very tough nut to crack (too much >>>speed and too much knowledge in Krafty; Crafty was hitting about 1.2-1.4 >>>million nps in the middle game while Fruit reached ca. 750-800,000nps. The >>>higher nps you can see in the game scores for Fruit are due to tablebase access >>>slowdown for Crafty; Fruit still has no tablebase access). The first four games >>>should be enough to get an idea about the strengths and weaknesses of the >>>newcomer, the match was a bit longer, but I won't bother you with all the >>>details. >> >>Yes Fruit is not only stupid, but slow as well. It takes a lot of time to >>compute very little. With the eval features as they are, it should be twice as >>fast. I don't optimise that because I intend to change the eval a lot anyway >>(but not for version 1.0). > >I do not think that it is slow and it is simply crafty that is fast. >There are a lot of programs that search significantly less nodes per second. > >> >>Also Fruit is designed for longer time controls; maybe it gets crushed a little >>less in say 20 0? >> >>Fabien. > >People often claim that small evaluation should be a problem at slower time >control so if it has little evaluation it cannot do better at longer time >control. > >What is your opinion about it? >Is it a wrong opinion and chess is simply a search based game when almost every >hole in the evaluation can be covered by searching few plies deeper? > >I knew from the results of olithink that programs can do well even with small >evaluation but the results of your program suggest that olithink was not close >to the best that it is possible to do with small evaluation and I suspect that >it is even possible to be better than Crafty with your little evaluation(after >all I guess that you do not use all the good techniques that were mentioned and >for example you do not use history based pruning when the idea is to prune moves >that almost always failed low based on the history tables by searching them to >reduced depth,not to mention that you do not use pruning based on evaluation or >extensions except check extensions). > >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.