Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:56:50 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 10:38:12, Jeremiah Penery wrote:
>On October 11, 2002 at 08:09:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>you skip one important point. Because of a simplistic evaluation
>>it was able to get 12.2 ply. If you use a more complex evaluation
>>then you do fullwidth not get 12.2 ply at all, but more like 10.5 ply.
>
>It did evaluation in hardware. The complexity of the function has NOTHING to do
>with the speed of computing it. This is obviously something you don't
>understand, or you wouldn't be writing crap like the above, or the below.
You're too stupid to ever understand at which level i'm speaking about.
I'm talking about algorithmic level here. Yet you do not know of course
what algorithms are, nor can you speak at any abstract level here,
because you never have faced problems here.
All strong programs which kept evolving in time from level to higher
levels faced the same sorting/cutoff problems. A complex evaluation
is going to face more problems to give a quick cutoff with a small
subtree than a simplistic evaluation.
Who is talking about search speed here? This problem has nothing to
do with software versus hardware.
>>I have hard proof from DIEP here. I remember how i easily searched real
>>deep with a 1999 version in endgame.
>
>Please look up 'proof' in a dictionary. Your statements are not anywhere near
>'proof'.
For sure my proofs are 100x better than the 'thoughts' of some beginners
in computerchess.
>>I searched 20 ply with nullmove there in endgames at bob's quad.
>>
>>TWENTY ply.
>>
>>However it was because in those times diep's endgame wasn't worked at
>>at all. I just worked at opening and middlegame knowledge. Never endgame
>>endgame evaluation was like
>>
>>endgame(int STM) {
>> return materialscore + kingincenter[kingpositions];
>>}
>>
>>I simply never cared until 1999 for a program being strong in endgame.
>
>And yet I remember the statement made way before 1999: "Diep is without doubt
>the strongest chess analysis program in the world at infinite level (few hours a
>move)."
the word 'middlegame' was used there in that statement. Yes that version did
won many corr titles. Just like Rebel also has won many.
>Please reconcile the statement above with the stuff you're saying now.
You're lacking education to understand anything about search *ever*.
>>Therefore i searched 20 ply.
>>
>>We see deep blue do stupid moves, it never doubts in most cases about
>>the move it plans to play.
>>
>>Otherwise with all those extensions they would never get further than
>>11 ply at all.
>>
>>So the comparision is already not very fair at all.
>>
>>If deep blue gets upgraded to 2002 standards, its evaluation especially,
>>then it will be from search depth viewpoint with fullwidth search,
>>a complete joke.
>
>Hmm, let's see. If DB gets 'upgraded to 2002 standards", that would mean they
>can make a fully custom .13 micron chip running at 300MHz, able to do a full
>evaluation every clock cycle. It will also have 20GB/s memory bandwidth to
>256MB of RAM for the hash tables on the board. So one single chip will search
>300M positions/second, and they can do whatever evaluation they want. Yes, yes,
>obviously a 'complete joke'.
>
>>Of course it gets completely annihilated when appearing in 1997 standards.
>>
>>So if Hsu upgrades his chip to a single cpu chip with a new and better
>>evaluation (it's of course questionable whether he is capable of
>>manaqing that) then it will not search deeper than deep blue in 1997
>>of course, unless he adds nullmove and hashtables.
>
>The above paragraph has no basis in reality.
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.