Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:03:57 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 08:20:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On August 21, 2002 at 07:58:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>needed to get more crafty versions?
>
>That all ain't octobre 1997...
What is your point? razoring is _not_ "forward pruning". It
produces a somewhat similar result. the "last modified" doesn't
mean a thing, of course. That doesn't say _what_ was modified.
search.c is modified regularly.
>
>/* last modified 04/01/99 */
>
>/*
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>| |
>| now we toss in the "razoring" trick, which simply says |
>| if we are doing fairly badly, we can reduce the depth |
>| an additional ply, if there was nothing at the current |
>| ply that caused an extension. |
>| |
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>*/
> if (depth<3*INCPLY && depth>=2*INCPLY &&
> !tree->in_check[ply] && extensions == -60) {
> register const int value=-Evaluate(tree,ply+1,ChangeSide(wtm),
> -(beta+51),-(alpha-51));
> if (value+50 < alpha) extensions-=60;
> }
>
>
>
>>On August 20, 2002 at 17:56:42, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On August 20, 2002 at 07:12:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 21:48:08, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 21:15:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 15:08:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 09:06:02, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kasparov proved that he can defeat programs at fast time controls when he
>>>>>>>>defeated Deep Thought in a game/90 two games match in 1989. This program was
>>>>>>>>weaker than Deep Junior is today, as it searched well over 2,000,000 NPS, but
>>>>>>>>didn't have as much chess knowledge as Deep Junior. He also defeated Deep Blue
>>>>>>>>in 1996. This program is obviously much faster than Deep Junior is today, but in
>>>>>>>>my opinion Deep Junior still has more chess knowledge than Deep Blue had back in
>>>>>>>>1996.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>PS: It is hard to compare Deep Blue of 1997 vs Deep Junior of today, but in my
>>>>>>>>opinion Deep Junior Chess Knowledge could make up for the difference of Deep
>>>>>>>>Blue super calculating power of 1997.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How do you know all this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How do you know Deep Junior has more chess knowledge?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I mean, we don't know what Deep Blue evaluated exactly (save a few things
>>>>>>>that are published). We know *nothing* about what Deep Junior evaluates
>>>>>>>exactly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>yes we know that. Look at the paper it describes about 40 patterns and if
>>>>>>you multiply that with arrays of 64 (that's how it goes in hardware)
>>>>>>and add to it piece square tables it is exactly what theydid. of course how
>>>>>>well defined the patterns are is a different case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We can see that at the rude play very easily. Look at game 1 from 97,
>>>>>>where it played manoeuvres like qa5 bc7 qc5 which even seirawan comments
>>>>>>correctly in his 1997 analysis. Gnuchess accuracy it is. Very rude and
>>>>>>primitive, but for a program with a leaf evaluation (even though some
>>>>>>tuning by preprocessor took place) with several tens of patterns (and
>>>>>>as a result of that several thousands of adjustable parameters) that
>>>>>>means it was searching deeper than any program with that amount of
>>>>>>knowledge in evaluation in 1997. I for sure had more in 97 (though i
>>>>>>used arrays less back in 97 than i do now as i'm not hardware but
>>>>>>software and L2 caches were performing bad in general back then until
>>>>>>pentium pro which took a few years to adjust to) so had others, but we
>>>>>>all shared that at a 200Mhz pentiumpro we searched 8-9 ply, NOT 11-12.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not going to comment on the rest of your nonsensical statements, but
>>>>>the above is clearly wrong and that is provable. I played in Jakarta on
>>>>>a pentium pro 200. And _My program_ searched 11-12 plies. I have the logs
>>>>>to prove it. And anyone that wants to download the crafty (jakarta) version
>>>>>can find the same thing...
>>>>>
>>>>>So if you are going to make statements, at _least_ verify that there is some
>>>>>basis of truth to them first. _you_ might not have been able to hit 11-12
>>>>>plies on a P6/200, but I did... And others did as well.
>>>>
>>>> - no checks in qsearch
>>>> - forward pruning last ply which also hurted nullmove incredible
>>>
>>>Don't know what you mean there. If you are talking about razoring, it was
>>>a 25% gain roughly but it was removed many years ago...
>>
>>Yes it was removed around 2000-2001 after i adviced you to remove it Bob.
>>
>>>> - no mating extensions (not solving win at chess 141 even soon which
>>>> in 1997 was a 9 ply trick for me).
>>>
>>>Crafty has been solving wac141 for a long time. The null-move mate threat
>>>speeded it up a ply, maybe...
>>>
>>>But that is not the point... You said "nobody got to 11-12 plies". I got
>>>to 11-12 plies. Your statement is therefore simply false because of that.
>>
>>A dubious 11-12 ply which doesn't compare to them doesn't count.
>>
>>Look DIEP 1997 was comparable, so was gnuchess or Zarkov, so was
>>The King. When forward pruning turned off (except nullmove) in the king
>>from that period, neither of all the programs ever got 11-12 ply.
>>
>>We can't count an idiotic crafty version. Crafty in 1997 didn't have
>>anything called 'king safety'. I remember how you did effort to prevent
>>getting mated by something stupid where even diep version 1.0 didn't
>>fall for at bullet search depths back then, and where crafty fell for
>>even at 11-12 ply. You had a special feature at icc created to prevent
>>that 'mercilous' attack even. Everyone in blitz and bullet could beat
>>crafty very long period of time with just a simple king safety trick which
>>even 1400 chessplayers understood. They were noplayed, censored, a special
>>S list was created, anything but the king safety was fixed.
