Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:18:17 04/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2004 at 09:48:34, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 04, 2004 at 09:00:45, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 03, 2004 at 01:48:15, Jonas Bylund wrote: >> >>>>You mean whether it's textmode or graphical i guess. >>>> >>>>It's graphical GUI :) >>> >>>So i guess it runs in DOS mode ;) >>>Will it run under Winboard? (i know i have asked this before, but i use WinXP >>>exclusively and i really don't like DOS) >> >>You mean whether i can load winboard or winboard engines into my interface? >> >>> >>>>Success is relative. I do not earn a penny on EGTBs. I just waste time in fact >>>>on it. I could earn money in that time instead. So success is relative. >> >>>Indeed success is relative and in this case it is relative to the existing >>>format, compared to that, 10-20 Gb would be hugely successful. However if you >> >>I do not see why, all you need is a better compression. That requires immense >>amounts of cpu time though. >> >>Call Nalimov a pioneer, or call him one-eyed king in the land of the blinds. >> >>Probably both is true. >> >>Same for Thompson and others. >> >>If just 1 person has been busy, it's easy to improve upon him. >> >>Look Eugene has never been busy with efficient storing his EGTBs. I'm sure he >>can come up with efficient storing too if he wanted to. >> >>However he'll need to write pretty efficient software to even at a few dual and >>quad machines to get it compressed well. >> >>Compression is more complex than computerchess in itself. >> >>>mean success relative to your standards it is a different story of course, and i >>>mean that in a general sense. >>> >>>If you measure success relative to money, then IMO i would say you have failed >>>already, since true reward does not need reckognition nor payment. >> >>Relative to success, all computerchess guys are major failures. >> >>Selling second hand cars earns a factor X, X > 100, more money. >> >>>>I do not see it as a success. Getting even 5th in world champs is way harder. >>>>Getting #300 on ATP list in tennis even harder than that. I have in total >>>>written 3 different generators now for egtb's and each project was only a few >>>>days worth. Very easy to make in fact. I'm sure any programmer who has past >>>>beginners stage can make it. >>>> >>>>If you compare that with a chess engine, a chessengine is 1000x harder to get to >>>>a strong level. >>>> >>>>Even generating the first 7 men which i expect to do real soon i do not consider >>>>as a big success. I'm sure Eugene could do that too knowing his huge hardware. >>>>However i plan to make a special generator for the 7 man a lot faster than any >>>>generator before. I had a while ago a generator which was very fast. >>>> >>>>It's easier than some guess to do all that. The problem is it is all volunteer >>>>work in some sense. Also the importance for chessprograms of egtb's is smaller >>>>nowadays than it used to be say in 1999. >>>> >>>>The impact of the first programs using 5 men was way bigger than 6 men now. >>>> >>>>The reason is the huge improvement of chess software (the top 10 of the world >>>>that is). >>>> >>>>I remember junior playing at world champs 2003 with just all 5 men turned on. >>>> >>>>Note i didn't use any egtb at the world champs 2003. >> >>>That's interesting, why not? especially when you have such compressed tb's. >> >>I had bigger priorities at the supercomputer to say it polite. Like praying that >>it directly would run smooth. >> >>Secondly a supercomputer has a limited number of file handles. >> >>So 1000 files x 512 processors = 512k file handles. >> >>Forget it, no supercomputer has 512k file handles. >> >>In diep i open the file handles before the program starts. >> >>Nalimov same thing. That is wrong. All you have to do is look at egtb.cpp to see. Otherwise we would be running into file handle problems everywhere. Any idea how many total egtb files there are, since they are broken into pieces? Didn't think so... >> >>I just used uncompressed EGTBs at supercomputer. Terabytes of diskspace! >> >>But starting it took 3 hours. Then i had 2 crashes. So i turned them off for the >>rest of the tournament. No more crashes then. >> >>1 day later entire machine was crashed for half a day or a full day (i do not >>know exactly). There was only 1 round that day. >> >>I'm 100% sure it was a result of the huge amount of allocated file handles and >>SGI file system. Their XFS sucks a lot. I understand why they are moving to >>linux. It's just a lot better! >> >>Only the 2.6.4 kernel is not so very good yet. It requires more work to get it >>more stable. Yet we know it *will* happen. The sgi stuff will *not* improve at >>that speed simply. >> >>The principal of having shared file handles, despite that i just want local file >>handles, it sucks if i may say so. >> >>When i say shared file handles i mean that there is a few central processors >>serving the other 500 processors for files. There is 1 clock processor, and so >>on. >> >>In short, to do i/o which can be done in great ways in such machines, one needs >>an entire different approach than what is ideal for computerchess at a PC. >> >>I'm just not willing to rewrite my routines just for 1 championship and i had >>decided that back in start 2003 already. >> >>>>In both cases i do not see the problem. >>>> >>>>Also note that where i love small egtb's, chessbase shows up with huge machines >>>>with a lot of ram and harddisk packs. >>> >>>I believe it was Lasker who once said "Play the board not the man" i find new >>>uses for that phrase on a daily basis, in this case i would say that all the >>>time and energy that are potentially wasted on focusing on your opponent/s, >>>could be invested in your own development and preparation. >> >>EGTBs are in that sense a waste of time yes. That's why most just copy the >>one-eyed routines and use them and praise its programmer. >> >>>>I just cannot