Author: Maurizio De Leo
Date: 09:20:35 07/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
Dave asked a question that needed a number as answer (namely "So how do you think Diep will place this year?") and you were able to write 2 or 3 pages of assorted review, including some conspiracy theories on Chessbase and the usual bashing of top commercials, but of course without the asked number. Amazing :-) Maurizio p.s by the way, I found your analisys pretty interesting, so don't take this as a critic. On July 14, 2003 at 10:13:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 13, 2003 at 21:18:23, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On July 10, 2003 at 14:46:16, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On July 10, 2003 at 13:13:00, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On July 10, 2003 at 12:40:38, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 10, 2003 at 01:53:26, Derek Paquette wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Just read a great post by the author of DIEP, and how he is getting an >>>>>>Incredible machine, a godly machine I should say, now really, >>>>>>Would a human even have a chance in hell? its going to be dozens of times faster >>>>>>than Deep Blue >>>>>>I know that speed isn't everything, but when you are looking 45ply ahead.... >>>>>>I put all bets on the machine with 500 processors >>>>>> >>>>>>what do the rest of you think? >>>>> >>>>>I'd guess it will still lose to the top commercials, just like it did when he >>>>>had a 1024 processor machine at the last WCCC. Since 1024 didn't work, what >>>>>makes you think only 500 will be better? >>>> >>>>He had not a 1024 processor machine at the last WCCC. >>>>I think that he tried to make Diep using them in a productive way but failed. >>> >>>I had 60 processors of a broken partition that was regurarly getting rebooted >>>because of maintenance. In combination with a preparation time of 3 days it >>>wasn't very good performing at it :) >>> >>>The machine indeed has 1024 processors in total. Biggest partition addressable >>>is 512 from which you can use 500 processor maximum. >>> >>>>I think that less processors is an easier task. >>>>if 1024 was too hard task for him then maybe 500 is going to be an easier task. >>> >>>>The first question is how much speed is he going to get from the 500 processors. >>>>I do not predict nothing about it. >>>>Uri >>> >>>Even a small speedup times 500 processors still is 10 times faster than any PC. >>> >>>Note that in 2002 i didn't lose from any commercial program except junior which >>>was lost in a silly way (i had put the day before in order to test quicker the >>>EGTBs to just 1 MB cache this at a very slow old harddisk; supercomputer i/o was >>>broken at that time as it was getting upgraded and junior team had made it me >>>impossible to use internet) as it just got 6 ply when i tried to prevent >>>forfeiting and had put it to 1 minute rest of the game in the last 5 minutes i >>>had left for the game. >>> >>>Then it played instantly a move with 6 ply search somewhere move 79 or something >>>and that was losing move. Many others would have been simple repetition. >>> >>>DIEP nearly won from Fritz, Shredder and others in 2002. 3 games i played at >>>supercomputer the others i had to play at dual or simply crashed at the >>>supercomputer. Something that didn't help me either was what was going on at the >>>big partition. There was some big program running at the supercomputer which >>>eated all bandwidth away; it was using like 300 processors or so. In >>>contradiction to most programs that are all running within L2 cache at each >>>processor this software had allocated about 200GB memory. So it was eating from >>>my 60 processors everything away too. Result was horrible latencies in a program >>>not designed for NUMA. >>> >>>The combination of all that was disaster. >>> >>>In 2003 however i'll be running 500 processors and will have the partition for >>>myself AFAIK. So no problems with other users at that partition. >>> >>>Then diep will be better tested for 2003 so it is impossible to compare the 2002 >>>situation with 2003. >>> >>>Many try here it is not very smart to do so. >>> >>>Trivially others will be prepared very well too, like brutus and junior. >>> >>>Shredder perhaps will be unlucky and running perhaps at most at 2 processors. >>> >>>If we compare however then a lot of weak chains of DIEP will be a lot stronger >>>in 2003 and one of its weakest chains in 2002 which was search depth, will be a >>>lot different. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Vincent >> >>So how do you think Diep will place this year? >>Dave > >With a very bad tested version it was dangerous in 2002. Even 2 rounds before >the end had it won from Shredder (and remember it had a pawn up there for a >while until shredder managed to save the endgame) it theoretically could still >get world champ. However junior won both games and tied with shredder. > >For me i just look to what needs to be improved compared to worldchamps 2002. > >Second game against Lambchop it got itself a won position, but then to my horror >i found out during the game that diep played without extensions there. it was a >recompile of a supercomputer version which played at the pc. it really was >intended for the supercomputer. > >So it also was 2 times slower. > >First thing that worried me was that it played without extensions. > >Because of that, diep in a won position made a tactical mistake. Some Rook move. >Rd1 if i remember well. All other moves that do not tactical fail win there so >to speak. > >But Rd1 loses. > >Then diep was lucky to get a draw there that game. > >Against junior i had a diep version with extensions turned on, but again for 128 >processors. It played on 2 however so at a pc with just 