Author: Steven Edwards
Date: 03:32:55 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 04:51:32, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On March 16, 2004 at 03:08:06, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>On March 15, 2004 at 17:23:32, Steven Edwards wrote: >>>On March 15, 2004 at 16:52:40, martin fierz wrote: >>>>On March 15, 2004 at 16:38:53, Steven Edwards wrote: >>> >>>>>Hmmn. Maybe I should offer a wager or two here to the doubters. Like, if I >>>>>can't get this to work, then I'll stop complaining about the mundane nature of >>>>>traditional A/B searchers; if I do get it too work, each doubter can send me a >>>>>new battery for one of my Macintosh notebooks. (Approx. US$150 each.) >>>> >>>>i'll accept the wager, but you have to define "can't get this to work" a bit >>>>more clearly for me. e.g. IIRC your list had an item "become world champion", >>>>and i would accept that you had "got it to work" long before that. >>>>for me, the getting it to work part has to be spelled out as some kind of rating >>>>level - what do you think? what level would you specify? >>> >>>Well, first let's hope our board sponsor won't get upset with a little gambling. >>> >>>I posted the primary and secondary goals back last month but can't find the CCC >>>reference. So you are welcome to read them again from the entry 2004.02.19 in >>>my journal: >>> >>>http://www.livejournal.com/users/chessnotation/ >>> >>>Point #8 in the primary goal set (combined with #12) is what I claim to be >>>sufficient for proof of concept, and I'll make the output public for inspection. >> >>Unlike some of the other posters, I'm less skeptical as to what you'll be able >>to come up with using this approach if you follow it through fully, but I do >>think that your targeted playing strength (1800 elo) is unreasonably low. It's >>acceptable for your program to be weaker than top programs, which are on today's >>hardware approaching 2700 strength, but not by such a wide difference. And in >>it's day, Paradise was able to handle its domain at expert strength. >> >>I suggest that your rating target be 2400 elo. Really. You can do it. With >>regard to a possible bet between you and Martin Fierz, 2200 on today's hardware >>seems like a fair level. >I'd be ready to contribute to the "bet", but everything would have to be >concrete. > >#8 is vague - if I wanted, Rybka could be meeting this tonight. #12 - what test >suite are we talking about? WAC? In addition, you won't be helping your engine >if the target is testsuite performance - good for testsuites != good for >positional play. > >2400 elo? Shredder & Hiarcs search 300 KNPS @ 3 GHz and play ~2800. Slow them >down by a factor of 300, log (2) (300) = ~8, 8x50 ELO/speed doubling = 400 >points - so ~2400 @ 1000 NPS. (Actually 50 is probably too low, but still.) > >I can join if the goal is 2600 ELO @<1000 NPS. That's proof of concept. In this >case, I think you could find a few contributors ... On the test suite data: I'll claim that #19 is satisfied if Symbolic can solve at least 200 of WAC, 667 of WCSAC, and 667 of BWTC with a mean time limit of 180 seconds per position on hardware roughly equal to #11 (400 MHz PPC with 256 MByte RAM and 10 GByte disk). A few points on the 1800 Elo number in the primary goal set: 1. The only test suite data we have for Paradise is just under a hundred positions from the first one hundred positions from WAC. I think its performance was somewhat under 2000 Elo because of its time limit of forty-five minutes per move, and that is one reason for the 1800 Elo figure in the primary goal set. 2. A second reason for the 1800 Elo figure is that I suspect that, unlike the case with most programs, incremental improvement is going to be strongly correlated with the chess skill of the improver (me). I haven't played OTB chess in some 20 years and I don't think I could do much better than 1800 if I were to try it today. 3. The third reason for the 1800 number is how I would like to get the rating: from OTB USCF tournaments. The human player distribution is such that there would be a lot more confidence in the target number when the number is within two sigma of the mean and not four (or more) away. 4. A difficulty here is getting any kind of an OTB rating. To my knowledge, there haven't been any "computers allowed" USCF events in my area for a long time. There were a good number back in the late 1980s when I deployed my program Spector, but not today. My idea here is to get some local TDs to allow computer entry by helping to sponsor a prize fund, and this might be a budget breaker. (Note: this is the reason for the caveat in #18 and #19.) -------- On the battery: one of my notebooks is a 400 MHz Apple PowerBook G3 2000 Series and a battery for it can be had from: http://eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Item.cfm?ID=5833 I need a couple of other batteries, all roughly the same price.
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.