Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:51:50 02/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2004 at 09:07:17, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>On February 06, 2004 at 06:26:20, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On February 06, 2004 at 05:54:29, Vasik Rajlich wrote:
>>
>>>On February 06, 2004 at 03:42:42, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 06, 2004 at 02:15:35, Tord Romstad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 05, 2004 at 15:15:47, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I think that you underestimate your engine.
>>>>>>It seems to get similiar depth to crafty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For example in the following position it got depth 11 even in blitz 4+2
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, 11 plies in blitz games is not unusual. But 11 plies in Gothmog and 11
>>>>>plies in Crafty is not the same. I do much more forward pruning and depth
>>>>>reductions than Bob, and fewer extensions. In non-tactical positions like
>>>>>the one you give, my qsearch is also considerably smaller than Bob's (I think).
>>>>>
>>>>>Tord
>>>>
>>>>I do not think that there is a big difference.
>>>>Crafty searches bigger tree because it searches more irrelevant lines.
>>>>
>>>>I guess that the main advantage of Crafty relative to Gothmog when you use one
>>>>processor is superior evaluation(Gothmog's evaluation is more complex but bigger
>>>>is not always better and not having bugs or some too optimistic scores of
>>>>gothmog that lead to wrong sacrifices can be more important and it is possible
>>>>that Gothmog can get crafty level if you only reduce the big positional scores
>>>>that encourage it to sacrifice).
>>>>
>>>>I do not think that gothmog see less than crafty in the relevant lines(crafty
>>>>has bigger tree but it proves nothing).
>>>>I know that test suites are no proof but results of the gcp test suite give me
>>>>the impression that cases when Gothmog can see more than crafty are not rare.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>I have the theory that the greater your search resources (ie combination of time
>>>and hardware), the less important is the search, and the more important is the
>>>evaluation.
>>
>>I do not agree with that theory.
>>
>>For example suppose a program has no tablebases.
>>
>>With deep search it may not need knowledge how to win KQ vs K when with small
>>search it may need the knowledge.
>>
>>If the hardware is fast enough the program can solve the game with only piece
>>square table evaluation.
>>
>>Of course we are not going to see it but with good hardware evaluation what win
>>is better in some endgames become unimportant because the program will not fail
>>to win thanks to search.
>>
>>Uri
>
>Vas's point is this (and its the same reason Zappa is a relatively weak engine
>tactically):
>
>If you are playing at 40 / 2 on a quad opteron, do you care how many WAC
>positions you can solve in 1 second?
>
>anthony
WAC is test suite only to test for not having obvious bugs.
It is not a serious test suite to use to evaluate tactical strength.
I am more interested in how many positions I solve in test suites like ecm-gcp
or arasan test suite.
For arasan3 I got for example the table in the bottom of this post for my cct
version when I gave it to search 10 minutes per position.
I want to improve in all time controls and there are changes that can help me in
all time controls.
Uri
Results:
<=Sec Solved Total PosNr
----- ------ ------ -----------------------------------------------------------
1 7 7 19 24 27 31 36 50 51
2 1 8 7
3 1 9 38
4 1 10 3
6 2 12 8 46
7 3 15 17 26 28
8 3 18 32 53 57
9 1 19 6
10 2 21 2 48
11 1 22 23
18 1 23 42
20 1 24 16
24 1 25 4
25 1 26 58
40 1 27 49
54 1 28 20
67 1 29 40
69 1 30 10
71 1 31 34
115 1 32 41
152 1 33 55
162 1 34 14
166 1 35 1
193 1 36 22
290 1 37 47
374 1 38 33
402 1 39 12
456 1 40 11
559 1 41 39
Failure 5 9 13 15 18 21 25 29 30 35 37 43 44 45 52 54 56
41 problems solved.
17 problems unsolved.
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.