Author: martin fierz
Date: 06:20:05 09/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2004 at 08:39:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 16, 2004 at 08:19:20, martin fierz wrote: > >>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. > > >1. It worked for CB. how do you know it worked? >2. Kittinger used it for several years in Wchess and claimed it worked well for >him, using a "partial implementation". how do you know it worked? >3. Ferret used it. how do you know it worked? >4. HiTech used it. how do you know it worked? ok, ok, i'll skip the rest :-) these are all private programs, where nobody can verify independently what it helps or what not. SE may be fun to play around with, but has anybody ever stood on a soap box and said "my program gains XXX elo by SE"? this statement is different from "it works". i have stuff in my program that "works", but i can't put down a number as to whether it really helps or not. generating checks in qsearch is such an example. my program finds many things much earlier in ply-terms and earlier in time with checks in QS. does it help actual play? i don't know... but it works in the sense i wanted it to work. >That conclusion is flawed. It says more about the _implementation_ than it does >the idea itself. Others have had success with it as I mentioned above. others have said they had success with it. that is not the same. i have seen no proof anywhere, and as MPC-crafty suggests, you should never trust the guys who invented an algorithm. i know of no independent tests. cheers martin
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.