Author: Mark Young
Date: 06:34:50 07/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2005 at 21:38:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 30, 2005 at 21:47:25, Robin Smith wrote: > >>On June 30, 2005 at 20:29:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 30, 2005 at 16:08:32, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >>> >>>>On June 30, 2005 at 11:34:18, Evgeny Shu wrote: >>>> >>>>>http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2485 >>>> >>>> >>>>Now this surprises me a bit: >>>> >>>>"I wasn’t really concerned about that possibility. In any case it would be >>>>impossible for me to tell, because Hydra plays a very different game to any >>>>other computer that I ever saw. Even in these six games it actually played >>>>differently to anything I saw in its own previous games, so it’s not easy to >>>>judge. But no, I don’t have any suspicions about human intervention. That’s not >>>>something that concerned me." >>>> >>>>A replayed the matches live on Hiarcs 9.6 and Fruit 2.1 on my 2 computers, and I >>>>would say above 95% of Hydras moves were suggested by at least one of them. >>>>Especially Fruit did very well in predicting Hydras moves. >>>>Therefore the sentence "Hydra palys a very different game to any other computer >>>>that I ever saw" leaves me a bit out in the cold. >>>> >>>>regrads >>>>Andy >>> >>> >>>It's a little hyperbole and a lot of exaggeration. :) I had crafty analyzing >>>most of the games live on ICC and it as well as most other programs predicted >>>Hydras moves _very_ accurately... >> >>Please define "_very_ accurately". 100% of the time? :-) Or are you running >>Crafty (or pehaps a stable of engines) and noticing that the engine(s), at some >>depth or another, show the same move as Hydra most of the time. How often did >>Crafty come up with the same move as Hydra when given the exact same amount of >>thinking time? I haven't tested this, but I'll bet it is less than 95%. > >In one game where I kept the log, Crafty got 36 of 37 moves right (it keeps up >with this in the log file). Crafty was searching as moves were relayed on ICC, >so I have no idea how the moves were relayed there with respect to real-time at >the game site. > > >> >>And even if Crafty did predict Adams' moves (once out of book) perhaps as much >>as 95% of the time, even that does not mean that Hydra didn't put much more >>pressure on Adams than Crafty or other PC engines would have. At the highest >>levels of chess it only takes a move or two per game to make a big difference. >>One slip by the computer and the presure is off. More presure->"very different >>game" (at least from a subjective human perspective such as Adams') even if all >>the other moves would have been the same. >> > > >My point was that Hydra is most _certainly_ not some new level of computer chess >as stated by Adams. I wouldn't argue against it being the best computer chess >entity at the moment. But it is absolutely _not_ head and shoulders above >others. The advantage I have is that I have a lot of experience with parallel >and distributed search, and know the losses that a distributed search entails >compared to a pure SMP approach. And even if they are currently reaching 200M >nodes per second, which I somehow doubt given the FPGA numbers they have >published in the past, that is not _that_ much faster than other readily >available hardware. I've seen numbers well beyond 20M for Crafty on a quad >dual-core opteron, for example. I've seen numbers more than double that on >other machines I can't really mention at the moment. So they are not _that_ far >beyond today's programs. Clearly Adam's comments are based on some other >reality or understanding that is not based on factual analysis. > > > > > > >>Then there is also the issue of opening books. Hydra leaves book faster than >>most top programs, because the Hydra team believes Hydra handles being out of >>book and finding good TN's better than other programs. Leaving book earlier is >>already, all by itself, a radically different game, in spite of how many of >>Hydra's subsequent moves the PC's might find. > >Many programs have done this. All the way back to the 1970's. It is not a new >idea at all. Many use very selective books for such matches also. And it has >its dangers if the human chooses to attack such a book. Too many lines that >appear to win a pawn to a 15 ply search, but 25 ply searches would show that the >pawn was poisoned... That is a _huge_ risk for those willing to take it on by >playing to a book weakness... > > > > >> >>I am certain Adams has played many games against PC engines. I am certain Hydra >>seemed subjectively, to Adams, as stronger and harder to handle than these PC >>programs. This means that Adams statement "Hydra plays a very different game" >>would, from Adams' perspective, be completely true; even though PC's can predict >>most of Hydra's moves. > > >I simply believe it is hyperbole. I know too many GM players that both watched >the games, and have played thousands of games against computers, and they simply >said "it played pretty good chess, very good tactically, less good >strategically, and the opponent simply played the wrong style of chess to beat >the machine." I had too much exposure to deep blue, and saw the exact same >thing back in the deep thought and deep blue days. OK strategic chess, >excellent tactical chess, no giant breakthrough at all... Just a big >computational edge. In 1996 DB's edge was 100X faster than the micros of the >day. Today Hydra's edge is not even 4x. 4x is significant, but not >unbeatable... > > > > > > >> >>I think your claim above regarding Adams could be a little hyperbole and a lot >>of exaggeration. :) >> >>-Robin Good post Bob. Bull's-eye. >Think what you want. If Hydra blows through the WCCC undefeated, your point >might have a chance. I doubt it will... This is an interesting question. How will Hydra do playing against the best PC programs? I do think Hydra is the strongest computer/player. I don't think Hydra is unbeatable. We do know a "weak" human player with the help of some PC chess programs, can best Hydra in a tournament.(:P) This suggest Hydra can not be light years ahead of the best PC chess programs, even with them running on average hardware.
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.