Author: Uri Blass
Date: 18:31:22 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2001 at 17:25:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 04, 2001 at 16:29:35, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 04, 2001 at 14:49:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 04, 2001 at 14:10:59, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On May 04, 2001 at 13:41:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 04, 2001 at 13:33:55, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 04, 2001 at 13:20:51, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 04, 2001 at 10:52:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 03, 2001 at 21:03:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On May 03, 2001 at 18:51:08, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 12 54.72 -- 1. ... Qxa3 >>>>>>>>> 12 2:00 -3.04 1. ... Qxa3 2. Bf6 Rfd8 3. Bxd8 Rxd8 >>>>>>>>> 4. Rd1 Rd5 5. Qe4 g6 6. Qb4 Qa6 7. >>>>>>>>> Qf4 >>>>>>>>> 12-> 3:19 -3.04 1. ... Qxa3 2. Bf6 Rfd8 3. Bxd8 Rxd8 >>>>>>>>> 4. Rd1 Rd5 5. Qe4 g6 6. Qb4 Qa6 7. >>>>>>>>> Qf4 >>>>>>>>> 13 3:43 -- 1. ... Qxa3 >>>>>>>>> 13 5:06 0.00 1. ... Qxa3 2. Bf6 Rfc8 3. Bxg7 Kxg7 >>>>>>>>> 4. Qf6+ Kf8 5. Rf1 Rc7 6. Bg6 Re8 7. >>>>>>>>> Qh8+ Ke7 8. Qf6+ Kf8 >>>>>>>>> 13 11:27 ++ 1. ... b4!! >>>>>>>>> 13 13:05 -0.76 1. ... b4 2. cxb4 Qd5 3. Rf1 Rae8 4. >>>>>>>>> Bf2 f5 5. exf6 Qxg2 6. Bd4 Rf7 7. Bxa7 >>>>>>>>> Qd5 >>>>>>>>> 13 13:40 ++ 1. ... Rfe8!! >>>>>>>>> 13 14:40 -2.30 1. ... Rfe8 2. Rf1 Qf8 3. Qe4 g6 4. >>>>>>>>> Kb2 Rec8 5. Bf6 Rc7 6. Qf4 Rd7 7. h4 >>>>>>>>> a5 8. Be4 >>>>>>>>> 13 15:40 -2.63 1. ... Rfc8 2. Qe4 g6 3. Rf1 Qf8 4. >>>>>>>>> Kb2 Rc7 5. Qg4 c5 6. Bxb5 Rb8 7. g3 >>>>>>>>> Be4 >>>>>>>>> 13-> 16:21 -2.63 1. ... Rfc8 2. Qe4 g6 3. Rf1 Qf8 4. >>>>>>>>> Kb2 Rc7 5. Qg4 c5 6. Bxb5 Rb8 7. g3 >>>>>>>>> Be4 >>>>>>>>> time=16:39 cpu=100% mat=-3 n=596994678 fh=91% nps=597k >>>>>>>>> ext-> chk=29940411 cap=1174947 pp=514823 1rep=4254557 mate=419833 >>>>>>>>> predicted=0 nodes=596994678 evals=102285376 >>>>>>>>> endgame tablebase-> probes done=0 successful=0 >>>>>>>>>Black(1): quit >>>>>>>>>execution complete. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Mine looks a bit different on the quad. 2:18 to drop Qxa3. Note that I used >>>>>>>>hash=192M for the run... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 12 38.66 -- 1. ... Qxa3 >>>>>>>> 12 1:27 -1.65 1. ... Qxa3 2. Bf6 Rfc8 3. Bxg7 Kxg7 >>>>>>>> 4. Qf6+ Kf8 5. Bg6 Rc7 6. Rf1 Re8 7. >>>>>>>> Qh8+ Ke7 8. Rxf7+ Kd8 9. Qxe8+ Kxe8 >>>>>>>> 10. Rxc7+ Kd8 11. Rxb7 Qxc3 12. Rxa7 >>>>>>>> Qxe5 >>>>>>>> 12 2:18 ++ 1. ... a5!! >>>>>>>> 12 3:39 -2.57 1. ... a5 2. Bf6 Rfc8 3. Qg4 Qf8 4. >>>>>>>> Qe4 g6 5. Kb2 Qc5 6. Rd1 Ra6 7. Qf4 >>>>>>>> 12 4:07 -2.58 1. ... Rfb8 2. Qe4 g6 3. Rf1 Qf8 4. >>>>>>>> Kb2 c5 5. Qg4 g5 6. Bf2 c4 7. Be2 >>>>>>>> (4) 12-> 4:18 -2.58 1. ... Rfb8 2. Qe4 g6 3. Rf1 Qf8 4. >>>>>>>> Kb2 c5 5. Qg4 g5 6. Bf2 c4 7. Be2 >>>>>>>> (3) 13 5:25 -2.52 1. ... Rfb8 2. Kb2 