Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 10:44:30 08/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2004 at 13:24:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. :) :-) Correct, but we made it certain a little more not in the way we wanted...:-) 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.