Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:37:34 08/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2005 at 11:52:26, Darrel Briley wrote:
>On August 11, 2005 at 20:57:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On August 11, 2005 at 14:37:56, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On August 11, 2005 at 14:00:24, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 11, 2005 at 13:57:36, Madhavan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 11, 2005 at 13:53:37, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On August 11, 2005 at 12:55:10, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1. Fruit
>>>>>>>2. Shredder
>>>>>>>3. Junior
>>>>>>>4. Crafty
>>>>>>>5. Zappa
>>>>>>>6. Diep
>>>>>>>7. Sjeng
>>>>>>>8. Jonny
>>>>>>>9. IsiChess
>>>>>>>10. My_fute
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That will be a miracle. A single opteron CPU (single core) is 2x as fast as a
>>>>>>3.0ghz pentium. I, at least, will be running on 8 of 'em. That is a tough
>>>>>>disadvantage to overcome...
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't forget Fruit beta has got another 100 elo improvement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't matter at all. a speed advantage of 16x is huge. Not insurmountable,
>>>>but _huge_ and very difficult to overcome.
>>>
>>>I guess that it does not gives more than 150-200 elo improvement because of
>>>diminishing return that means that being twice faster give only 40-50 elo
>>>improvement at long time control and not 70 elo.
>>>
>>>It seems that public fruit is about 150-200 elo better than public Crafty.
>>>I expect both WCCC fruit and WCCC Crafty to be better than the public version so
>>>it seems to me that fruit and Crafty have equal chances.
>>>
>>>Maybe Crafty has better chances because you could learn from Fruit's evaluation
>>>so you improved Crafty more than Fabien improved Fruit but only you can tell if
>>>looking at the source of fruit helped you to improve Crafty.
>>
>>That I can answer easily. I've not looked at the source of fruit. So there's
>>no way it could have helped. In fact, I haven't even seen a game fruit vs
>>crafty so I have no idea how the thing plays.
>>
>>My comment was solely about speed. a factor of 16 (over 3.0ghz) is 4 doublings,
>>each doubling is certainly worth something. Whether it will make Crafty
>>stronger than fruit, I won't speculate about since I have no idea how they
>>compare on equal hardware with reasonable opening book moves. But given two
>>programs that are within a hundred rating points of each other, I'd be
>>hard-pressed to not pick the one that is suddenly 12-16X faster...
>>
>>That was my only point. I don't know that I'll win a single game. But I do
>>know that it is going to be hell to beat the thing. I've seen 15 ply searches
>>in 5 3 games on ICC in the middlegame. I saw 16-17 ply middlegame searches
>>against Junior in the next-to-last CCT which Crafty won on a quad cpu box. This
>>one is 2x faster...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Also I don't believe the +100 elo stuff anyway, otherwise all the programs would
>>>>be rated 3600 and up by now...
>>>
>>>I also do not believe the +100 elo stuff for fruit in this version but the stuff
>>>is only about fruit so I do not see how you get your conclusion about other
>>>programs.
>>
>>Simple. Every year, every new version, "the new version is 60-80-100 elo
>>stronger than last year's version." Seen that over and over and over. :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>The +100 elo stuff was correct for Fruit in the past and it is a fact that fruit
>>>improved faster than other programs
>>>
>>>Fruit2.0 was already above Crafty level on one cpu and Fruit2.1 is slightly more
>>>than 100 elo better than fruit2.0 based on the CEGT rating list.
>>>
>>>Uri
>
>Bob may not have noticed (or payed it much attention since it was a blitz game),
>but I used Fruit 2.1 against 8x Crafty in one game. Score follows.
>
>
>[Event "ICC 5 3"]
>[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
>[Date "2005.08.10"]
>[Round "-"]
>[White "Frutit 2.1"]
>[Black "crafty"]
>[Result "0-1"]
>[ICCResult "Crafty"]
>[WhiteElo "3020"]
>[BlackElo "2813"]
>[Opening "Sicilian: Richter-Rauzer, Rauzer attack, 7...a6"]
>[ECO "B66"]
>[NIC "SI.29"]
>[Time "23:22:40"]
>[TimeControl "300+3"]
>
>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8.
