Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 16:36:19 12/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2002 at 12:10:48, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 11, 2002 at 07:44:43, Sune Fischer wrote: > >What i meant to say Sune is that Uri doesn't look further >ahead than a politician. He has 200 lines now, with more >stubbornness than the entire CCC together he then concludes >that 2000 is enough. then he has 2000 lines and he has to >get shot down and lose game after game before he will conclude >that he needs 3000. After that he will conclude 4000. You clearly underestimate Uri. I think Uri is far ahead of us in some areas :) On one has made me rethink the basics as much as Uri. I feel very tempted to try a non-incremental move generator for example. You lose a faction of speed, but in return you have vital knowledge that you can use to decide when to nullmove, when to extend, when to prune etc.. I can't say off hand that the overall return is going to be negative, can you? >But he'll never conclude the right thing at once. And you think that you do? Actually, I think it won't be long before Movei is whipping the floor with Diep. Then you can take all your fansy patterns, all your SMP and simply get out-pruned and out-extended by 200 lines of Uri brilliancy ;) >Even research from 1950 he will skip. It says that grandmasters >know about 100000 patterns. Now we can discuss whether those >100000 is a real 100000 or a human 100000 which means that >for the current computers it is more like a million than 100k >patterns. > >But it sure isn't 200 lines :) Classic mistake IMO, you want to throw a lot of patterns into the evaluation thinking this is how humans do it and so it must be good for computers too. It is easy to prove you wrong, as no computer has 100000 patterns, yet they still kick GM's butt. I think the key to good chess programs is to be found in clever extensions and solid pruning. IMO evaluation comes in third. >That Uri could conclude of course as he saw it himself, but even >toying with Shredder doesn't get him to better conclusions. I wonder >why with 2000 rating he misses that all games in the world top >computerchess aren't dominated by tactics at all, but decided >by anything *but* tactics. > >Of course the too weak last few participants not taken into account >of the world champs 2002. I remember the game Diep - (some american >program in the first round) which even made a 2 ply mistake. > >Of course you need to see those tactics, but even the thing from Uri >should see those tactics. I wonder how he can conclude that he just >loses tactical and that 2000 lines should fix everything for everyone. Everything is tactical, tactics govern chess. If there is a danger, you can 1) try and evaluate this some ad hoc way, or 2) extend here and figure out what is really going on. I see no reason why 1) should beat 2). >Saying 'might' is not a good excuse. I'm not a lawyer. I see how people >say statements. Just covering your ass from lawyer viewpoint is not >what a discussion group is meant to be. > >You say a statement and having an escape route is not what was meant here. > >The statement as i read it was that 2000 lines is enough. Words don't mean much to you, Uri is different here. He is very precise in his formulations, like a mathematician. He says what he means and not some variation of it. When he says he believes it is possible to make a top program using only 2000 lines for eval, then that is what he means, not "you guys are so stupid with all your evaluation, I am sure I can make a top level program using only 2000 lines for evaluation". That may be how you read it, but there is a difference, quite a big one actutally.... >Fritz with 2000 lines of course is called fritz5.16 and >doesn't make a chance in any world champs from 2001 to the next >so many years. I don't believe that for a second, fritz 6 and 7 probably has many improvements in faster code and better search. No one, except perhaps you, would work entirely on the evaluation. >Just keep a match fritz5.16 versus shredder. remove the games that >got decided on book. You'll see a clear picture. And it won't be >tactics at all. Every idiot can see that, a 2000 player should. > >If not then i don't know how to call the person behind that 2000 >player, but it won't be positive words. Most of the engine games I see are primarely tactical. I seriously doubt you will be badly beaten if you are tactically superior. I think Shedder is also outsearching fritz5.16. Of course you can't tell this by looking at some meaningless ply number, because it is _what_ they search that matters, not how deep they can search stupid lines. -S. >Best regards, >Vincent >
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.