Rc8 3. Rf1 Rc7 4. >>>>>>>> Qe4 g6 5. Rxf7 Rxf7 6. Qxg6+ Kf8 7. >>>>>>>> Qxh6+ Kg8 8. Qg6+ Rg7 9. Qxe6+ Rf7 >>>>>>>> 13 7:40 -2.54 1. ... Rfc8 2. Rf1 Qf8 3. Qe4 g6 4. >>>>>>>> Kb2 Rc7 5. Bf6 c5 6. Qg4 c4 7. Be2 >>>>>>>> Rd7 8. h4 >>>>>>>> 13 8:00 -2.55 1. ... Rfe8 2. Kb2 Rab8 3. Rd1 Qf8 >>>>>>>> 4. Qe4 g6 5. Bf6 c5 6. Qg4 c4 7. Be2 >>>>>>>> Qc5 >>>>>>>> (3) 13-> 8:00 -2.55 1. ... Rfe8 2. Kb2 Rab8 3. Rd1 Qf8 >>>>>>>> 4. Qe4 g6 5. Bf6 c5 6. Qg4 c4 7. Be2 >>>>>>>> Qc5 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I will have some 64-cpu alpha numbers in a month or two. Working on a port >>>>>>>>to use UPC right now... Compaq is loaning me a single-cpu alpha to compile/test >>>>>>>>on with the target of a 64 cpu machine they have. I will try to get it on to >>>>>>>>ICC on a weekend maybe... Or maybe for the next CCT. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Prophecy: >>>>>>>You will win the next WCCC[*] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[*] Unless someone else does the same port. There is no other machine that even >>>>>>>comes close. >>>>>> >>>>>>I am not so sure that it is enough to win. >>>>>>In the last 2 WCCC tournament the biggest hardware did not win. >>>>>> >>>>>>Deep thought failed to win in 1995(Fritz3 was the champion) >>>>>>Deep Junior,Deep Fritz,Ferret failed to win in 1999 and Shredder won. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>In the last two WCCC's there were no programs that were _really_ searching >>>>>at 60M nodes per second either. :) >>>> >>>>Yes but in the WCCC of 1995 Fritz was also clearly slower and I also believe in >>>>diminishing returns so 2M against 60M is not the same as >>>>0.1M against 3M. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>I don't believe in "diminishing" returns when it is computer vs computer. Give >>>me that extra ply _any_ day. It will swing the match in my favor if my opponent >>>and I are equal at equal search depths. >> >>I believe in diminishing returns between different programs for the same reason >>that diminishing return may happen in comp-human games. >> >>At small depthes tactics dominates so the 30 times fastesr program usually wins. >> >>At big depthes there are things that one program understands and the second >>program does not understand when depth is not going to help. >> >>If 2 different programs have different positional weaknesses then the slower >>program has practical chances to win at big depthes. >> >>Uri > > > >OK... then at _today's_ computer speeds, I don't believe in diminishing >returns yet. In 20 years, perhaps. But the difference between a 15 ply >search and a 17 ply search is _significant_ still. Lots of experiments have >shown that diminishing returns don't appear to happen at any depth we can >reach today, even using 24 hours of computer time. The only valid experiment is games and I do not know about games between depth 15 and depth 17. 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.