Author: Chris Carson
Date: 11:13:19 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. 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. > >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. > >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? >Nothing >says Crafty has to be in this, because it might not be one of the best 4 >fast >programs we can put together... > >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quiescence paradigm is outdated, unoriginal, devoid of new ideas, and 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." > >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. > >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. 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. > >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. > >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. :) > > >> >>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... :) Bring on the match. :) My picks for the fast programs: 1. Deep Blue II 2. Crafty (my favorite) 3. Ferret 4. Rebel 9 5. Junior (alternate) 6. DB jr (alternate 2) 7. Genius 5 (alternate 3) 8. Fritz (alternate 4) I think the answer is knowledge + speed (as much as I can muster mister) ! Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.