Author: martin fierz
Date: 22:01:59 04/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 2004 at 21:56:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 14, 2004 at 19:06:58, martin fierz wrote: > >>On April 14, 2004 at 12:32:56, Robert Hyatt 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... >>> >>>Nope. Dual xeon 2.8 with hyperthreading on. There are faster duals on ICC >>>running the "deep programs." >> >>that is fine. but your finger notes state otherwise :-) >> >>cheers >> martin > > > >where?:: > > > 1: Crafty v19.12 (4 cpus) > 2: crafty uses all 3/4/5/6 piece endgame databases, over 150 gigs so far. > 3: Dell Poweredge 2600, 2 x 2.8ghz xeon > >line 3 says it all. Most know that a dual xeon looks like 4 cpus to the chess >engine if SMT is enabled... where you ask?? what about line 1 "(4 cpus)"?? i didn't read any further than that, and if i did i would have thought you had a mistake in your notes 1 or 3. i certainly don't know that a dual xeon looks like 4 cpus. and if i don't know, then most won't know :-) cheers martin
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.