Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:46:35 08/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 2005 at 23:53:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 15, 2005 at 21:41:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 15, 2005 at 21:21:46, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On August 15, 2005 at 20:54:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 15, 2005 at 19:35:25, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 15, 2005 at 16:55:58, Thomas Mayer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 15, 2005 at 16:41:40, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 15, 2005 at 16:21:31, Theo van der Storm wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>C:\DOSEXE\PGN.EXE -d -x wccc13.pgn >>>>>>>> # Name 1 2 3 4 P BU SB G >>>>>>>> 1 Crafty 3b= 4b1 10w1 9b1 3.5 8.0 6.50 4 >>>>>>>> 2 Zappa 9w1 6b1 5w1 11b= 3.5 6.0 5.75 4 >>>>>>>> 3 Shredder 1w= 10b1 9w1 6b= 3.0 7.5 4.75 4 >>>>>>>> 4 Deep Junior 11b1 1w0 7b1 10w1 3.0 7.0 3.50 4 >>>>>>>> 5 Fruit 7b1 8w1 2b0 12w= 2.5 7.5 3.75 4 >>>>>>>> 6 Deep Sjeng 8b= 2w0 12b1 3w= 2.0 8.5 2.75 4 >>>>>>>> 7 Jonny 5w0 11b1 4w0 8w1 2.0 7.5 2.00 4 >>>>>>>> 8 The Baron 6w= 5b0 11w1 7b0 1.5 7.0 1.50 4 >>>>>>>> 9 The Crazy Bishop 2b0 12w1 3b0 1w0 1.0 10.5 0.50 4 >>>>>>>> 10 Diep 12b1 3w0 1b0 4b0 1.0 10.0 0.50 4 >>>>>>>> 11 Fute_MT 4w0 7w0 8b0 2w= 0.5 10.0 1.75 4 >>>>>>>> 12 IsiChess MMX 10w0 9b0 6w0 5b= 0.5 6.5 1.25 4 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> # Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P BU SB >>>>>>>> 1 Crafty X . ½ 1 . . . . 1 1 . . 3.5 8.0 6.50 >>>>>>>> 2 Zappa . X . . 1 1 . . 1 . ½ . 3.5 6.0 5.75 >>>>>>>> 3 Shredder ½ . X . . ½ . . 1 1 . . 3.0 7.5 4.75 >>>>>>>> 4 Deep Junior 0 . . X . . 1 . . 1 1 . 3.0 7.0 3.50 >>>>>>>> 5 Fruit . 0 . . X . 1 1 . . . ½ 2.5 7.5 3.75 >>>>>>>> 6 Deep Sjeng . 0 ½ . . X . ½ . . . 1 2.0 8.5 2.75 >>>>>>>> 7 Jonny . . . 0 0 . X 1 . . 1 . 2.0 7.5 2.00 >>>>>>>> 8 The Baron . . . . 0 ½ 0 X . . 1 . 1.5 7.0 1.50 >>>>>>>> 9 The Crazy Bishop 0 0 0 . . . . . X . . 1 1.0 10.5 0.50 >>>>>>>> 10 Diep 0 . 0 0 . . . . . X . 1 1.0 10.0 0.50 >>>>>>>> 11 Fute_MT . ½ . 0 . . 0 0 . . X . 0.5 10.0 1.75 >>>>>>>> 12 IsiChess MMX . . . . ½ 0 . . 0 0 . X 0.5 6.5 1.25 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Is there a hardware listing somewhere yet? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I am guessing that Fruit is the only one in the top six that is running on a >>>>>>>single CPU. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Against Crafty (for instance) there is about 6-7x speed difference (as a rough >>>>>>>estimate). I am curious about the other hardware. >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi Dann, >>>>>> >>>>>>all I know currently is, that Diep & Crafty play on 8-way boxes, Shredder, >>>>>>Junior & Zappa on 4-way, Deep Sjeng on Dual an the rest on single... For Jonny >>>>>>it should be Athlon 64 with 2.6 GHz internally, Fruit is 2.4 GHz... >>>>>>I think Gerd has his own Athlon 64 with him which is afaik 2.2 GHz -> The rest >>>>>>is probably P4 3.0 GHz >>>>>> >>>>>>Greets, Thomas >>>>> >>>>>Crafty has really shown me some very good chess in this tournament. Crafty has >>>>>shown some holes in its play before. I don't see them so far in this tournament. >>>>>This has to be more then just 8 cpu's and 16 million nodes a sec helping >>>>>Crafty's play. For this to happen Crafty must has also stepped up a notch on the >>>>>programming side. Speed is great, but speed can't always fix holes in a programs >>>>>play. As shown by Diep for example who also plays on a 8 way. Bob looks like a >>>>>big threat for any program in this touranment, and it is no fluke that Crafty is >>>>>in first place. Bob has to be considered a favorite to win this tournament. I >>>>>would not have said that 2 days ago. >>>> >>>> >>>>I still wouldn't say it myself. :) >>> >>>You may not want to say it, but you see what I see...I bet. :) It is not easy to >>>bring everything together when playing in WCCC. You may have done it this year. >>>All the best Bob. Good Luck. >> >> >>There are a couple of issues at least. Yes, the thing is very fast, which tends >>to mean that everyone else