Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:44:54 04/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 2004 at 10:38:52, martin fierz wrote: >On April 14, 2004 at 10:33:42, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On April 14, 2004 at 10:21:55, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On April 13, 2004 at 17:00:24, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>>On April 13, 2004 at 14:21:07, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 13, 2004 at 01:29:02, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 12, 2004 at 23:07:46, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Further, wouldn't you just *hate* if I took the fun out of chess programming by >>>>>>>telling you everything? :) >>>>>> >>>>>>My gut feeling is that we would probably be disappointed for the most part. I >>>>>>bet a lot of us think all of you commercial authors are harboring lots of >>>>>>magical secrets that can turn an average program into a beast. Something similar >>>>>>to the improvements you get by going from minimax to alphabeta, or by adding >>>>>>null-move to an average program, and things like that. Those are very >>>>>>significant improvements. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have received the impression from you and other sources like Ed's webpage that >>>>>>this is not the case. There are some clever things on Ed's webpage, but for the >>>>>>most part, it is good ideas based on common sense, and then taking the time and >>>>>>effort to hammer out every last detail to make an idea work, followed by an >>>>>>efficient implementation. >>>>>> >>>>>>To illistrate the difference between what I think a lot of people would expect >>>>>>to hear from you if you divulged all of your secrets and what I think we would >>>>>>really get, consider null-move. Null-move is something that you can add to a >>>>>>program that uses no forward pruning, and once you spend a small amount of time >>>>>>getting it to work right, the program suddenly plays like it's on steroids >>>>>>(relatively speaking). However, if we took an average program and added in a few >>>>>>ideas from Ed's webpage, I wouldn't expect nearly as big of an improvement. I >>>>>>think you guys just take a lot of ideas and get small improvements here and >>>>>>there, and at the end of the decade, it amounts to a big improvement. 10% >>>>>>reduction in tree size here, 20% there, it adds up. >>>>>> >>>>>>Am I right? If we are expecting to see magical earth shattering secrets, would >>>>>>we be disappointed? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don't think you would be disappointed. >>>>> >>>>>But you are right in assuming that you would not see a dramatic improvement such >>>>>as the one you get from alpha-beta vs minimax. >>>>> >>>>>You know, one has to wonder where the difference in elo strength between Crafty >>>>>and the top commercial comes from. >>>> >>>> >>>>Compare this with your mileage at home. Many of the plus performance scores are >>>>against accounts running commercial programs. >>> >>> >>>this is irrelevant to the discussion - crafty on ICC is running on 4 processors. >>>big hardware difference... >>> >>>it's just what christophe was writing about: crafty is competitive because it >>>can use multiple processors (x4 = ~100 rating points). on single processor PCs, >>>it is not competitive with top commercials. >>> >>>the reason is that the commercial programmers write a program for the user who >>>buys it - and this user has 1 processor, with *very* few exceptions. if bob had >>>spent his time on eval, he would be quite competitive too on single processors >>>IMO, but that is not what he chose to do. >>> >>>i'm speculating here, but probably it's easier for him to focus on >>>multiprocessing than on knowledge&search for "political" reasons. when you're >>>paid by the university to do research, they want you to do something that the >>>people in charge perceive as "useful". tweaking an evaluation function would >>>probably sound less useful than accomplishing the parallelization of a complex >>>program. parallelization is also interesting for computer science students, >>>because the future will bring more multiprocessing systems - also because of >>>things like hyperthreading on one processor. >> >> >>I agree with all your points. That is why the ICC environment probably reflects >>much better the value of each programmer's emphasis, rather than the SSDF list, >>which