Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:01:15 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2001 at 08:09:24, Frank Phillips wrote:
>On February 25, 2001 at 12:33:45, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
(snip)
>>
>>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.
>
>Frank
Searching deeper always help. I just want to say that the difference between a
program with a lot of knowledge and a program with less knowledge is more
obvious at fast time controls or on slow processors.
At very long time controls, or on very fast computers, the difference between
the two programs is less and less obvious, because the number of available moves
in chess is somewhat limited, and given enough time even a bad program will be
able to discard all the bad moves and will be left with the 2 or 3 moves that
are playable.
The very extreme example is a program that would be allowed to search very deep
with a very simple evaluation function. It would play at an incredible level,
not because it understands chess, but because it can discard all the inferior
moves and will always be left with good moves.
That's why I say that the best programs are the one that are able to win at any
time controls. These programs are superior to the ones that need long time
controls or fast computers.
I would even add that playing at faster and faster time controls is a way to
determine which programs are superior. And that I predict that in the future the
difference between top programs is going to vanish completely, and a lot of
amateur programs will equal them. With faster and faster computers we will not
be able anymore to differenciate between the "excellent" and the "good"
programs.
Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.