Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 10:06:14 04/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2004 at 11:01:06, martin fierz wrote: >On April 15, 2004 at 09:08:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 15, 2004 at 01:01:59, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>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 >> >> >>You did not follow any of the extensive hyper-threading discussions here over >>the past 2 years??? > >no :-) >wasn't that obvious from my ignorance? > >cheers > martin Sure, you should take a look in the archive ;p http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?expr=%2Bhyper*+%2Bcrafty&subject=&author=&email=&threads=yes&nr=200
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.