Author: Uri Blass
Date: 19:14:11 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2001 at 21:54:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 04, 2001 at 21:31:22, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > > >Didn't Ed do something similar in his "chess 2010" experiment? Until I begin >to see games where I can't find a place where going deeper would have made a >difference, I won't buy "diminishing returns". Sometimes a factor of 2 on one >position would be game-deciding... I remember games from the ssdf list when after book the sides decided that repetition is best for both sides and I believe that going deeper could not help. Here is one of Crafty's draws when I doubt if better hardware could help. I did not analyze this game but I suspect that part of the short draws are simply forced after book. [Event "CCT-1 "] [Site "USA"] [Date "2000.02.05"] [Round "6"] [White "Crafty"] [Black "Shredder (Clever & Smart)"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "B22"] [PlyCount "28"] [EventDate "2000.??.??"] [Source "Frank Quisinsky"] 1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 e6 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O Be7 8. c4 Qh5 9. Be2 O-O 10. h3 cxd4 11. Ng5 Qh4 12. Nf3 Qh5 13. Ng5 Qh4 14. Nf3 Qh5 1/2-1/2 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.