Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:27:37 12/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2002 at 11:17:05, Sune Fischer wrote: >On December 12, 2002 at 10:06:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>the selective version searched on average 2 to 3 ply deeper >>than the diep paderborn 2002 version. >> >>So i was hoping for a big score improvement. My regret was big >>when i figured out that the selective search version was getting >>20-25% less in score than the paderborn 2002 version. >> >>Only then i realized clearly that the search depth of the selective >>version, which at for example 14 ply could prune up to 7 ply >>positional, that this version basically saw tactics deeper and >>not so much positional deeper (of course to get decent mainlines >>i toyed some but that's not representative for 99.999% of the lines). > >Yes I believe that. Again getting deep is no problem, but getting deep on the >right lines is. >Uri has some ideas he says, and unlike so many others he actually demostrates >that they have some merrit. I think this is more impressive than someone coding >for 10 years, claiming to have found the holy grail of evaluation, impemented it >and is still getting beaten by "stupid", "factor 2 slower" open source programs. >;) >In this case it's pretty much put up or shut up. If Diep has more knowledge than >anyone (according to yourself, right?), then why isn't Diep the best in the >world? I think this pretty much goes to show that there is _more_ than just >evaluation at work here. > ><boldface> And this it is not the same as saying knowledge isn't >important.</boldface> ;) > >>It has taken over half a year for me to conclude then that just >>searching tactical deeper makes no sense at all. It's about >>positional search depth nowadays, not tactical. > >Ah, so you didn't conclude the "right thing" at first then :) > >>Therefore i completely disbelief any theory that there are better >>search algorithms than the current ones existing with regard >>to computerchess. > >You are throwing away a big area of research, you should be putting just as much >effort into this as in the evaluation, IMHO. > >>And that's that many things which for sure do not work anymore >>are getting tried by some big amateurs now. >> >>incremental move generation is one of them. Ever realized why >>no commercial program uses that anymore? > >I'm not so sure about that, can you really speak for everybody? >IIRC Christophe said not long ago he generated one move at a time! > >>>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 ;) >> >>I want to bet for a big amount of money and i give 2 to 1 that >>in a match in 2004 the program Movei will not win a long match >>against diep at say 6 games 120 0 level? >> >>Of course it is a bit unfair to give the movei only 2 years to >>implement 2000 lines of code to improve his evaluation, but >>well 2000 lines of evaluation for a chess program i >>could possibly write within a week. > >Well, I would love to take that bet, but I can't promise Movei only has 2000 >lines of eval in 2004 :( >Once you start adding it grows rapidly. I do not want to take that bet. I also did not say that I can do it but only that it is possible. I believe that a combination of a programmer who is better than me and my ideas can do it. I also see that there is a disagreement about the definition of the size of the evaluation. Uri
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.