Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:46:09 06/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 11, 2004 at 16:58:04, Manfred Meiler wrote: >On June 11, 2004 at 14:55:38, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On June 11, 2004 at 13:15:25, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On June 11, 2004 at 07:29:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On June 11, 2004 at 02:14:32, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 09, 2004 at 10:13:30, Franz Hagra wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Te3 is not winning at all - its a draw (only in the original game black wins). >>>>>> >>>>>>Te3 is the key to draw the position, but its not essential to play it as first >>>>>>move at all - so the test position is clear in logical human sence, but not >>>>>>under test conditions, because the test only works correct, when only Te3 as >>>>>>first move is found! >>>>>> >>>>>>Tad8 also leads to a draw position like Te3 - so the TEST POSITION is not >>>>>>correct at all. >>>>> >>>>>[d]r3r1k1/1pq2pp1/2p2n2/1PNn4/2QN2b1/6P1/3RPP2/2R3KB b - - >>>>> >>>>>1..Re3 is a sound positional attacking move and according to my own brainchild >>>>>there is a difference of 0.25 in score between 1..Re3 and 1..Rad8. The position >>>>>IMO is a fine one to test the strategic insight of a chess program. >>>>> >>>>>My best, >>>>> >>>>>Ed > > >>>> >>>>Ed, >>>> >>>>you did NOT comment on the main finding Hagra has published here in >>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?369557! >>>> >>>>I translate a second time into English: >>>> >>>>a) machine FRITZ 8 on AMD 1400 gets a solution time of 1 sec and that means >>>>highest points for position no. 1 (which you gave thankfully above) >>>> >>>>b) machine FRITZ 8 on AMD 2800 gets a solution time of 480 sec!! So that it gets >>>>way worse points in position no. 1!! >>>> >>>>Here is my verbal explanation (all found by Hagra): >>>> >>>>a stronger [!] machine on better hardware (do you accept that or do you claim >>>>that AMD 1400 is STRONGER than AMD 2800?) is able to make a deeper [!!] >>>>calculation and therefore finds the variation with first Rad8 - NOT as a final >>>>solution, Ed! But as a variation, before it THEN comes back to Re3. Now, the >>>>point is that such a behaviour is by far a sign for weaker strength but for >>>>_better_ strength. But alas, Ed, the so called "WM-Test" of Dr. Mikhail Gurevich >>>>gives to the weaker machine more points than for the stronger machine. > > >>> >>>This is common problem with positions which nature is positional. Take the start >>>position for example, the moves 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 will produce scores >>>that are very close to each other, in this case 4 moves with almost identical >>>scores. What you see is that chess engines tend to switch from 1.e4 to 1.d4 >>>frequently and that the speed of the PC actually introduces a random element as >>>in this case with Fritz. > > >> >> >>This is still not what is happening in the case of Fritz on different hardware >>and WM-Test position number 1. >> >>a) at first Fritz 8 on AMD 2800 goes directly for Re3 >> >>b) then at a depth of 12 it changes to Rad8 >> >>c) later it comes back to Re3 (therefore it gets 480 sec as result) > > > >First of all - sorry for my bad english. >I'm the one who made the tests of (in the meantime) 260 chess engines (including >Fritz 8.0.0.23) in the test suite "WM-Test" since around 3 years on my (older) >PC AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1400 MHz. >My detailed results (in Excel) of 230 tested engines are available for free >download at http://www.computerschach.de/test/index.htm (including the 100 >commented test positions of "WM-Test" in various formats cbh/cbf/pgn/epd). > >I do not have Hagra's AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (AFAIK this machine offers real 2083 >MHz) but an Intel Pentium 4 with 3.0 GHz (HT) which should give about the same >power for chess analysis as Hagra's AMD XP 2800+. >So