Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:11:32 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 19:18:13, Uri Blass wrote: >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? I have seen the results of several experiments (at least two of them on the Winboard forum were discussed) and also have done my own experiments. I have not seen evidence of substantial gain for tablebase files, but there is clear evidence for bitbase files. You can easily perform your own experiments with patzer and yace. You will see benefit at every time control.
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.