unintentionally favors one programming emphasis over another. > >but you can't say that it's a coincidence! SSDF tests what 99% of all users >have. and that IMO is the right thing to do. a commercial programmer simply >can't emphasize multiprocessing to a big extent, because the time spent on that >is "wasted" in a commercial sense. How then do you explain: deep fritz deep shredder deep junior deep sjeng for starters. There are more SMP commercial engines than there are non-SMP commercial engines... Also care to make a bet about +5 years from now as to whether your statement will be true? AMD and Intel will only be selling chips with 2 (or 4) cpus on the single chip by then. Intel is _almost_ doing it now with SMT. AMD has already announced their intent that the next CPU will have two processor cores on a single chip. All the non-SMP guys will then be struggling to catch up... Those that look ahead architecturally will already "be there". > >and yes, it is great that on ICC you can show up with what you programmed your >beast to do. > >cheers > martin > > > >> >> >> >>> >>>cheers >>> martin >>> >>>>ICC Stats for Crafty since March 21, 2004 >>>> >>>>Blitz >>>> Account win loss draw pctg >>>>-- ------------ ----- ----- ----- ------ >>>>br Deveraux 0 1 0 0.00 >>>>br SinbadGonnaD 0 3 0 0.00 >>>>br giant 0 1 1 25.00 >>>>br glories 0 1 1 25.00 >>>>br Bitpusher 1 6 9 34.38 >>>>br BountyHunter 1 3 4 37.50 >>>>br ajop2 1 1 0 50.00 >>>>br allAdreamOfA 1 1 1 50.00 >>>>br bookbuilder 2 2 3 50.00 >>>>br Joecreek2004 0 0 1 50.00 >>>>br Lindisfarne 1 1 2 50.00 >>>>br NubianMagic 0 0 1 50.00 >>>>br Somnus 1 1 0 50.00 >>>>br TheBigChill 1 1 1 50.00 >>>>br Vangard 1 1 0 50.00 >>>>br pathologist 5 4 3 54.17 >>>>br X-Engine 12 5 13 61.67 >>>>br AmazingGrace 19 10 8 62.16 >>>>br Dhaka 2 1 1 62.50 >>>>br PostModernis 8 2 4 71.43 >>>>br stormx 4 0 5 72.22 >>>>br ajop 2 0 2 75.00 >>>>br SearcherX 3 0 3 75.00 >>>>br tlg 4 1 1 75.00 >>>>br muse-comp 7 1 2 80.00 >>>>br Amateur 2 0 0 100.00 >>>>br Clooby 7 0 0 100.00 >>>>br cro-magnon 1 0 0 100.00 >>>>br HangerOn 1 0 0 100.00 >>>>br Nutibara 1 0 0 100.00 >>>>br rigacombinat 2 0 0 100.00 >>>>br TAL9000 2 0 0 100.00 >>>> >>>>Standard >>>> >>>>sr SearcherX 0 1 0 0.00 >>>>sr Vangard 0 1 0 0.00 >>>>sr workuta 0 2 1 16.67 >>>>sr X-Engine 0 1 1 25.00 >>>>sr DIEP 1 1 0 50.00 >>>>sr Good-Boy 1 1 1 50.00 >>>>sr Kronos 0 0 2 50.00 >>>>sr RuffianY 1 1 1 50.00 >>>>sr Sukkubus 2 2 4 50.00 >>>>sr chepla 3 2 4 55.56 >>>>sr HangerOn 1 0 1 75.00 >>>>sr stormx 1 0 1 75.00 >>>>sr thebaron 3 0 1 87.50 >>>>sr BrassCube 1 0 0 100.00 >>>>sr SpiderChessX 1 0 0 100.00 >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On a related note, this brings up a question. If it is true that a lot of things >>>>>>that give your program improvements at this stage are very minor things, then it >>>>>>seems logical that those things would not necessarily result in improvements if >>>>>>they were implemented in other programs, because your ideas probably fit into an >>>>>>overall system. Do you think it is important to have a good overall system, >>>>>>where all components compliment one another? >>>>>> >>>>>>For instance, a simple example of a system: the job of the full width search is >>>>>>to hand off nodes to a qsearch, which has the job of handing off quiet positions >>>>>>to an evaluation function. Under that system, you only want to evaluate quiet >>>>>>positions, not all positions. If you acheive that, then you make sure your >>>>>>qsearch is really delivering quiet positions. If it is, you are probably getting >>>>>>accurate analysis from the engine. If someone took that beefed up qsearch that >>>>>>was required to make that system work successfully and implemented it in their >>>>>>program, it may only cause a qsearch explosion and result in weaker play. >>>>>> >>>>>>Am I right in believing that it is important to have an overall view of the >>>>>>system, and that ideas that resulted in improvements in your engine may not help >>>>>>other engines at all? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It is really hard to answer to this question. >>>>> >>>>>One thing I am convinced of is that if the top chess programmers started to >>>>>exchange ideas, like Ed and I did, you would see a significant increase in the >>>>>strength of these top programs. Clearly some of them would benefit more. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe
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.