Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:23:50 01/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2002 at 18:54:20, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On January 07, 2002 at 14:52:49, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 07, 2002 at 14:42:35, Bas Hamstra wrote: >> >>>On January 07, 2002 at 12:06:24, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On January 07, 2002 at 11:44:44, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 07, 2002 at 10:29:12, Uri Blass 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>The ssdf does not say that hardware is an enourmous factor >>>>> >>>>>Are you serious? When has there EVER been a program in the top-3 that was not on >>>>>the fastest chip? >>>>> >>>>>>A1200 against K6-450 is more than2 times faster and >>>>>>Crafty on A1200 is not better than the best programs >>>>> >>>>>What does this prove other than that it is hard to overcome a factor 2? It >>>>>hardly occurs! Clearly a BIG factor... >>>>> >>>>>>on K6-450. >>>>>>If your program is really better than GambitTiger >>>>>>when the hardware difference is only 2:1 then >>>>>>you may do it a commercial program. >>>>> >>>>>On 2 to 1 hardware advantage I fear not a single program. But that's easy to say >>>>>because that holds for everyone with a not too crappy program. Better at 2:1? I >>>>>don't know, it would certainly be an interesting experiment to test it. >>>>> >>>>>Bas. >>>> >>>>By your definition most of the programs >>>>are too crappy programs >>>> >>>>see http://home.hccnet.nl/leo.dijksman/index.html >>>> >>>>The programs in the second devision and lower devisions are >>>>most of the programs and I expect all of them to lose a match >>>>of 10 games against Tiger when the hardware difference is 2:1 >>>>against Tiger. >>>> >>>>I expect even most of the programs in the first devision >>>>that includes Crafty to lose a match against Tiger >>>>in the same conditions. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I have seen the programs. Tell me why you expect that, maybe we can solve the >>>problem. Are you willing to take a bet? My money is on YACE bigtime. Let's say >>>8-2 for YACE if the books are about equal. >>> >>>Bas. >>> >>>Bas. >> >> >>8-2 for yace is not ralistic. >> >>Even if you take the same program against itself on >>2 times slower hardware you are not >>going to get an average result of 8-2 >> >>7.5-2.5 is 200 elo difference and being 2 times faster >>gives only 70 elo advantage. >> >>Uri >> >>Note that yace is a strong program > >Well, sorry I picked a program from you list :-) > >And yes, a result 8-2 with one program playing itsself at 2:1 is quite possible, >why do you say that? The ELO formula is nice, but A will see everything that B >does, and MORE. > >Let's say we take the latest Fritz and play 100 5/0 games. Now, with the ELO >formula in the back of our heads, what do you predict? > > >Bas. Diep - yace is completely murder if diep gets 12 ply and yace may get 14 or 15 then. it doesn't matter. It's about tactical sufficiency. Yace is not an active program and misses some positional knowledge too. Now this is not criticizing yace, but it means that DIEP is doing simply well vs yace. Giving it 2x more time or 2x faster hardware is not important. Important is that diep doesn't fall for tactical tricks. You probably play everything at blitz with searchdepths like 9 ply. at depths 9 and lower there search depths dominate.
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.