Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 08:56:49 01/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2002 at 11:32:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 07, 2002 at 07:35:14, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>On January 07, 2002 at 07:08:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On January 06, 2002 at 21:17:43, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>> >>>>...because the fastest hardware simply wins. You can invent all kind of >>>>ingenious tricks, but it's nothing compared to faster hardware. On 2x faster >>>>hardware Tao just crushed GT 3x in a row and won the latest 10 15/0 games at >>>>FICS against strong opponents on slower hardware. Come on, the only fair way to >>>>compete is on equal hardware. I don't want to buy a computer twice a year just >>>>for CC tournaments, that's ridiculous. IMO the competition would be much more >>>>satisfying on equal hardware. Factor 2 hardware difference means hard to win for >>>>any program against a not too bad opponent. Anything above that makes the >>>>chances *way* too small to be fair. Yet that is quite normal in tournaments and >>>>you won't hear anyone about it. Program X played this AMAZING knight sac >>>>againtst program Y!! Hardware differences seem to be simply ignored. And that's >>>>crazy, in fact. >>>> >>>>Bas. >>> >>>Then why didn't Zugzwang win IPCC99. It is not a bad program at all. >>>In tests it completely annihilated the commercial programs they tested >>>against. >>> >>>Zugzwang was at like 512 alpha processors and getting millions of nodes >>>a second. I can't even remember how much, but zugzwang is already a slow >>>program on a PC... >>> >>>...it was using (making use of message passing and thereby losing many >>>factors of speed but it is worth it) global hashtable and was having more >>>Mhz and bigger hashtables than anyone else. >>> >>>This though the 17 ply searching Cilkchess at like 256 (or 500?) >>>sun processors wasn't searching undeep either. Yet it lost chanceless from >>>8 ply searching Lambchop. >>> >>>How do you explain that? >> >>Yes, I expected this. >> >>a) The probability that the "best" program wins a tournament is far smaller then >>you would expect. We once did some math and simulation, the shocking conclusion >>was that the probability that the best program wins the tournament was only 50% >>or something near that. >> >>b) CilkChess is a bad program. If you practically only do piece square then even >>17 ply won't help you. >> >>The server or the SSDF gives better data (more) to draw conclusions from. Both >>indicate that hardware is an enourmous factor. >> >>Best regards, >>Bas. > >Your problem is tactical sufficiency. With Tao you finally get above or >close to tactical barrier now, you didn't in the past. Now that >kicks butt suddenly with some better tuned eval. Eval is the same, everything is the same. It just searches 1.6 ply deeper on this HW. But I definitely have the feeling this brings it to another plane. >If you can beat Tiger at 2x faster hardware at blitz, then you should >get a fast machine and you will win world title blitz then. >Oh wait. Perhaps tiger plays with random book at internet? Well, to be precise they were 15/0 games. Tiger book I don't know, but it was GT engine. Bas.
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.