Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 07:23:58 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2001 at 08:17:40, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 26, 2001 at 08:09:24, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>On February 25, 2001 at 12:33:45, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On February 24, 2001 at 18:58:07, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 24, 2001 at 17:20:10, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>> >>>>>The point is the sheer size of the jump from one kind of hardware to another. Of >>>>>course I know, as everydoby else, about improvements due to equipment, but this >>>>>one is so large that, looking things from a reverse point of view, It could be >>>>>said that the negative jump from a very fast hardware to a more average one is >>>>>too great. And if the negative jump is too great, then I have certain ground to >>>>>consider that when the product was commercially released they did not put >>>>>enough concern in how the thing was going to run in an average kind of machine >>>>>proper of the average consummer, even in CCC. Or to say again in another way: >>>>>delivery was premature at the cost of the purchaser. My idea is that even in >>>>>chess programming, as in fact practically does almost every company of >>>>>programmer, you ensure that the release will be enough good for the average >>>>>machine proper of time. That's the reason that we, with machines from 90 to 800 >>>>>Mhz, all can say this or that product is very good, etc, although recognizing >>>>>that with the fastest one is better. The point is they give us something good >>>>>even when running in no so fast equipment. So we not complain about Tiber or >>>>>Rebel on the ground that they only run OK when loaded in a 1,2 Giga monster. >>>>>I hope my point is clear, Mogens >>>> >>>>Yes, I do understand what you're saying. The point just isn't a valid concern in >>>>my opinion. To my knowledge all top chess programs performs at a high level on >>>>less than impressive hardware. There may be problems with certain processors >>>>or/and very low clock speeds, but nothing that spoils the experience of a good >>>>chess program AFAIK. >>>> >>>>The ones that don't, comparatively speaking, do so because of the way they're >>>>constructed by the author. A prime example would probably be CS Tal, even though >>>>I've never tried the program. It would be a shame if that project had been >>>>compromised or cancelled due to speculations about processor speed. >>>> >>>>Requirement of certain conditions that needs to be fulfilled imposes a >>>>limitation on ideas IMO. That isn't a sound development for the consumer or the >>>>program authors. >>>> >>>>So I honestly don't see a problem lurking in the horizon. >>> >>> >>> >>>Here is the way I see this matter: there are some programs that SUCK if they are >>>not run on the fastest computers available. >>> >>>Saying that they need faster hardware to exploit their full possibilities is >>>just an excuse to hide the very poor performances on more standard hardware. >>> >>>I'm not saying here that it is the case of Gandalf or Chess System Tal. I don't >>>own these programs, and I have not seen enough games to give an opinion. >>> >>>Look: in a chess game, when it is your turn to move, you have the choice >>>between, say, a dozen moves that do not lose immediately. >>> >>>The more you think on the position, the more moves you are going to discard >>>because you can see with more time that they lead to bad positions. >>> >>>After a good while you are left with 2 or 3 playable moves. Choosing between >>>them is a matter of taste, or a matter of "playing style", and thinking more >>>about it is just going to be a waste of time. >>> >>>If a program is not able to see deep enough, and evaluate correctly, then if it >>>is not given enough time it will from time to time play a bad move and lose. >>>Then it is no surprise that, given enough time or enough processor power, even >>>poor programs are able to reach the point where they have successfully discarded >>>the bad moves and are left with the very few moves that are playable. >>> >>>And so it is no surprise that these inferior programs are able to compete with >>>much better ones only when you use very slow time controls or very very fast >>>computers. The best program is able to reach very quickly the point where only >>>playable moves are identified, and all the extra time is not going to help it >>>(it's like flipping a coin to decide which move amongst the 2 or 3 left you are >>>going to play). The other program is going to need much more time, but it does >>>not matter as anyway it has been given enough time or processor resources. >>> >>>If the number of possible moves in chess was higher, this effect would be less >>>obvious. >>> >>>That's an attempt to explain the so called "dimishing returns" in computer >>>chess. >>> >>>You can go even further and imagine what could happen if programs are given an >>>"almost" infinite time. They do not need high chess knowledge anymore. They just >>>need to know the basic rules and to be able to identify a checkmate when it >>>happens, because given enough time you can see all the forced lines from the >>>beginning to the end of the game. Then would you say that a program with almost >>>no chess knowledge is as good as one with a lot of knowledge just because, given >>>enough time, they are almost equal? >>> >>>Certainly not. >>> >>>Now you understand why I always find extremely doubtful the claims that a given >>>program needs longer time controls or more processor power in order to achieve >>>its full strength. It is either not true (people claiming this have not played >>>enough games to demonstrate their point), or it is true and in this case it >>>simply shows that the program in question SUCKS. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>This is an interesting and valuable, but I need the main points explaining more >>simply. The following comments illustrate my confusion (and are in no way >>intended to counter what has been said): >> >>The game ends in mate. So all the general rules of thumb (chess knowledge) are >>useless compared to this type of absolute knowledge determined by search (or >>EGTBs). >> >>General knowledge is secondary to specific knowledge in a position eg weak pawns >>versus losing a queen to a tactic revealed by search. >> >>Knowledge presumably takes cpu cycles to process, so faster machines help? >> >>If we had 32 man EGTBs, there would be absolute knowledge, no search and no >>chess rule of thumb knowledge of the type discussed. >> >>Presumably chess knowledge just encapsulates guiding principles for those >>position, which if we had enough searching power (or EGTB) we could prove were >>won, lost or drawn. >> >>My program sucks on both fast and slow hardware. I do not know enough about >>chess to add knowledge and the relationship between the various bits of >>knowledge it contains to deliberately make it better, although I add whatever >>rules of thumb I can find to try to guide the search away from positional >>aspects considered by others to usually be bad into good position. >> >>We will have the one move searcher when Eugene generates the 32 man EGTB. Until >>then I firmly suspect that searching deeper will help. As may more and more >>knowledge. Both of which benefit from faster machines. I fail to see why better >>means better on only slow machines or better on only fast machines. Presumably >>it is a balance in utilising available resources to maximise results. > >Better may be better only on fast hardware because it is possible that adding >some knowledge make the program 10% slower on fast hardware and 30% slower on >slow hardware. > >It is possible that doing the program 30% slower for adding the knowledge is a >bad deal for playing strength and doing the program 10% slower for adding the >knowledge is a good deal. > >It is possible that the programmer only tested the program on fast hardware and >he even does not know that the program is 30% slower on slow hardware. > >Uri Hypothetically, an infinitely fast searcher would not lose a match to a 32 EGTB if both had the same number of whites, but both would beat a knowledge based program or fast dumb searcher or something inbetween. Better is relative. As you say, I agree that the best balance of knowledge versus search probably depends on the particular machine. Frank
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.