>O-O-O h6 9. Be3 Be7 10. f4 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 b5 12. Qe3 Bb7 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14.
>Bd3 b4 15. Ne2 Qa5 16. Kb1 Rc8 17. Rhe1 Qc5 18. Qg3 Bf8 19. Nd4 Qa5 20. f5
>e5 21. Nb3 Qb6 22. Nd2 Qc5 23. h3 Qc7 24. Bc4 a5 25. Bb5+ Bc6 26. Bxc6+ Qxc6
>27. Rc1 a4 28. c3 b3 29. axb3 axb3 30. Nxb3 Rb8 31. Nd2 Qb5 32. Rc2 h5 33.
>c4 Qa5 34. Qc3 Qa6 35. Rd1 Ra8 36. b3 Bh6 37. Nf3 O-O 38. Qb2 Rfb8 39. Rc3
>Rb6 40. g4 Qa7 41. g5 fxg5 42. h4 g4 43. Ng5 Ra6 44. Rcd3 Ra1+ 45. Kc2 Ra2
>46. Rxd6 Bf8 47. R6d5 Bb4 48. Rd8+ Kg7 49. f6+ Kg6 50. Rg8+ Rxg8 51. Nh3
>Rxb2+ 52. Kxb2 Ra8 53. Nf4+ exf4 54. Rd5 Qa1+ 55. Kc2 Ra2+ 56. Kd3 Rd2#
>{White checkmated}
>0-1
>
>Fruit showed a pretty good advantage in the eval for most of the game, that is
>until those Q-side pawns came crashing down.
>
>It's only a blitz game, but as a result I've revised my thinking on Fruit's
>chances. Lack of multi-processor support and using the hardware provided
>locally (PIV 3Ghz) will keep Fruit from being a serious contender.
>
> DB
You forget that you used the public version of fruit when bob used better
version of Crafty.
I believe that fruit WCCC is better than fruit that played in this game.
It may be interesting to know at what move Crafty started to see an advantage
for itself.
Maybe some improvement in the king safety evaluation could help fruit.
Fruit is free source code so I can know that public fruit does not evaluate
attackers that do not attack directly squares near the king so at move 40 it did
not evaluate the rook a8 as additional attacker(it gave it small bonus for other
reasons like open file or being at distance of one file from the opponent king
but it was not enough) and I think that other evaluation terms to evaluate
better king safety are missing from public fruit.
I think that fabien needs some code to tell fruit that lack of pawns near the
king is more important when the opponent attacks the squares near the king
because if I understand fruit's code correctly lack of pawn shield and king
attack are different terms in fruit's code.
Public Fruit needs too much time to see that black is better at move 40 of the
game and I think that in the type of position that happened fruit's evaluation
is worse than Crafty and other programs.
Crafty's evaluation is not symmetric but even from black side it can see that
white is not a pawn up at move 39 when fruit is uncapable of doing it.
