Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:54:52 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2000 at 09:59:40, Uri Blass wrote:
>On October 10, 2000 at 08:13:01, Graham Laight wrote:
>
>>On October 10, 2000 at 07:31:37, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On October 10, 2000 at 07:05:45, Graham Laight wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems to me that PCs' results against GMs are tapering off into a flat line.
>>>>The current style of program may have come as far as they can go.
>>>>
>>>>The battle to generate the highest NPS score is no longer improving the
>>>>computers' performance against humans. Even Deep Junior running on a quad
>>>>processor is only able to score 4.5/9 against the top players.
>>>
>>>Only???
>>>
>>>4.5/9 is a wonderful result.
>>
>>Of course it's a wonderful result!
>>
>>>No longer improving the computers performance???
>>>
>>>4.5/9 against players with average rating of 2700 is the best result of
>>>computers against humans(if I do not include the result of Deeper blue).
>>>
>>>It is even better than the result of deep blue(1996) against kasparov.
>>
>>I agree with everthing above. However, on a quad PC, with full 5 piece
>>tablebases, it should have been challenging for the title, not proud to be mid
>>table. Single processor PCs may have been able to do just as well if they had
>>been given the opportunity. Genius 3 beat GK and others (at G/25) about 9 years
>>ago.
>
>It was game/25 and kasparov thought that he was playing genius2.
I don't see the point. What's the problem with Kasparov thinking it was Genius2?
It would have changed nothing if he'd known it was Genius2.9.
>Other programs got worse results against humans and I did not see a reason to
>expect a very big improvement.
>
>100 elo improvement relative to single processor is very good and Deep Junior
>got more than it because programs never got performance of 2600 before.
>
>
>
>>
>>While 4.5/9 is a brilliant performance against average 2700 elo, it was
>>disappointing in terms of what one would have hoped for with this setup.
>
>I expected it to do less than 50% with this setup so I do not think that 50% is
>disappointing.
>>
>>>>
>>>>With dozens of programmers competing to make the "final push" to get programs
>>>>ahead of humans, to impartial observers it looks like the harder they push, the
>>>>more the bandwagon gets stuck in the mud.
>>>>
>>>>Programmers also have to remove knowledge from their eval fns to score higher
>>>>against their computer opponents.
>>>
>>>This is your opinion.
>>>This is not the programmers opinion.
>>>
>>>I see that Programmers add knowledge to their programs in order to have better
>>>score against computers.
>>
>>Ed Schroder has told us that Rebel Century can have a knowledge setting of
>>several hundred. However, to get best results against other computers, the
>>optimum setting is 25.
>
>This is the case for Rebel but it is not always the case with other programs.
>
>I think that one of the problems with Rebel is that it changes its mind more
>often with bigger chess knowledge and the result is that it cannot get big
>depth(the problem is not only nodes per second).
>
>It is interesting to know if Century with knowledge=500 is better than century
>with knowledge=25 assuming the same number of nodes(I am not sure about it)
Knowledge==xx does not do what you think it does. So this discussion will lead
you exactly nowhere.
>>>GambitTiger has knowledge about king safety and I can see it winning computers
>>>by sacrifices that other programs do not understand.
>>
>>That's GOOD news!
>>
>>Has GambitTiger won any computer v computer competitions?
>
>Yes
>It won the french championship with 8 out of 9.
Yes, it was just 2 days ago!
Christophe
>Gambittiger is not slower in nps and the programmer tries to add knowledge
>without doing the program slower.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Looks like a doubling of NPS no longer provides an extra 50 Elo rating against
>>>>humans - nothing even close, in fact.
>>>
>>>I am not sure about the nothing even close.
>>
>>>>In other words, shooting up, plateauing for a while, then shooting up again -
>>>>and so on. It's possible that, because chess programmers vary the amount of
>>>>expertise between 20 and (say) 500 distinct pieces of knowledge, they've found a
>>>>plateau (probably the 2nd one), and, angry about being beaten by someone with
>>>>less knowledge but higher NPS, have refused to go down the knowledge route
>>>>seriously. Also, from many years of reading postings in this group, it is
>>>>apparent that NPS, and techniques to raise it, is where the focus lies with this
>>>>particular group of people.
>>
>>If this thread continues, I think it will be important to have the diagrams - so
>>here they are again:
>>
>>I think we mostly assume that the return on both knowledge and speed look like
>>the picture below:
>>
>> |
>> |
>> | **
>> | **************************
>> | **
>> ELO | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> |*
>> |*
>> |*
>> |---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Either Speed or Knowledge
>>
>>
>>But what if, in reality, one or both of them actually looked like this?
>>
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | **
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | **
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | **
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | *
>> ELO | *
>> | *
>> | **
>> | *
>> | *
>> |*
>> |*
>> |---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Either Speed or Knowledge
>>
>>
>>>I disagree.
>>>I know cases when the new version of chess programs have smaller nps.
>>>
>>>One example:Fritz6 is alower in nps than Fritz5.32
>>>
>>>Uri
>
><snipped>
>>But can you put your hand on the bible and swear that this is because of
>>significant extra knowledge, or might some of it be because franz has discovered
>>that at this speed, one must reduce the amount of root processing (for example)?
>
>I do not know.
>I am not the programmer of Fritz but I believe that it has more knowledge.
>
>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.