256KB L2 cache instead >of the 8MB L2 cache that the R14000 processors have at TERAs, that is horribly >slow. > >It was a good recompile of a new version but a lot slower than it could have >been. also its search was not optimal. For its time it was an ok version. > >Junior plays better in the middlegame and gets a won position. then near the >endgame it makes some mistakes and diep can fight back sacraficing a queen which >it didn't need to take. Lucky junior went into these lines and we get a drawn >position. > >What loses for diep then is the fact that i was such an idiot to have the EGTB >cache put at 1MB with a very very slow IDE disk (from a few years ago). Also the >extra caching into the hashtable was turned off, because at the supercomputer >the EGTBs are in the RAM, so no need to cache it in the hashtable. >So when i put back diep to 1 minute whole game when having left 5 minutes on the >clock at move 79 or something it plays horrible g3?? move and loses because of >the 6 ply search causing this move. > >AMAI! > >Then diep plays a few very good games. Game against SOS is great. Game against >isichess gets a draw quickly. Draws simply happens. > >Diep has a good game against Fritz initially. Then some stupid move gets played >by a bug in its evaluation. These bugs are inside the diep evaluation only >because of bad testing. the move f6?? really is horrible. > >Lucky fritz blunders again and diep gets a won rook endgame soon. > >DIEP pawn up. > >somehow fritz manages to draw that endgame. It wasn't easy to win, but it was a >won rook endgame. > >Anyway, a draw is nothing to cry for. > >A deeper search would have fixed the 10 ply move that caused f6?? > >As i always said in the past. 12 ply is much better than 10. Above that you >don't notice much. But this evaluation tuning mistake in half open file code was >simply causing a bad move. > >That you do not win a won rook endgame then is not important. Computers will >simply not manage to win them. Humans are superior there. > >Still i feel diep with a deeper search would have disabled fritz only advantage. >Namely that it was outsearching diep by a ply or 4. > >We then get soon to the game against shredder. i was so stupid to force it to >move 1.e4. this was my mistake. not of my openingsboo creator. let's be clear. > >perhaps diep would have won the game had it played 1.d4. We will never know. > >What we do know is that diep got a lost position against shredder thanks to >being quickly out of book and a horrible nxc6?? move. > >Amazingly within 3 moves shredder blunders back and diep gets slowly a better >position. good play by diep then gets a won position. > >When diep is won, shredder plays very good. Really very impressive defenses by >Shredder. > >It clearly understood a thing better there and diep is missing a winning >opportunity that shredder showed in its mainlines. Diep choses for a bishop pair >and loses the pawn that it was up. > >So it is a drawn position then. Another good possibility to win a game against a >world champion lost. But just marginally. The decision difference between the >winning move and the drawing move there was like 0.02 in evaluation or so. > >Again a thing that might have been out of diep by good testing. > >A bigger depth also would have shown it. Not sure how many ply. But more than 2. > >Basically a bit bigger depth is needed when the evaluation is like 0.02 in >evaluation wrong, it gets more lucky. > >Don't remember that diep was searching 9-11 ply at the world champs. > >The crucial moves that got itself a lost position against junior was 9 ply. > >The crucial moves that got itself from a lost position a won one against >shredder was like 11 ply. Then i would need to lookup the mistake of diep. but >from head i remember 10 ply or so. > >Then the only disaster happens to diep last round. it plays 1.e4 and simply >doesn't get into the game against brutus. Good game from brutus. > >major mistake to play sicilian with white against kure of course. very dumb. any >other move would have been better there. > >In short, the difference at world champs 2002 was not so big. > >A few small things. > >Even losing from brutus was no problem had it not blundered against fritz, warp >(tactical blunder!), junior and won that game vs shredder. > >Enough to be world champ then instead of divided 5th together with lambchop. > >A 500 processor machine makes a big difference then. That the version will be >hundreds of points better is trivial (some points of diep were weak, they won't >be in world champs 2003; some competitors will be better too like Shredder). > >Basically i just fear Shredder. > >The brutus i do not fear at all. It is at fpga hardware and will be massively >parallel probably, but if someone who has proven to know zero from parallel >search in the past, now suddenly shows up in parallel i will be amazed if he >gets actually dangerous because of that. > >Brutus will however be a program to beat in this sense that it will be good in >winning from what we call 'amateurs' and the commercial programs that just >search deep without much knowledge. Fritz doesn't need a victory as it already >has played kasparov the first days of the month, so it will lose from Brutus of >course. For their business that's the right decision to take and logical. > >So brutus is dangerous because it is going to score a big number of points in >its home competition. Shredder is simply very good. And the junior team is >always mercilous getting somehow points, but i don't fear them. You can't win >world titles continuesly by just being mercilous and having a well debugged >engine. > >The only unsure thing always in world champs is the role of the openingsbooks. >In that sense Shredder is the program to beat there. > >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.