Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 00:45:52 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 23:21:06, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On July 08, 2002 at 14:11:19, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On July 08, 2002 at 13:27:15, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On July 08, 2002 at 12:48:58, Sune Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 08, 2002 at 11:34:36, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>I too am a DB fan. Just like Bob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But I actually agree with you here. I don't think DB did anything
>>>>>>*spectacular*.
>>>>>
>>>>>I totally disagree. Their speed _was_ "spectacular". And that was _the_
>>>>>point of Deep Blue, after all. Not the point everyone _wants_ to be the
>>>>>point of deep blue, but _the point_ the team developed over 10 years...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Here is a crazy thought, why not simulate DB?
>>>>Given all the papers, I think it should be possible to modify Craft to use the
>>>>same eval and extensions. We turn off hashing, nullmove, SEE and whatever DB
>>>>didn't have. Then we find a slow machine for Tiger and a super fast one for
>>>>Crafty, so Crafty (in DB-mode) has a 200 nps fold advantage.
>>>>
>>>>Ok lot of work, but seems this is the never ending story :)
>>>>
>>>>-S.
>>>
>>>
>>>This would be great if we had some of the DB guys helping. Unfortunately,
>>>while they revealed a lot about various parts of DB, there is no single
>>>comprehensive source paper to use as a reference. IE what are those 8,000
>>>unique eval terms in DB (some of those terms actually represent a matrix with
>>>multiple values so it is actually more complex than that)?
>>
>>
>>
>>Sorry but the "8000" includes every entry of every matrix.
>
>Not according to the things I have seen written. But it really doesn't matter
>to me either way. I don't have anywhere _near_ 8000 terms in my evaluation.
>I don't have 1000 unique terms, even counting all the piece/square tables.
>
>
>
>>
>>It's like saying that a piece square table program is composed of 768 unique
>>eval terms (64 squares x 6 piece types x 2 colors).
>
>Even if that were done, that is only 10%. What about the other 90%? You
>have a _lot_ of counting to go to reach 8000...
They say in their paper that many terms were not used.
Christophe
>
>
>>
>>If I count this way, I guess that Chess Tiger must have something like 50000
>>unique eval terms... :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ditto for some of
>>>their search algorithms. They have given lots of 'hints' about things, but
>>>significant implementation details are not available.
>>>
>>>IE something like trying to build a F-1 by looking at it run around the track.
>>>There are _significant_ details that are not readily apparent from such
>>>observations...
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.