I tried the test position 1 (...Re3, see above) of "WM-Test" with the >mentioned Fritz engine 8.0.0.23 (Fritz 8.exe of 2003 March 3rd) with 256 MB Hash >in analyse mode (AFAIK Hagra used the automatic feature "Process test set" of >Fritz) once again - this time on my P4-3.0; and here are the analysis of Fritz >8.0.0.23 on P4-3.0: > > 1...Db6! >² (0.66) Tiefe: 6/24 00:00:00 401kN >1...Db6 2.bxc6 bxc6 3.Tcd1 Db4 4.Lxd5 Sxd5 5.Dxb4 Sxb4 6.Kf1 >² (0.66) Tiefe: 7/24 00:00:00 564kN >1...Te3! >² (0.62) Tiefe: 7/26 00:00:01 926kN >1...Te3 2.Lg2 Tea3 3.e3 Da5 4.Td3 cxb5 5.Sxb5 >² (0.59) Tiefe: 7/26 00:00:01 1007kN >1...Te3 2.Sd3 Txg3+ 3.Lg2 Txg2+ 4.Kxg2 Se4 5.Tdd1 Sf4+ 6.Kf1 >² (0.66) Tiefe: 8/29 00:00:02 1968kN >1...Te3 2.Lg2 Tea3 3.Kh2 Sb6 4.Dc2 Sbd5 5.bxc6 bxc6 6.Tcd1 >² (0.56) Tiefe: 9/28 00:00:05 5733kN >1...Te3 2.Lg2 Tea3 3.Scb3 T3a4 4.Dc5 Sb4 5.Dg5 Ld7 6.Sc5 cxb5 >² (0.59) Tiefe: 10/31 00:00:14 15330kN >1...Te3 2.Lg2 Tea3 3.Scb3 T8a4 4.Dc5 Sb4 5.bxc6 b6 6.Dg5 Ta2 7.Txa2 >² (0.66) Tiefe: 11/33 00:00:34 37372kN >1...Te3 2.Lg2 Txg3 3.e3 cxb5 4.Dxb5 b6 5.Scb3 Txg2+ 6.Kxg2 De5 7.Th1 De4+ 8.Kg1 >² (0.69) Tiefe: 12/36 00:01:29 100326kN >1...Te3 2.Lg2 Lh3 3.bxc6 bxc6 4.Lf3 Tea3 5.Scb3 T8a4 6.Dxc6 Dxc6 7.Txc6 Ld7 >² (0.66) Tiefe: 13/36 00:04:53 335752kN >1...Te3 2.Lg2 Txg3 3.e3 Txg2+ 4.Kxg2 cxb5 5.Dxb5 b6 6.Sd3 >² (0.56) Tiefe: 14/39 00:15:08 1035797kN >1...Te3 2.Lg2 Txg3 3.e3 Txg2+ 4.Kxg2 De5 5.Ta2 Txa2 6.Dxa2 b6 7.Da8+ >² (0.37) Tiefe: 15/44 00:45:49 3135852kN > >As you can see (also at http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/100856.htm) >Fritz 8.0.0.23 found the solution ...Re3 (Te3) à tempo and hold it over more >than 1 hour (with reached depth 16/16 after 1,5 hours) - without any changes to >...Rad8 (or to another move) in the meantime. >All this happened under exact the identical test conditions which I use since 3 >years for my testings of now 260 engines in "WM-Test" (aside from the here used >machine P4-3.0 instead of the usual AMD 1400). First of all thanks, Manfred Meiler! You can't know how happy I am because of your data input. Let's now analyse it. Let me ask you a question to begin with. WHY did nobody in CSS, where Hagra has published his results, discuss Hagra's data? Why did the 'CSS-Team' react with the famous outcry, I quoted here, that "we already knew the position of a Hagra and one must not repeat over and over and over again that same opinion"? Why wasn't it possible to discuss the Hagra-data in a relaxed atmosphere? Why is the motivation and the knowledge of Hagra doubted and Hagra stigmatized as if he had only in mind to make allegations against the holy founders of the "WM-Test"? Nut again, I salute the new method now and am happy that you broke the tradition and now try to discuss the hagra messages with own data. > > > >> >>However the same engine on weaker hardware AMD 1400 does never change to Rad8 >>because it can't go deep as 12. Therefore here Fritz 8 gets the result 1 sec >>which is the best possible. For this apparent contradiction you must find a >>reasonable solution in your test suite. > > > >A reasonable solution for this "apparent contradiction" could be: Your claim is >simply wrong. Dear Manfred Meiler, with respect, my claim can't be wrong, because I'm just quoting data from Hagra that he had posted here in CCC. How can I be wrong? Of course Hagra could be wrong, but I did exactly quote what he has posted in German. Excuse me, that I must differentiate here because in the end people claim that I had written something wrong, as if I had presented the original data. This is false. >How do you know that "my weaker hardware AMD 1400 (does never change to Rad8 >because it) can't go deep as 12"? Where do you read "my" weaker hardware??? I wrote in quoting Hagra, that on wekaer hardware the so and so results appeared. Please do only quote what someone really has written. Apart from that you are right! I can't know that AMD 1400 cant go deep as ply 12. Perhaps here is really a case of a not so good translation from my side! Here is a