Here is some analysis of both fruit and old Crafty on the same old
hardware(A1000)
Frutit 2.1 - crafty, ICC 5 3 Internet Chess Club 2005
rr4k1/5p2/q2p1p1b/4pP1p/2P1P3/1PR2N1P/1Q4P1/1K1R4 b - - 0 1
Analysis by Fruit 2.1:
39...h4 40.Nxh4
+- (1.75) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00
39...Qb6
± (1.26) Depth: 1/8 00:00:00
39...Qc6
± (1.18) Depth: 1/8 00:00:00
39...Bf4
± (1.13) Depth: 1/8 00:00:00
39...Ra7
± (1.11) Depth: 1/8 00:00:00
39...Kh7
± (0.98) Depth: 1/8 00:00:00
39...Kh7 40.Rcd3
± (1.09) Depth: 2/8 00:00:00
39...Kh7 40.Rcd3 Qc6
± (1.04) Depth: 3/8 00:00:00
39...Qc6 40.Qe2 Kh7
± (0.97) Depth: 3/8 00:00:00
39...Qc6 40.Rd5 Kh7 41.Rcd3
± (1.03) Depth: 4/10 00:00:00
39...Qc6 40.Rd5 Kh7 41.g4 hxg4 42.hxg4
± (0.99) Depth: 5/18 00:00:00
39...Qc6 40.Rd5 Kh7 41.Rcd3 Ra7 42.Rd1
± (1.02) Depth: 6/18 00:00:00 26kN
39...Qc6 40.Rd5 Kh7 41.Rcd3 Ra7 42.Nd2 Bxd2 43.Qxd2
± (1.05) Depth: 7/22 00:00:00 89kN
39...Kh7 40.Rcd3 Qc6 41.Rd5 Be3 42.R1d3 Bf4 43.Rxd6 Qxe4
± (1.00) Depth: 7/24 00:00:00 128kN
39...Rb7 40.Rd5 Kh7 41.Rcd3 Rab8 42.Qc2 Qa4
± (0.93) Depth: 7/24 00:00:01 179kN
39...Rb7 40.Rd5 Kh7 41.g4 hxg4 42.hxg4 Qc6 43.Rcd3 Bf4 44.Rxd6 Qxe4
± (0.95) Depth: 8/24 00:00:01 277kN
39...Ra7 40.Rd5 Kh7 41.g4 hxg4 42.hxg4 Qc6 43.Rcd3 Bf4 44.Rxd6 Qxe4
± (0.93) Depth: 8/24 00:00:02 481kN
39...Ra7 40.Rd5 Kh7 41.g4 hxg4 42.hxg4 Qc6 43.Rcd3 Bf4 44.Rd1
± (1.00) Depth: 9/24 00:00:03 669kN
39...Kh7 40.Rcd3 Qb7 41.Re1 Qc6 42.g4 hxg4 43.hxg4 Ra7 44.Rd5
± (0.95) Depth: 9/25 00:00:04 892kN
39...Kh7 40.Rd5 Rb4 41.g4 hxg4 42.hxg4 Qb7 43.Rcd3 Rb8 44.Rxd6 Rxb3 45.Rxb3 Qxb3
± (0.85) Depth: 10/32 00:00:07 1708kN
39...Kh7 40.Rd5 Rb4 41.g4 hxg4 42.hxg4 Rab8 43.Rdd3 Qc6 44.Qe2 Qa4 45.Qb2
± (0.81) Depth: 11/32 00:00:13 3570kN
39...Kh7 40.Rd5 Rb4 41.g4 hxg4 42.hxg4 Rab8 43.Nd2 Qb6 44.Kc2 Qg1 45.Rxd6 Qxg4
46.Rxf6
± (0.76) Depth: 12/35 00:00:24 6954kN
39...Kh7 40.Rd5 Rb4 41.g4 hxg4 42.hxg4 Rab8 43.Nd2 Qb6 44.Kc2 Qg1 45.Rxd6 Qxg4
46.Rxf6
± (0.76) Depth: 13/37 00:00:49 14560kN
39...Kh7 40.Rd5 Rb4 41.g3 Rab8 42.g4 hxg4 43.hxg4 Qb7 44.Kc2 Rg8 45.Rcd3 Rxg4