>>
>>If you run with material only, every idiot gets 11-12 ply. Now you didn't
>>even get it in a legal way. You needed forward pruning for it.
>>
>>Your memory is FUCKING bad that you don't even remember when you turned
>>off the forward pruning in crafty.
>>
>>>You didn't qualify the "nobody to exclude those that can't solve wac 141
>>>fast enough for you or whatever."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fritz3 also got 11 ply but it was also with a lot of dubiousy.
>>>>
>>>>In fact some hit 15 ply as well with major forward pruning back then.
>>>>
>>>>But that is not a fair compare. We must compare programs that searched
>>>>in the same way Bob. So not forward pruning, at most nullmove. and
>>>>strong in the leaves.
>>>>
>>>>Crafty even today is very weak there.
>>>
>>>Where does that leave _your_ program then???
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>So then 11-12 wins simply. 8-9 with evaluations from that period lost
>>>>>>simply. period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evaluations 8-9 nowadays are a different case (extending way more nowadays
>>>>>>too than in 1997 too). The evaluation of DIEP is a top grandmaster relatively
>>>>>>seen when compared to 1997 where it knew shit from endgames for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As a consequence, you can't possibly support any of the claims or
>>>>>>>suggestions you make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes we can. The biggest evidence is the games played. Statistical evidence
>>>>>>on how programs play moves is the best. The major problem is that you need
>>>>>>to invest time if your chess level is not so high to see it and even a high
>>>>>>rated chessplayer who knows nothing from how chessprograms evaluate will
>>>>>>completely fail here (though Seirawan came pretty far but as he was paid
>>>>>>by IBM he described it in a positive way, leaving conclusions to the reader).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We have seen some marvellous conclusions already by Uri here based upon
>>>>>>logfiles from the IBM computer. From evaluation viewpoint we
>>>>>>see for example from the mainlines that it gives a big bonus for a bishop
>>>>>>attacking its own queen. We also see it only cares for how many squares the
>>>>>>queen can go to, not caring for patterns there. Very basic things which
>>>>>>were at the time very normal in gnuchess type programs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We also see that it knows really nothing from good/bad bishops (not
>>>>>>surprising, only 1 program had in 97 this thing and it was mine). It
>>>>>>simply didn't care for the center at all. This is amazing nowadays
>>>>>>comercial programs *only* care for the center.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also its knowledge on passers was very primitif. We see for example that
>>>>>>it doesn't see difference even between covered passers and very good
>>>>>>blocked passers. Regrettably that didn't happen a lot on the board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The most amazing thing by far is its huge penalties and bonuses for a few
>>>>>>king safety things. that of course led to big patzer play which is nice
>>>>>>and nowadays very normal. These penalties/bonuses are in complete
>>>>>>contrast to pawn structure aroudn the king. In many games we see
>>>>>>major mistakes here. game 1, but if i remember well game 4 where
>>>>>>deep blue castles long and then plays horrible king moves and b4 b5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>From the many king moves in the game and in the logfiles we see clearly that
>>>>>>it had a very primitif 'opponent pieces to my king' distance feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I remember how DIEP back in 95,96 wanted also always ka1 because that would
>>>>>>mean the king is further away from the pieces. A very basic mistake we
>>>>>>still see in some engines. It is a non-preprocessor mistake obviously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>but it doesn't take away that the pattern is a very primitive heuristic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>nearly all kind of bad moves are explained by simple bugs in evaluation.
>>>>>>100% the exact bugs gnuchess also has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>the comparision with gnuchess is not fair, but for evaluation it sure is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We see that the 'new gnuchess', sorry to call it like that, zarkovx,
>>>>>>is the program which when getting 10-11 ply is playing from all chess software
>>>>>>nearly exactly every move which deep blue also played. don't use the
>>>>>>dos-zarkov, but i mean the 4.5xx versions of zarkovx where John hardly
>>>>>>nullmoves the last few plies (they take some time to get 10-12 ply,
>>>>>>horrible branching factor). It makes the same weird moves, same mistakes,
>>>>>>same strong moves. It is a perfect match for how deep blue played.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A person who can't play chess at all and whose program is exactly making
>>>>>>the mistakes a beginner makes when making a chess evaluation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best regards,
>>>>>>Vincent
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All of this talk about Deep Blue this and Deep Blue that is just pure
>>>>>>>bullshit. Maybe Fritz 7 would kick its ass. Maybe Fritz 7 would get
>>>>>>>its ass kicked. Maybe they're about as strong. I dont care either way
>>>>>>>since Deep Blue doesn't exist anymore and it certainly doesn't look as
>>>>>>>if it's ever going to play again. So why care about it? Why keep making
>>>>>>>totally unfounded speculations? What's the frigging point? This kind
>>>>>>>of discussion comes up about once in every 2 months and there has NEVER
>>>>>>>EVER come anything insightful out. Instead, a lot of people are making
>>>>>>>claims or saying things that they can never ever support, or even are
>>>>>>>demonstrably wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mention the words 'Deep' and 'Blue' to anyone who works in computer
>>>>>>>chess, and all sanity suddently grinds to a halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>GCP
This page took 0.01 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.