Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 11:10:55 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2001 at 13:01:15, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 I take your point. But also think that the result of searching _is_ chess knowledge about a specific position, which is after all what counts. So find the knowledge/search debate difficult.
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.