46.Kb1 Qa8 47.Rxd6 Qxe4
² (0.62) Depth: 14/38 00:03:39 67630kN
(Blass, Tel-Aviv 12.08.2005)
Frutit 2.1 - crafty, ICC 5 3 Internet Chess Club 2005
rr4k1/5p2/q2p1p1b/4pP1p/2P1P3/1PR2N1P/1Q4P1/1K1R4 b - - 0 1
Analysis by Crafty 19.13:
39...Rb4
³ (-0.31) Depth: 1/9 00:00:00
39...Rb4 40.Kc2
² (0.41) Depth: 2/9 00:00:00
39...Bf4 40.Kc2
² (0.31) Depth: 2/9 00:00:00
39...Qc6 40.Qe2
= (0.23) Depth: 2/9 00:00:00
39...Qc6 40.Qe2 Rb4
= (-0.09) Depth: 3/9 00:00:00
39...Qc6 40.Qe2 Ra3 41.Kc2
= (0.17) Depth: 4/11 00:00:00
39...Qc6 40.Rd5 Rb4 41.g4 hxg4 42.hxg4
= (0.02) Depth: 5/15 00:00:00
39...Qc6 40.Qe2 Rb4 41.Qd3 Ra6 42.Kc2
= (0.16) Depth: 6/18 00:00:00 84kN
39...Rb4 40.g4 Qc6 41.Qe2
= (0.09) Depth: 6/18 00:00:00 113kN
39...Rb4 40.g4 hxg4 41.Rg1 Kf8 42.Rxg4 Bf4
² (0.47) Depth: 7/18 00:00:01 208kN
39...Qc6 40.Rd5 Bf4 41.g3 Bh6 42.g4 hxg4 43.hxg4
² (0.34) Depth: 7/18 00:00:02 390kN
39...Qb7 40.Rd5 Qb4 41.Rcd3 Rb6 42.Qc3 Qa3
² (0.27) Depth: 7/18 00:00:02 616kN
39...Rb6 40.g4 Qb7 41.Qc2 Rba6 42.Qd3 Ra1+ 43.Kc2
= (0.17) Depth: 7/18 00:00:02 674kN
39...Rb6 40.Rd5 Qb7 41.Rcd3 Qc7 42.Qf2 Bf4 43.Qh4
= (0.20) Depth: 8/20 00:00:04 1013kN
39...Rb6 40.Rd5 Qb7 41.Rcd3 Qc7 42.g4 hxg4 43.hxg4 Bf4 44.Qc2
² (0.30) Depth: 9/22 00:00:06 2097kN
39...Rb6 40.Kc2 Qa7 41.Nd2 Ra6 42.Rg3+ Bg7 43.Qc3 Ra2+ 44.Kd3 Qf2 45.Re3 Qxg2
= (0.13) Depth: 10/24 00:00:18 7193kN
39...Rb6 40.g4 Qb7 41.Rd5 hxg4 42.Nh2 gxh3 43.Rxh3 Bg5 44.Ng4 Rb8 45.Kc2
² (0.36) Depth: 11/27 00:00:29 11951kN
39...Rb4 40.g4 Qb7 41.Rxd6 Qxe4+ 42.Rdd3 Qb7 43.Rd5 e4 44.Nd4 hxg4 45.hxg4 e3
² (0.26) Depth: 11/27 00:00:48 20685kN
39...Rb4 40.Rd5 Rb6 41.Kc2 Qa7 42.Qb1 Qb7 43.g4 hxg4 44.Qg1 Ra2+ 45.Kb1 Rxb3+
46.Kxa2 Rxc3 47.Qxg4+
² (0.47) Depth: 12/30 00:03:01 82136kN
39...Rb6 40.Kc2 Qa7 41.Kd3 Ra6 42.Qe2 Ra2 43.Qe1 Rb2 44.g4 hxg4 45.hxg4 Qc5
= (-0.02) Depth: 12/30 00:04:27 122440kN
39...Rb6 40.Kc2 Qa7 41.Kd3 Ra6 42.Qe2 Ra2 43.Qe1 Rb2 44.Qg1 Qb7 45.g4 Rxb3
46.gxh5+
= (0.13) Depth: 13/33 00:05:18 146094kN
(Blass, Tel-Aviv 12.08.2005)
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.