Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:18:13 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 18:37:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 18:27:11, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 12, 2005 at 14:26:59, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2005 at 14:02:53, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>> >>>>On January 12, 2005 at 13:01:29, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 12:42:05, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>So let me see if I understand this conversation correctly. >>>>>> >>>>>>1. I state that the 6 man tables are worth 100 elo >>>>> >>>>>I thought you were joking, but obviously I was wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>>I have no quantitative way of accurately guessing this too - but "depends on >>>>program" maynot be a wrong statement ? >>>>And both are definitely agreeing that there is a non-trivial improvement in >>>>performance - right ? Then why disagree for the sake of disagreeing !!!! >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>2. You disagree, and state they are worth 50 elo >>>>>> >>>>>>3. You do this by pulling numbers out of your *** >>>>>> >>>>>>4. Since the full 6-man set hasn't been generated, and the elo gain is almost >>>>>>certainly different for different programs, we are both guessing. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, but in this case Uri's guess is much more educated. >>>> >>>>Hmm , I dont see how - just 'cos there was a "women" reference ? :) >>>>Jokes apart - the point to be taken is - they could be a SIGNIFICANT improvement >>>>: and would be the world of difference between a loss and a draw (or a draw and >>>>a win). >>>>Depends on how you eval , and what you do in your search (extensions and qsearch >>>>/threat detection). >>>>Ofcourse , if you have a junk endgame eval with quiet decent middle game eval - >>>>your improvement can be much higher than what both of them quote ! >>>> >>>>But are we not quibbling over nitty gritty details ?? 50 , 100 , 125 - what does >>>>it matter : it would be a substantial improvement !!! >>> >>>In 20 years, we might be able to memory map the whole 6 man set. >>>That would yield a stupendous Elo increase for endgames. >> >>in 20 years computers will be very fast. >> >>faster computer mean less blunders without tablebases and mean that tablebases >>are less important. >> >>I suspect that if you wait 20 years more than 90% of the comp-comp games in the >>high level will be drawn even without the 6 piece set and 6 piece set will have >>smaller influence relative to the influence that it has today. > >If you memory map the tablebase files, there is almost zero cost for a probe. >It may be worthwhile someday also to memory map 7 man bitbase files. With a 64 >bit CPU, 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 is the address space (per CPU). > >An oracle that is 100% certain to have absolutely correct information and which >has almost zero cost for the info lookup will be a superior solution. > >The addition of code to compute endgames will necessarily slow down evaluation >and complicate the code base. > >If the average user had 16 GB Ram systems now (and even now such a system can be >purchased for about $12,000) then the existing 5 man tablebase files could all >be memory mapped. > >I predict that in this case, there will be a very large Elo boost, even for the >5 man tables. I base this upon the substantial Elo boost which has been >measured for bitbase files, which provide inferior information to that of a >tablebase. The benefit of a bitbase file is that it can be held in memory much >more easily. What evidence do you have for substantial Elo boost for bitbase files. What time control is used? Uri
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.