Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:34:12 09/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2003 at 18:22:32, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 26, 2003 at 17:46:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 26, 2003 at 16:49:22, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On September 25, 2003 at 23:02:20, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On September 25, 2003 at 12:53:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 25, 2003 at 09:41:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 25, 2003 at 09:15:09, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 25, 2003 at 08:26:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>ICGA asked me to Call for participation in the world championship 2003. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So far only 3 programs subscribed to join the world championship computerchess. >>>>>>>>DIEP is one of them, i guess Brutus the other one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And there three types of people: those who can count and those who can not. >>>>>>>José (: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>P.S. Good luck and lots of fun the world championship! >>>>>> >>>>>>Ah just had email from Stefan, they all didn't know you had to register 'so >>>>>>soon'. >>>>>> >>>>>>Usually world champs most things get organized at the tournament day itself, >>>>>>i remember especially the paniccing phase 1 short before the world champs >>>>>>started in October 1997, Paris :) >>>>>> >>>>>>Not a single organizer there from the home organisation (so not ICGA) spoke a >>>>>>word English (and my english isn't that good either, for sure in 1997 it was >>>>>>horror & co too), Dutch or German and my French is horrible, so i just sat >>>>>>down at a chair, installed my computer and just guessed what the hand movements >>>>>>of the home organisation meant. >>>>>> >>>>>>They must have guessed in advance to only receive French speaking participants, >>>>>>a normal assumption for French organisers :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That's really unfair. The 1997 World Championship organization in Paris was >>>>>great. Remember that we were playing not in some obscure university hall, we >>>>>were playing in the "Palais de la Bourse". >>>> >>>>There were good things and bad things. i bet it was great for french speaking. >>>> >>>>bad was all the neonazi demonstrations and the real long waiting times to just >>>>get past the 2 security checks each time. >>>> >>>>bad was not having any internet there or any other contacts to the outside >>>>world, i would not be able to imagine in 2003 to be without internet. >>>> >>>>publicity was real bad of the tournament. >>>> >>>>nothing online. really nothing. i remember thorsten czub phoning during the >>>>rounds to the outside world at his mobile phone the results, otherwise they >>>>wouldn't even know the results. >>>> >>>>So publicity was non existing. >>>> >>>>Considering the huge staff of frenchmen running in panic mode around during the >>>>whole tournament that was really a bloody shame, but what we would call here >>>>'typical french chaosmanagement' :) >>>> >>>>Bad was that it took so long to just get outside of the building to just get 1 >>>>small bread for example. >>>> >>>>Good was that each morning when walking to the tournament hall i could order for >>>>if i remember well 6 franc or something a big fresh bread at a breadshop. That >>>>tasted real good! >>>> >>>>bad was fact that there was still too many world titles then. There were just 3 >>>>competitors if i remember well for the professional world title. Virtual chess, >>>>CSTal and Fritz. >>>> >>>>Good was that after a few days there was very cheap drinks IN the tournament >>>>hall supplied by organisation. >>>> >>>>Good was that it was possible to walk around without problems in the tournament >>>>hall, in 2001 maastricht for example i found the location a bloody shame. They >>>>corrected that great in 2002 though in Maastricht. >>> >>> >>> >>>OK, so in short the good parts were the french bread and free drinks and that it >>>was possible to walk during the rounds. >>> >>>If you like the french bread you should try our chess programs. Some of them >>>would give you a good run for the money. ;) >> >>Well meeting each culture at a world champs is real important and leaves an >>impression that lasts forever. >> >>But the french bread,.... everyone must try it :) >> >>But the Tiger, well perhaps it plays me to french bread, so let's not try it too >>soon :) >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>The main problem I remember there was AMD. They sponsored the event and provided >>>> >>>>Oh the hardware, well Kallisto was sponsored a PII300 by intel. Kallisto however >>>>was still 16 bits and way faster (like 50% or some insane big diff) on the >>>>233Mhz K7 that Jan Louwman had managed to get too. >>>> >>>>So officially Kallisto ran on that PII300 but in reality diep ran at it. You >>>>couldn't get that cpu in any shop at that time. >>>> >>>>When i entered with that machine the tournament hall i was amazed to see that >>>>half the tournament was carrying a PII300 with him :) >>>> >>>>The toledo2000 programmer was not understanding that his DOS just went up to >>>>64MB hashtables instead of the full 128MB that he had on the PII300 machine :) >>>> >>>>But i guess the real bad thing from world champs 1997 in my memory is fact that >>>>only search depth mattered there really, assuming a debugged program. I lost >>>>game after game thanks to simple tactical errors. 8 ply search for a few moves >>>>and DANG opponent starts smiling "i win a piece!". >>> >>> >>> >>>Ah well, so that can be put in the "good" column I guess: you discovered there >>>that in chess your are helpless if your opponent outsearches you significantly, >>>and that you'd better debug your program before the start of the tournament. >> >>it was tested in 1997 with 1000 games auto232 by Jan Louwman. Without that i bet >>it would have crashed like so many others :) >> >>Well crashing is part of the fun... >> >>Nowadays some find it bad to crash, but it's part of life. >> >>Ask the winners of the previous 2 world champs. I remember they crashed last 18 >>games they played there around 30 times? >> >>>You could have discovered that at home, but well. Wisdom is wisdom. >> >>You don't want to miss the fun 500 processors are going to give in that respect. >> >>In fact i might get 1 or 2 testruns at 500 processors for 1 hour or so. >> >>Coming monday morning very early i will have 1 such testruns (those get >>scheduled automatically but because the machine is never empty some >>administrator must clean by hand the whole machine and let this run, so >>practically it only happens when they have maintenance at the machine) so that's >>very interesting. >> >>Some countrymen of yours can't in fact wait for that output. Expected >>efficiencyspeedup is a bit less than 37.3%, so you can do the match with 125GB >>hashtables at 1 position from >> >>Nataf - Svidler (Fressinet) >> >>As you know i managed to help Nataf in FIDE world champs by 'psychologically >>motivating' him. >> >>Hopefully this 500 processor run helps too: >> http://www.nao-cc.com/naocc/index.html >> >>That is what it will analyze some line that is in the 'psychological' interest >>of my friend :) >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>In RGCC at the time some people like Bruce and Bob just posted their believe >>>>that search depth mattered and the rest was not important at all, especially a >>>>good evaluation wouldn't matter at all. >>>> >>>>Well how they were proven wrong later of course. >>> >>> >>> >>>As far as I know nothing has been proved, either way, in this area. >> >>That is not real true. >> >>Please delete your current evaluation function and replace it with tiger 1.0 >>evaluation functions, preprocessing etc. >> >>Just make the search the same like it is now and go compare. >> >>I bet that it will not kick any commercial engine that tiger 1.0 when compared >>to the current version. >> >>>The strength of computers at chess comes from a combination of good search >>>techniques and reasonable evaluation, with some emphasis still today on search. >>>Don't forget what you have learned in 1997... >> >>No that's not true. You *can* get another 5 ply easily by using a dumber >>evaluation function type Cilkchess. > >plies are unimportant amd it means nothing. >It even does not mean tactical strength because if you prune good lines by null >move pruning you can miss tactics. > >Christophe also did not say that reasonable evaluation is unimportant so your >example proves nothing. > >Uri the only improvements i see in tiger since version 0.0001 which impressed tactically in paderborn a lot of years ago when operated by Thorsten Czub, is that tigers evaluation has become better. I see not a single other improvement in tiger that i find worth mentionning.
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.