Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:17:22 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 23:28:54, walter irvin wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 23:04:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 14, 2000 at 18:04:51, walter irvin wrote: >> >>>On September 14, 2000 at 13:42:49, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>In the upcoming Rebel Century 3.0 I have implemented a little >>>>statistic routine that reveals something about the nature of SEARCH >>>>that could be important for the future of computer chess in the sense >>>>that it says "something" one may expect in the near future because >>>>of faster and faster PC's. >>>> >>>>Research on this issue have already been done by Bob and Ernst and >>>>it has made me curious so I have spend a little time on it. The >>>>statistic shows 2 things: >>>> >>>>a) number of fail-low's for each depth; >>>>b) number of "changed moves" for each depth. >>>> >>>>(a) is not so important as often fail-low's do not mean anything but I >>>>wanted to know anyway. >>>> >>>>(b) is extremely important as it shows for each depth how many times >>>>Rebel changed its mind. As you can see in the below statistic the % >>>>diminish and diminish the deeper Rebel goes. >>>> >>>>How to read the overview: >>>>- first column: iteration depth; >>>>- second column: number of times the depth was reached; >>>>- third column: number of fail-low's; >>>>- fourth column: percentage of fail-low's; >>>>- Fifth column: number of changed moves; >>>>- Last column: percentage of changed moves; >>>> >>>>SEARCH OVERVIEW >>>>=============== >>>> >>>>1 4726 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>2 4726 1000 (21) 1889 (39) >>>>3 4726 495 (10) 1468 (31) >>>>4 4719 209 ( 4) 1085 (22) >>>>5 4719 218 ( 4) 1222 (25) >>>>6 4699 191 ( 4) 1139 (24) >>>>7 4655 141 ( 3) 948 (20) >>>>8 4572 109 ( 2) 837 (18) >>>>9 4457 79 ( 1) 777 (17) >>>>10 3998 86 ( 2) 644 (16) >>>>11 3015 64 ( 2) 374 (12) >>>>12 1904 55 ( 2) 204 (10) >>>>13 1093 37 ( 3) 77 ( 7) >>>>14 584 22 ( 3) 35 ( 5) >>>>15 356 15 ( 4) 22 ( 6) >>>>16 230 7 ( 3) 6 ( 2) >>>>17 157 6 ( 3) 2 ( 1) >>>>18 123 6 ( 4) 3 ( 2) >>>>19 88 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>20 67 0 ( 0) 1 ( 1) >>>>21 55 0 ( 0) 1 ( 1) >>>>22 54 0 ( 0) 1 ( 1) >>>>23 50 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>24 47 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>25 40 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>26 30 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>27 28 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>28 22 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>29 19 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>30 14 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>31 14 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>32 13 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>33 12 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>34 12 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>35 10 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>36 10 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>37 10 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>38 10 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>39 10 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>40 8 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>41 8 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>42 5 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>43 4 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>44 3 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>45 3 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>46 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>47 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>48 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>49 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>50 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>51 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>52 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>53 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>54 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>55 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>56 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>57 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>58 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>59 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>>60 2 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) >>>> >>>>After iteration 19 one hardly sees any changes. One might wonder >>>>if a doubling in speed is still good for 50-70 elo (as often said >>>>here). >>>> >>>>One thing that should be added to the overview is a division in >>>>middle-game and end-game (I think). >>>> >>>>The overview was created by playing a 40/40 auto232 match (about >>>>50 games). Results are automatically kept so that a next auto232 >>>>match the statistic is automatically updated. >>>> >>>>Also if you are playing your normal (manual) games or analyze positions >>>>the statistic is maintained. It would be nice to see how the statistic >>>>would look like after say 100,000 moves. >>>> >>>>Ed >>> >>>i think that hardware speeds are not ever going to solve chess .i think learning >>>is a much better bet .i think after a certain depth it is not helping much .i >>>have noticed that even between programs of more than 300 elo that when the game >>>is of much longer time controls it is always a tight game . much closer than 300 >>>elo would suggest . >> >> >>that would suggest (to me) that 300 Elo is therefore _wrong_ for that time >>control. IE the extra speed is helping _one_ of the programs more than the >>other. Which means faster hardware won't help one as much as the other... >> >>So it all depends on _which_ you are. :) > > >i guess what made a big impression on me was a bunch of games i played between >the mach IV and (rebel ,fritz,hiarcs,crafty ).at times of less than 30 sec per >move all the programs trashed , thrashed and mangled the machIV .when the times >went to 1 min per move or more the games were hard fought sometimes there were >even draws with the position favoring mach IV .which never happened at faster >time controls .it seemed to me that the reason for that was that at the slower >time controls the mach IV did not get blind sided with tactics , which allowed >for the strategy of the programs to matter a little more ???? one thing i did >notice about crafty was that it went up in elo steady as the speed increased >fritz and rebel and even hiarcs less so .why i could never figure out .it was >like fritz would find a decent move in about 12 sec and that was it . The mach III had a pretty primitive search. I beat mine a lot at blitz when I played it. But I also found it played _much_ better against me (again, me being a human) as the time control went up. I always passed it off as their selective search code simply having more failures at shallow depths... I never thought to ask the programmers when I had the opportunity. Another issue is that the mach III is _not_ "chess-smart" by _any_ definition of the word. The program has some simple evaluation terms that work well with the search that was possible on that slow microprocessor. So in a game against current programs/machines, it is down in speed and down in knowledge. Which is a recipe for going faster to help it more significantly than the opponent. I suspect this is why it performs better at longer time controls. I never personally found the Mach III to be a tactical killer at all. I out- combinationed it all the time. I generally found it to be a very "stubborn" opponent that didn't make simple tactical mistakes, and didn't make many gross positional/strategic mistakes (although lesser strategic mistakes happened all the time. ie it might not let you wreck it by giving it three isolated pawns, but it would be fooled many times into creating a weak backward pawn that became a target. Or it could be coaxed into weakening its kingside with a move like h3/h6 without realizing that it was posting a target for me.)
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.