afford harddisk packs as i have no sponsor. I'm sure they keep on >>>>using nalimov for some years to go. No need to change. The effect of the egtb's >>>>is getting less anyway. The current generation of software is not stupid enough >>>>to allow to get to an endgame which is dead lost. >>>> >>>>Even when some hard egtb's come there: >>>> >>>>for example what happens sometimes is: >>>> >>>> KRP KRP >>>> >>>>it is very *unlikely* that by accident some commercial program goes to an >>>>endgame which is lost. if it is forced in such an endgame it probably is already >>>>down more than minus 2, so it not exactly volunteerly went into that position. >>> >>>Sometimes winning a +2 endgame can be really hard, even for computers and i >>>would be very surprised if the programX with 3+4+5+6+7 men tb's wouldn't win >>>that scenario more frequently than programY without the tb's >> >>You are correct for programs released in 1997. >> >>Yes even 1999. >> >>But sincethen they have improved sufficiently. >> >>The whole point is that there must be an alternative to draw it. >> >>If that is not there, then having egtb's doesn't matter. >> >>If it is there, then they matter. >> >>Your guess for the future is as good as mine. >> >>But the real point is that EGTBs can help to save a lost game. >> >>Nevertheless, it's better not having that lost position. So all efforts should >>be in opening and middlegame and start of endgame more than far endgame. >> >>If you have a few pieces and a few pawns, then accessing EGTBs is just a waste >>of time. >> >>Only when the game is already decided objectively, then EGTBs jump in and can >>help you save a lost position. >> >>So from absolute viewpoint seen, programs like junior have a playstyle which >>will hardly get them to positions where having EGTBs matter. >> >>EGTBs just matter when the program plays like a beginner, do not forget that. >> >>>>the evaluations have advanced too much to let them get fooled easily. i noticed >>>>that fritz is doing a good job there especially. it has improved a lot in rook >>>>endgames the last so many versions. i was a live witness of that at world champs >>>>2002 in fact. diep managed to get some won rook endgame (rpp versus rp) but >>>>fritz very convincingly drew it. diep had no clue it was a draw. fritz did. >>> >>>Well i guess it wasn't a won endgame then :) >> >>it was won somewhere when both were nullmoving. >> >>But the position in question would have needed 7 men at least to win it. >> >>KRPP KRP to be precise. >> >>>>Even for yace i doubt whether any rook endgame EGTB will save its ass somewhere. >>>>It usually is doing it itself much better :) >>>> >>>>>I am not implying that we all have a similar standard when it comes to giving >>>>>our work away, but people who know me fairly well, knows that if they need >>>>>anything, that be music, webdesign, painting, ideas etc.all they need to do is >>>>>ask and i will provide it for free if i have the time. Not too long ago someone >>>>>saw one of my paintings (he lives in USA) and really liked one particular >>>>>painting and i sent it to him free of charge, - shipping charges. >>>>>I can say that giving without asking anything in return is _extremely_ >>>>>liberating, but if that dosn't do it for you, i respect that too. >>>> >>>>Why would i provide to competitors for free source code of egtb's? >> >>>Because IMO the more "things" we hang on to in our lives, the more tied up we >>>get, the happiest people i know are people who give/share without strings or >>>conditions. That was the philosophical answer, now on to the practical; (which >> >>Why not email to chessbase for their interface source code, so you can fix their >>UCI support. >> >>>might end up a bit philisophical too) if you where to give away the tb's and the >>>source for people to freely impliment support and download, then your >>>competitors would be stronger than before, allthough it seems you think it won't >>>make a difference, and if they indeed would be stronger with your 3-7 men tb's >>>then you would have to work harder to make Diep stronger, that competition could >>>benefit Diep in the long run right? >> >>I didn't read a single sentence from between where i wrote 'uci' and here. >> >>>>Note i wouldn't mind a few amateur programs, but what happens is the format >>>>spreads, that's what happens. >>>> >>>>Then competitors use it and they do not say 'thank you'. They just use it. >>> >>>Even if that was true, then so what? the analogy "If a tree falls and no one >>>hears it, did it make a sound?" (not sure i got it exactly right to the letter, >>>but the essence should be pretty clear) to me the meaning is multidimensional, >>>but it asks a very interesting question which with a bit of interpeting looks >>>like this: "in order to feel/be rewarded and satisfied we need someone to >>>record/reward our acomplishment?" a goal of mine in my life is to reach a point >>>where i can "chop that tree" and be satisfied/rewarded by the task itself >>>regardless if anyone records it. >> >>>>They have always superior hardware and huge harddisks. >>> >>>LOL i remember 500 processors being used for, eeeh i forgot the name of the >>>engine... no i remember it was Diep :) >> >>Testing is the most important thing in computerchess i guess. I've never done >>that lack the personnel to do it in fact. And some article writers are not much >>of a help either there. Testing at a 500 processor machine forget it. > >You complained about bugs in the evaluation. >Could not you use the same evaluation in a slower machine and test it? > >> >>For the same reason why deep blue played like such a joke. > >It played better than the opponents at that time(I do not claim that it played >better than the programs of today) >> >>In 1997 it would not have won any tournament. Too poor tested. > >I believe that it was stronger than other programs in 1997. > >> >>In fact it already failed in 1995. > >In 1995 it was a different hardware. > >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.