Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 10:50:11 11/13/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1997 at 13:33:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 13, 1997 at 10:06:34, Chris Whittington wrote: > >> >> >>Yeah, well, beligerent Hyattian response expected :) >> > >remember, it was not *I* that came up with the "crowing" explanation... >I'm just pointing out that just because you finished a few places above >me *this* year doesn't mean you are better or worse. I wasn't trying to suggest this. I'm well aware that given a bit of luck or even a butterfly flap in Manchuria that you, or I, or anybody else could have got some points more (difficult) or some points less (easy to do). Its really the 'general' performance of slow(er) v. fast(ish) to which the refernece was made. > There are far >better >ways to answer that question. I had my own problems in Paris, caused >solely >by my programming decisions. I simply take my lumps and plan on doing >better >next year. > >I'd certainly be willing to put together a small internet-based >tournament >if you'd like, maybe with 8 programs, 4 fast and 4 slow, and see how >things >turn out. For Slow, I'd suggest (maybe) CSTal, Hiarcs (I think it seems >to >be slow based on NPS), and I'm not sure who else. > >For fast, I'd suggest at least Ferret, Crafty and Fritz would fit pretty >well. Great idea. Lets do it. A sort of team event ? OK, go for it. How to organise ? > >Speeds I have seen suggest Junior is fast, at least it was the last time >Shay was running it on ICC, when comparing NPS figures. Rebel is >certainly >fast. I'm not sure where to put Genius, but it seems fast. Everybody wants to claim 'knowledge' status, i think. So even programmers with fast evals claim it. Personally I think knowledge=4000 nps, anything faster is brute-force materialism :) > >Want to try a "fast vs slow" team event, maybe where each of the 4 fast >programs >plays a double-round-robin against each of the slow programs? It would >at >least provide some insight into the fast vs slow issue. If you are >interested, >maybe we can start a discussion here for the 4 programs on each side? Yup. Go for it. >Nothing >says Crafty has to be in this, because it might not be one of the best 4 >fast >programs we can put together... Why not ? Better to have some programs with 'known' internals. it helps the post mortem discussions. >Anyone interested?? > > >>Have a beligerent response back - knowledge based programs are going to >>win out in the end. You've only just seen the start of it. The Hyattian >>quiescence paradigm is outdated, unoriginal, devoid of new ideas, and >>has had its day. >> > >I think you are just a tad optimistic. I'd rephrase that last clause to >read: > > "and has had its day in the past, and will likely have its day again >in > the future." Yeah :) I didn't mean to be *that* beligerent :) > >If you don't believe that, all I can say is "look out." You are playing >in >heavy traffic. There are some *big* trucks running back and forth. All >it >takes is one hit... > > > >you want some analysis, here is my perspective: > >I am on the fast end of things. But that does *not* mean that Crafty >won't >become smarter over time. More on this a bit later however... You are >on the >slow end of things. Slow != Good. Fast != Good. Fair comment. Except that I think also == interesting an/or idealistic. > >I am on the side of what I will call "positional chess"... and I read >"My >System" 30 years ago and haven't forgotten it yet... pawn structure is >most >important in winning the majority of the games played. You might study >a lot >of Tal's games, and find many where he attacked and won, but you also >find >many where he won nice endgames. > >You are on the other side of this "hill", striving to follow paths that >lead >to complex and unclear positions. Nothing wrong with that. But when >you do >it while wrecking your position, it can and does backfire. Tell me about it :( > To play with >and >beat GM players, you are going to have to retreat quite a ways from >where you >are. Your program plays too wildly, which will win some games. but it >is >going to leave itself positionally lost in all the others. And that is >not >good enough, IMHO. Time will tell ..... > >I have a ways to go too. You don't like my current search. That's your >opinion. I haven't gotten outsearched in quite a while, haven't made >what >I would call a tactical mistake in quite a while, when considering the >current >speed and depth I get. So I'm reasonably happy with where I am. I >intend to >play with singular extensions again, later, which may (or may not) help >with >some deep tactical lines, but I can do that without throwing out what I >have >already done... > >So I'm climbing the hill up the front, improving my pawn structure eval >bit >by bit, improving my understanding of piece coordination bit by bit, and >I'm >going to continue to get better, indefinitely. > >You ran over the top of the hill, and so far down the back side, that >you >have problems with programs that your attacking style can't crush with >the >complications. And you've slowly started coming back toward the top, >getting >rid of some of the unsound sacs. Hmmmmm. Not so sure this is accurate .... > >A disinterested third party might notice that we are both moving toward >the >*exact* same goal, but from opposite sides. Who gets there first is not >easy >to say. But there's nothing *at present* that would convince me that >you arrive >before I do. You may well do so. And you might not. Based on >Thorsten's >remarks about playing the two programs, my approach seems to have its >plusses. > >About fast vs slow. What's fast? 80K is my speed on a P6. That is >also >Rebel's speed. We are both *way* behind Fritz. You are at 4K. You are >definitely slow. But that does *not* necessarily mean you are better. >I >recall a program named Awit, by Tony Marsland, which finished in 2nd at >the >1983 WCCC in New York, searching 100 nodes per second. I was doing 20K >and >won, Ken Thompson was doing 160K and came in behind me and Tony. But >ask >Tony and he'd hardly say that he was better than Belle. There were >really >3 contenders that year, Belle, Cray Blitz, and Nuchess. The others were >a >ways back. So, again, slow is != good, and more than fast == bad. It >isn't >so much how fast you go, but more of what you do while going that fast. >I'm >getting slower every year, because of the eval which is now right at 50% >of the >total search time. This might hit 60-70% by next year. I don't count. >I only >work on doing what I think are the "right" things (knowledge-wise) and >try to >do them as quickly as I possibly can. > > >>Viva chess knowledge. Bits, bytes, 64-bits, knowledge independant >>null-move bollocks - go take a running jump :) > > >we will take that jump. And I bet you feel *exactly* where we land. :) >After you pick yourself up and dust yourself off, that is. :) ok, lets do the team tourney .... Chris Whittington > > >> >>Chris Whittington > >Back to the knowledge question: You are worried about following a >pathway >into unclear territory. I want to do the opposite... I want to find a >pathway >into winning territory. A comment I have gotten quite frequently for a >year or >so now concerns the "outside passed pawn" evaluation I do. Players have >begun >to notice that Crafty (a) likes to reach positions where it has one, >even if it >is (on occasion) a pawn down; (b) it then seems to understand that >trading down >makes that pawn more important; and (c) it also understand that it has >to give >it up at the right moment. > >none of that is complicated. But it wins about 1/3 of its games based >on that >code, which is fairly complicated overall. There are many other such >ideas that >I do, some that I don't do (yet). For example, I don't understand that >a >queen-side majority is really an outside passed pawn, *yet*. I'm >working on >that now. > >But I've not seen many "fast and dumb" programs that make more >positional >material sacrifices than I do, maybe *too* many in fact. And I'm >working to >stop most of that without taking away the important aspects of the >knowledge >that is causing them. > >I don't see *anything* that limits my current approach. I don't see >*any* >large barrier that lies ahead and blocks progress beyond a certain >point. So >I think you write me (and others) off too quickly. You might do well >with your >approach. I *know* I'm going to do well with mine. The current best >program >in the world is nothing more than fast + knowledge. I can do both, but >I can't >do it as fast as they can. *yet*... > >But "never" is a very long time... :)
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.