Author: martin fierz
Date: 13:02:17 03/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2002 at 15:21:42, Slater Wold wrote: >On March 30, 2002 at 15:16:59, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>On March 30, 2002 at 14:59:20, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On March 30, 2002 at 03:07:29, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>Dan Corbit once called Crafty the "N-Reactor of Chess Engines". If this is >>>>true, I might be creating the worlds largest N-Reactor Chess Program. >>>> >>>> >>>>In the coming months, I will be working with a few people to create a hardware >>>>based move generator for Crafty. I myself have written my own chess program >>>>over the last few years, however find it inadequate for this project, mostly >>>>because it's too simple. (Man, I am a glutton.) A 10M nps (basic) alpha/beta >>>>search will prove nothing, while a "tried and true" engine like Crafty will >>>>truly show the power of nodes. How does a 2M nps Crafty compare with a 10M nps >>>>Crafty? Well, that's my question! >>>> >>>>The hardware will consist of a single FPGA on a PCI card that will be inserted >>>>into the host computer. The FPGA will be used for move ordering (and returning >>>>those moves in a predefined order) and generating all legal moves and passing >>>>them back to the software. >>>> >>>>My goal in this project is to answer the age-old question, which is better, >>>>quality or quantity? >>>> >>>>I will be using the version of Crafty that is newest release when I begin. And >>>>all tests/comparisons will of course be done with the same version. The true >>>>value of "hardware speedup" will be obvious here. >>>> >>>>My long-term goals are as follows: >>>> >>>>1.) to determine whether or not a significant nps increase will strengthen >>>>Crafty's performance by a considerable margin; >>>> >>>>2.) to determine the relation between Elo and nps; >>>> >>>>3.) to determine if greater nps actual make and engine "smarter" >>>> >>> >>>i don't understand your post. of course, creating a faster crafty with hardware >>>is an interesting project (cf brutus). but all these questions you raise here >>>can be answered without it! you can have a crafty play other engines and give it >>>much more time for example (ok, pondering has to be off for this), and elo/nps >>>relationship can also be done this way. i don't know what you mean by "smarter", >>>but running a crafty with more time on a test suite should give you the >>>answer... >>>i did lots of this stuff with my checkers program, to see how much more speed >>>(simulated through higher search depth) increases the playing strength. and i >>>never had to program an FPGA for that :-) >>> >>>aloha >>> martin >>> >>I guess the difference here is the real time aspect, which you don't get from >>just having the engine run longer than the opponent or on a given test position. >>If i understand Slaters post (and i am sure i don't completely) then there will >>be some changes to Crafty aswell, and that along with a hardware based >>corralation will either help Crafty (based on an increase in nps) or it won't. >>Also if he succeeds in improving Crafty's performance, this might be a huge step >>in terms of compchess, since all programs would probably benefit from this >>approach too, without adding knowledge or rewriting the prog, just modifying it >>as is, anyway that was my layman's view on Slaters post, maybe i am way off, but >>i find the project extremly interesting, go Slater! >> >>Regards >>Jonas >> >>Regards >>Jonas > >Asking a GM to play a game, and then asking for 2 or 3 times more time wouldn't >go over very well. huh? of course not. but a computer running twice as fast gets the same result in half the time. you can't compare that to what a human does! >Running Nolot for 48 hours to get a 24 hour result isn't something I am >interested in. why? you will get the same result as if your program were twice as fast. if all you want to know is what a twice as fast crafty would solve in nolot, then you can answer this question right here, right now, without FPGA. >HW based move ordering is *always* more efficent and cannot usually be >reproduced with software under any circumstance. what can you do with the hardware that you can't do in software (except that it's much slower)? of course it is more efficient when it's faster. >There is a LOT that changes with a program when one of it's heaviest pieces are >done in almost 0 time. Changes you cannot reproduce with more time. like what? i really don't get it :-) of course it will be a better program, but i fail to see how this relates to the 3 goals you set above. it's not that i'm saying you shouldnt do this, because it's really interesting - just for other reasons than you give IMO. aloha martin
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.