Author: Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
Date: 14:11:30 11/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2000 at 13:53:51, Bob Durrett wrote: >On November 18, 2000 at 13:18:14, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 18, 2000 at 12:43:59, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >> >>>On November 17, 2000 at 18:54:37, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On November 17, 2000 at 18:40:52, Torstein Hall wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 17, 2000 at 18:33:54, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 17, 2000 at 18:23:30, Torstein Hall wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 17, 2000 at 17:44:50, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On November 17, 2000 at 17:20:25, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>>>>>><snipped> >>>>>>>>>c) If it is not, how this entity compares with Schredder IF two top programs are >>>>>>>>>harnessed toguether? I suppose many experiment has been already performed before >>>>>>>>>delivery. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I think that it is has some rules based on evaluations and main lines. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Example 1:If engine A fail low after 1 second and engine B fail low after 10 >>>>>>>>seconds with the same main line then it is logical to assume that engine B is >>>>>>>>weaker in tactics in the relevant position so it is logical to choose engine A. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Example 2:If engine A shows evaluations:+1.1 and the evaluation goes down to 0.5 >>>>>>>>when engine B has stable evaluation of 0.0 then it is logical to assume that >>>>>>>>engine B understands the position better(I usually expect +1.1 to go up and not >>>>>>>>to go down) so it is logical to choose engine B. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I do not know if Shredder is using similiar ideas but this is the ideas that >>>>>>>>seem to me logical to try in order to be correct most of the time in choosing >>>>>>>>the right engine in cases when both engines have equal strength. >>> >>>Yes, these are some examples how it is working in principle, but this is only >>>one part of the job. I also check the pvs for example. >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I feel that such a beast must be weaker than a normal program, as it have to >>>>>>>waste a lot of computing time. First two engines computing the same pos. Then >>>>>>>the third engine etc. etc. >>> >>>Yes, this is the problem on one single cpu machine, both engines will only get >>>50% of the cpu, but the thing gets boosted if you are running on a dual machine >>>or in a network. >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Torstein >>>>>> >>>>>>I disagree because of the following reasons: >>>>>> >>>>>>1)The third engine may have a simple rule to decide so it practically may waste >>>>>>less than 1% of the time. >>>>> >>>>>Probably true! >>> >>>Yes, the triple brain hardly needs any cpu time in comparison to the engines. >>> >>>>> >>>>>>2)The two engines do not use the same time so it can be clearly less than twice >>>>>>slower because the playing engine may be used 90% of the time. >>>>>> >>>>>This I think (or feel)must be wrong. >>>>>Both engine A and B have work on the position at first for the engine 3 to >>>>>deside on them. So in effect you lose a lot before you deside. And if you only >>>>>switch engine rarly, I feel that somehow the idea loses much of its point. >>>>>But perhaps Stefan can tell us more? >>>> >>>>1)Stefan explained in a previous post that the engines are not used for equal >>>>time. >>> >>>You go me wrong. Both engines are running 100% of the time. The triple brain >>>decides when to stop them simultaniously. >>> >>>The timing is very important. It is for example more likely that a move is easy >>>or hard if both engines say so. >> >>Do you have cases when the tripple brain of two engines got better result than >>everyone of them in comp-comp games. Yes, I have cases where e.g. Shredder and SOS together where beating Shredder alone. >> >>If you have cases like it then it will be interesting if you post the relevant >>games(I guess that shredder5 is not one of them because it is too strong >>relative to the other engines so I see no reason to hide details about it) I am sorry, but I don't have material handy to publish here, but if you wait a couple of more days you'll probably get more info here. >> >>Uri > >What would be REALLY interesting to see would be the choices made by the voting >software, i.e. which moves were chosen by each engine and which were selected by >the voter. Probably not available information, but would be revealing. If you run the triple brain in Shredder it will always display which move it prefers and a value how sure it is with its choice. The value is between 0 and 100%, 0% meaning thatboth alternatives are about equal and 100% meaning that one move is very likely better than the other. Steafn
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.