Author: martin fierz
Date: 05:19:20 09/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2004 at 12:18:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 15, 2004 at 10:32:53, martin fierz wrote: > >>On September 15, 2004 at 09:53:53, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>Anyone know of some code somewhere that implements >>>at least part (or all) of the originally described >>>singular extension and/or any modifications to it that >>>have proven worthwhile (if any)? >>> >>>I am curious what mediocre (or better) results people >>>have gotten with singular extension. Originally Anantharaman >>>hypothesized that it wouldn't be good at the slower >>>speeds of most programs at the time and would require >>>fast speeds to show effect. Has this proven true or >>>false in the intervening 15 years? >>> >>>Is singular extension now generally discredited as a >>>non-reproducible singularity in and of itself? >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Stuart >> >>AFAIK, SE is 'interesting' in the sense that it does enable programs to solve >>certain positions faster, but of course you pay a price. and again AFAIK, nobody >>is really using it these days, because the price seems too high to pay. i.e. in >>games it's no improvement. >> >>just because the deep blue team used SE doesn't mean it's any good. remember, >>they also decided not to use null-move, which was an established concept by >>then. >> >>cheers >> martin > >Remember also that _others_ use/used SE. Cray Blitz did starting in 1993. >Wchess (Kittinger used the PV-singular half of SE.) I suspect others did/do as >well. IE we know that Ferret had an implementation of SE. of course others used SE. if deep blue had been using *anything*, others would have tried it too. like everybody playing the kings indian after kasparov did... i have never seen anybody claim that SE is of any use. lots of people must have tried to get it working after all the miracles that were promised. nobody here is using it or claiming it's any good. i think that is a clear enough indication that SE is not very useful. for example, there is an SE-version of crafty. if it was significantly stronger than the normal version of crafty, we would know about it. people are testing these programs all the time. one paper on the subject won't change my opinion. as an unrelated example, michael buro et al published that (multi-?)-probcut would significantly increase crafty's playing strength. when people here tested the MPC-crafty more thoroughly, the promised gains didn't materialize IIRC. contrast this with something like nullmove. everybody here is using it, and everybody is saying it works. everybody uses check extensions and say they help. if SE was that great, it would be the same for SE. cheers martin
This page took 0.01 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.