better, improved, version of the translation. Different to the AMD 2800 who began to calculate the Rad8 line on depth 12, the AMD 1400 did NOT change to such a line. [I do NOT know if a AMD 1400 can potentially go deep as ply 12 - no, I am almost certain that aslso AMD 1400 should be able to do that. But fact is that Hagra wrote that AMD 1400 did NOT change and always stayed to Re3.] - Hope this helps. Since the new revelation by Hagra wasn't related to AMD 1400 but AMD 2800 I think that my slip of tongue is uninteresting for the basic contradiction -- always me following the German text of Hagra of course. Please do never forget that. > Did you test it yourself? No, Manfred Meiler, I do not test chess engines, I play chess against them myself! I'm a chessplayer, not a computerchess tester. >The truth is: My AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1400 MHz (real 1400 MHz!) - so the >machine which I used for testing 260 engines (also Fritz 8.0.0.23) in "WM-Test" >- reached in this position ply depth 12 after 2:19, depth 13 after 7:36 and >depth 14 after 23:00 ... found Re3 (Te8-e3) immediately and sticked at this Re3 >even after more than 20 minutes without any changes to another move(s) - please >look at the analyse lines of Fritz 8.0.0.23 on my AMD 1400: > >1...Ta8-a3 2.e2-e3 Dc7-a5 3.Td2-d3 c6xb5 4.Sd4xb5 > ² (0.62) Tiefe: 5/24 00:00:00 145kN >1...Ta8-a3 2.e2-e3 Sd5-e7 3.Lh1-g2 b7-b6 4.Sc5-e4 > ² (0.69) Tiefe: 6/22 00:00:00 195kN >1...Dc7-b6! > ² (0.66) Tiefe: 6/24 00:00:00 282kN >1...Dc7-b6 2.b5xc6 b7xc6 3.Tc1-d1 Db6-b4 4.Lh1xd5 Sf6xd5 5.Dc4xb4 Sd5xb4 >6.Kg1-f1 > ² (0.66) Tiefe: 7/24 00:00:01 564kN >1...Te8-e3! > ² (0.62) Tiefe: 7/26 00:00:01 926kN >1...Te8-e3 2.Lh1-g2 Te3-a3 3.e2-e3 Dc7-a5 4.Td2-d3 c6xb5 5.Sd4xb5 > ² (0.59) Tiefe: 7/26 00:00:01 1007kN >1...Te8-e3 2.Sc5-d3 Te3xg3+ 3.Lh1-g2 Tg3xg2+ 4.Kg1xg2 Sf6-e4 5.Td2-d1 Sd5-f4+ >6.Kg2-f1 > ² (0.66) Tiefe: 8/29 00:00:05 1968kN >1...Te8-e3 2.Lh1-g2 Te3-a3 3.Kg1-h2 Sd5-b6 4.Dc4-c2 Sb6-d5 5.b5xc6 b7xc6 >6.Tc1-d1 > ² (0.56) Tiefe: 9/28 00:00:12 5733kN >1...Te8-e3 2.Lh1-g2 Te3-a3 3.Sc5-b3 Ta3-a4 4.Dc4-c5 Sd5-b4 5.Dc5-g5 Lg4-d7 >6.Sb3-c5 c6xb5 > ² (0.59) Tiefe: 10/31 00:00:26 15330kN >1...Te8-e3 2.Lh1-g2 Te3-a3 3.Sc5-b3 Ta8-a4 4.Dc4-c5 Sd5-b4 5.b5xc6 b7-b6 >6.Dc5-g5 Ta3-a2 7.Td2xa2 > ² (0.66) Tiefe: 11/33 00:00:56 37372kN >1...Te8-e3 2.Lh1-g2 Te3xg3 3.e2-e3 c6xb5 4.Dc4xb5 b7-b6 5.Sc5-b3 Tg3xg2+ >6.Kg1xg2 Dc7-e5 7.Tc1-h1 De5-e4+ 8.Kg2-g1 > ² (0.69) Tiefe: 12/36 00:02:19 100326kN >1...Te8-e3 2.Lh1-g2 Lg4-h3 3.b5xc6 b7xc6 4.Lg2-f3 Te3-a3 5.Sc5-b3 Ta8-a4 >6.Dc4xc6 Dc7xc6 7.Tc1xc6 Lh3-d7 > ² (0.66) Tiefe: 13/36 00:07:36 335752kN >1...Te8-e3 2.Lh1-g2 Te3xg3 3.e2-e3 Tg3xg2+ 4.Kg1xg2 c6xb5 5.Dc4xb5 b7-b6 >6.Sc5-d3 > ² (0.56) Tiefe: 14/39 00:23:00 1035797kN > > >... only to give some facts to this discussion from my side. Ok. Let us sum up. You say that your AMD 1400 correctly pondered Re3 for 20 minutes without changing to Rad8 although your AMD 1400 reached a depth of ply 12. - This interesting news and I wait for hagra to explain why he thinks or found out that AMD 1400 didn't reach ply 12. Then you repeated the Hagra test of position 1 of the "WM-Test" with a P4 2300 and you say that this might be the same as AMD 2800 - and the result was that your P4 did NEVER change to Rad8 although in the end reaching a depth of 16. Thanks so far. It will be now interesting what Hagra has to say and comment. I can already assume that for a direct comparison it is perhaps insufficient to take a P4 2300 to meet AMD 2800. This is also of importance in the light of the exact details of the Fritz engine, who either might be made better for AMD or INTEL. But again, I would want to wait for Hagra now and that will be an interesting debate between you two. I am happy that I could mediate between the two positions and finally we have now a possibility of a fair debate. Thanks to your contribution. Unbekannterweise mit freunflichen Grüßen, in Anerkennung Ihrer bisherigen Arbeit, Ihr Rolf Tueschen > >Manfred
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.