is searching a perfect sub-tree of what crafty is >>searching. That is a serious problem for them. If you ever play against >>someone with much faster hardware, you'll see this effect. You play the best >>move you can find, yet your eval continually drops. This simply means you are >>getting out-searched. TCB played well today, it just got out-searched pretty >>badly. The other issue is the "luck factor". A good program can have bad luck >>and lose against anybody in Iceland. A bad program can have a bit of luck in a >>single game, and be capable of beating anyone playing there. I just have to >>hope that I'm not the recipient of that bad luck. >> >>Also, there are some very strong opponents left. Anthony's program (zappa) is >>certainly highly dangerous. Don't know much about Fruit, but from all the >>comments here, it is highly capable of winning games. It is going to have its >>hands full against Crafty's search speed, but I can clearly remember both Cray >>Blitz and Deep Thought losing a game here and there against _far_ slower >>programs that also had less chess knowledge. >> >>In the shredder game, Crafty played well. It pushed hard and pushed into a >>position where it had an eval of almost -2.0, which means it was simply >>out-searching shredder for the most part (ignoring shredder's selective search >>stuff of course). > >I am not sure if better position means outsearching the opponent and it can be >simply result of better evaluation. > >better hardware does not mean automatically outsearching the opponent and it may >be interesting to see if Crafty outsearches fruit in middle game positions after >the tournament. I can test any positions you want. I don't recall a search less than 15 plies deep so far during the WCCC, and most are 16 and up... > > > It then was a little optimistic in its evaluation with the >>opponent's two connected passers, something I had seen a couple of times in test >>games against shredder on ICC. Was afraid to try to fix that so close to the >>tournament, because changes to the eval can have effects far beyond just the >>things being looked at. >> >>The deep junior game saw DJ self-destruct with the BN for RP sacrifice. No idea >>what caused that, other than probably king-safety turned up too high to reward >>aggressive play. > >Maybe good preperation of peter berger to go to positions that Junior does not >know how to play? Impossible. How to get access to their book to know where they will go? How to get access to their program to know how it will react and what it handles poorly? We didn't have time for that kind of experimentation, even if we had had access to the current DJ program and hardware... > >Note that I am not sure that the sacrifice was so bad because fruit also likes >it but does not continue like Junior but go to trade pieces. It is bad. Period. Just based on general principles... > >15.Bxf7+ Qxf7 16.Qxf7+Kxf7 17.Nc4 is forced from black and the question is how >to evaluate the following position: > >[D]r1b5/npp2kpp/1b1p4/pP2p2n/P1N1P3/2PP4/5PPP/R1B2RK1 b - - 0 17 > >As a player I tended to prefer black but fruit2.1 evaluates it as equality and I >guess that fruit is right because when I am not sure about evaluation I tend to >believe that fruit has better evaluation than me. I don't make such assumptions. I tend to trust a program's search more than my personal search, but not its evaluation. I'd take my "evaluation" (my human understanding) over any program I have ever seen... > >probably bad trade is more important when there are a lot of piece on the board >and here white has superior pawn structure and white pieces seem to be more >active. > > > > But you don't want to go overboard on aggressive play if your >>opponent is likely out-searching you due to superior hardware. > >I do not think that superior hardware is relevant here and Junior simply lost >because of bad evaluation in this type of position. > > >Uri You don't succumb to speculative sacrivices if you are out-searching your opponent. Speculative sacrifices generally work because the opponent makes a mistake. But if he is way out-searching you, that probably isn't going to happen...
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.