Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:53:16 09/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2005 at 01:44:33, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 18, 2005 at 00:51:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 18, 2005 at 00:36:15, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >> >>>On September 17, 2005 at 23:53:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 17, 2005 at 22:33:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 17, 2005 at 17:02:09, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Take a time control of 40 in 2 with pocket fritz against crafty without nullmove >>>>>and give crafty factor 1000 in nps extra. >>>>> >>>>>Deep Blue didn't use nullmove either. >>>> >>>>What does null move have to do with it? >>>> >>>>In 1996 there wasn't a computer on the planet that could beat deep blue. This >>>>is almost 10 years later. >>>> >>>>What is the point of this discussion??? >>>> >>>>Just a very lame attempt at starting a flame war, about a statement I supposedly >>>>made? (a statement I did _not_ make by the way)... >>>> >>> >>>I dont know about the flamewar part (I thought Vincent did not start the thread) >>>, but the 'without null move part' might be referring to the fact of deep blue >>>not using it. >>>Actually a good test would be : >>> >>>1) 1000x nps advantage >>>2) No null move >>>3) Use full singular extension as 'explained' by them. >> >>This is a completely worthless experiment. Take out my null-move search. >>Attempt to graft their singular extensions onto my program. What about my >>evaluation? My search extensions? How could one possibly add and remove bits >>and pieces of Crafty, to make something into the approximate skill of deep blue? >> >>Next, why is this important? My 1000x statement had nothing to do with >>null-move vs no null-move... >> >>> >>>I suspect (3) _will_ kill your search and keep the searchdepths much below what >>>the pocket fritz will get :) >> >>I don't think so. I had their full SE implemented in Cray Blitz. Its cost was >>almost 2 plies. But then tactically it was reaching very deep stuff to offset >>that. I've never found a workable SE that impressed me as "this is really good" >>when it comes to Crafty... >> >>On the quad opteron, my search depth would then probably drop to 13 plies. But >>then I get a factor of 1000X faster. My branching factor would be closer to 6 >>with no null-move, which would ramp me up by 4 plies without null move, or 10 >>plies with normal null move and a branching factor of around 2.0... >> >> >> >>> >>>So , even though Deep blue might have been invicible from programs of that age's >>>standards - it will get royally kicked around by even weak amateur programs of >>>today (bugfree ones ofcourse) running on modern hardware ! >>> >>>Regards, >>>Mridul >> >>again, based on what? Null-move is not generally credited with making a program >>200 Elo stronger. I might one day run some decent-length games with null vs >>non-null to see what the actual rating difference would be for Crafty, then one >>might actually extrapolate what 1000x faster hardware would do by actually >>playing that time-odds match as well. Then we don't need to guess, speculate, >>or anything else... >> >>I'll remind you that a few years ago (I don't remember exactly when although you >>can find precise mention of the experiment here) I had the chance to play Crafty >>(I think on some quad box, which one I really don't remember) against Cray Blitz >>(less singular extensions, the version on the machine I had access to did not >>have that version) on a T932. Thing was searching about 7M nodes per second. >>It gave crafty a pretty good drubbing. And Cray Blitz on that machine could not >>touch deep thought, much less deep blue, based on actual OTB games against them >>at ACM events... > >I think that saying that it could not touch deep thought on that machine is >misleading because I remember that Cray blitz that played on tournaments >searched significantly less than 7M nodes per seconds. > >If you want to claim that latest Cray blitz on the machine that searched 7M >nodes per second was probably weaker than Deep Thought then you cannot use data >about tournaments when Cray blitz searched 200K nodes per second or 500 Knodes >per seconds. > >Uri Bob, you should give us a couple of statements about possibilities to compare something with chess programs and machines. Also, your sentence above is really difficult to say the least: "against Cray Blitz (less singular extensions, the version on the machine I had access to did not have that version) on a T932." Could you clarify what is "version" and "version"? - BTW I've understood it now after the third read. Your test version hadn't this with less singular extensions, what Crray however had formerly. Is that correct? Further I want to support Uri with his questioning of comparing something actual with something weaker from ACM tournaments. Or did you mean that you re-played and analysed your former games with the actual version (of Cray Blitz)?
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.