Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 03:22:33 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 10:49:13, martin fierz wrote: >On March 16, 2004 at 09:59:33, martin fierz wrote: > >>On March 15, 2004 at 17:23:32, Steven Edwards wrote: >> >>>On March 15, 2004 at 16:52:40, martin fierz wrote: >>>>On March 15, 2004 at 16:38:53, Steven Edwards wrote: >>> >>>>>Hmmn. Maybe I should offer a wager or two here to the doubters. Like, if I >>>>>can't get this to work, then I'll stop complaining about the mundane nature of >>>>>traditional A/B searchers; if I do get it too work, each doubter can send me a >>>>>new battery for one of my Macintosh notebooks. (Approx. US$150 each.) >>>> >>>>i'll accept the wager, but you have to define "can't get this to work" a bit >>>>more clearly for me. e.g. IIRC your list had an item "become world champion", >>>>and i would accept that you had "got it to work" long before that. >>>>for me, the getting it to work part has to be spelled out as some kind of rating >>>>level - what do you think? what level would you specify? >>> >>>Well, first let's hope our board sponsor won't get upset with a little gambling. >>> >>>I posted the primary and secondary goals back last month but can't find the CCC >>>reference. So you are welcome to read them again from the entry 2004.02.19 in >>>my journal: >>> >>>http://www.livejournal.com/users/chessnotation/ >>> >>>Point #8 in the primary goal set (combined with #12) is what I claim to be >>>sufficient for proof of concept, and I'll make the output public for inspection. >> >>i'm still not clear on what this means - because in a post further down this >>thread you start talking about 3 min/move for a test suite. >> >>goal number 5 was: "Limitation of the search node count to a mean of one >>thousand." >> >>i don't know how long symbolic will need to achieve this, but isn't it it sort >>of a contradiction to have either a number of nodes or a time limit?! >> >>you also state >> >>>I'll claim that #19 is satisfied if Symbolic can solve at least 200 of >>>WAC, 667 of WCSAC, and 667 of BWTC with a mean time limit of 180 seconds >>>per position on hardware roughly equal to #11 (400 MHz PPC with 256 MByte >>>RAM and 10 GByte disk). >> >>which i don't know of whether it's true. i only know WAC of these test suites, >>and it is really easy (most decent programs solve nearly everything in sight >>(290/300 or more) in 1-3 seconds on modern computers). >> >>achieving a certain rating in real OTB tournaments is near impossible, but >>getting your thing to play on ICC / FICS is real easy. i would suggest a >>2000-2100 average blitz rating as a sensible level for our bet. (ICC rating is >>inflated by 200 points at least). however, since you want to search 1000 nodes >>for a 3-minute think, you'd have to limit yourself to much less for blitz - i'd >>say something like 5 nodes/sec maximum - this should be more than most humans >>can achieve. >> >>cheers >> martin > >or, to make this more personal: if symbolic doesn't lose a 2-game match at >G/30+small increment against me on ICC, searching no more than 1000 nodes per >move on average, you win. deal? > >cheers > martin Now this could be interesting. Martin how do you think you would do against Shredder searching 1000 NPS? I think the skeptics will start to be convinced when Symbolic shows that it benefits from its expensive calculations, then we can talk about the pros and cons of alpha-beta. Vas
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.