Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:24:46 08/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2004 at 12:59:30, Sandro Necchi wrote: >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 That is one reason I say there is _never_ any certainty when we talk about computer vs computer chess matches. :) Or, that the only thing that is certain is that the result is uncertain. :)
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.