Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 09:59:30 08/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2004 at 08:05:06, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 31, 2004 at 07:58:11, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 31, 2004 at 01:50:55, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>On August 30, 2004 at 23:43:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 30, 2004 at 21:57:13, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 16:59:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 16:23:25, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 15:33:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 14:51:01, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 13:51:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 12:24:54, Volker Böhm wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 10:02:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 08:30:34, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 30, 2004 at 08:12:52, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eine FPGA-Karte untersucht momentan ca. 3 Millionen Positionen/Sekunde. 16 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Karten machen daher theoretisch 48 MPos/sec. (Donninger) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jouni >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If Hydra made 48 Mpos/sec this again proves (in comparison >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the 2 Mpos/sec on Quad-Opteron server with 4 CPU's of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shredder) that the number of pos/sec can't be taken as a >>>>>>>>>>>>> reliable value for the goodness of a chess program. It's >>>>>>>>>>>>> of course simply impossible to compare apples and organes. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt [http://www.utzingerk.com] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Don't forget that Hydra ripped Shredder's head off. So the NPS _might_ be >>>>>>>>>>>>significant here... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Didn´t I´ve heard you saying that 10 games are not enough to draw a >>>>>>>>>>>statistically significant conclusion on the playing strength? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Greetings Volker >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>With two _close_ opponents, correct. But if one is seriously stronger, as hydra >>>>>>>>>>appeared to be, 10 games is plenty. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We do not know if hydra is seriously stronger. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>We have a pretty good clue that it is. It is over 10x faster, potentially, than >>>>>>>>other programs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1. I first assume that the programmer / designer is no dummy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2. all else being "equal" 10x faster is a _serious_ advantage. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>3. the above two points translate into a signficant strength advantage. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You cannot start by assuming that hydra is significantly stronger when this is >>>>>>>>>the question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>With evidence, you can. IE I can certainly assume that Crafty on an 8-way >>>>>>>>opteron is significantly stronger than Crafty on my dual xeon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If you see 10-0 you can say based on the result that Hydra is significantly >>>>>>>>>stronger but when you see 5.5-2.5 you cannot claim it based on the result and >>>>>>>>>you only can say that you do not know if it is significantly stronger based on >>>>>>>>>the result. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If you only look at the results, maybe or maybe not. But I watched many of the >>>>>>>>games with Crafty analyzing. That tells you even more. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hydra is unquestionably very strong, but lets not forget that Shredder lost the >>>>>>>first two games out of book. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>anthony >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Depends also on the definition of "lost". IE it didn't come out of book at -4 >>>>>>or something. It just got rolled in kingside attacks because of castle-opposite >>>>>>issues that Hydra seemed to play better. Of course the stronger side often does >>>>>>play such positions better. :) >>>>> >>>>>Of course Hydra is very strong. Its just that I am not willing to throw in the >>>>>towel on Shredder and declare Hydra the new WCCC just yet ;) >>>>> >>>>>anthony >>>> >>>> >>>>With any luck, we'll see how strong they are at the next WCCC next Summer... >>> >>>Yes, hower there are things that people watching the games do not know and that >>>would make superficial conclusions: >>> >>>1. The first 2 games where book lost. These variations where weak and we played >>>them before, so they knew it and could wait us on them. After the book Hydra >>>played well, but Shredder had no chance at all. >> >>Can shredder beat itself from the same variation? Well, I do not think I can test 1,000,000 variations at long time controls. >> >>If it cannot do it then hydra was stronger and if it could do it then it seems >>that your preperation was bad because you could discover that the lines were bad >>by testing shredder against shredder. Yes, this is what happened, > >In another thought it is not so clear even if Shredder cannot find the good >moves of hydra in the first games because if they prepared based on previous >games of shredder they could prepare games when hydra beat Shredder8. Correct. > >It is clear that hydra had the advantage of being unknown. Yes, but we have helped them as well...well, there are many ways to learn... > >Uri Sandro
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.