Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 12:34:09 12/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
of course some people claimed : it is a fruit clone. but the program plays
completely different-.
fruit is a straight fast searcher. it is strong. but no new paradigm.
but rybka. i have the feeling this will be difficult for all others.
looking at some of my game material i have...2400 mhz
40 mins 20 moves 2005
123456789012345678901234
1 Rybka 1.0 Beta ½½½10½½01½110½½1½½011½11 14.5/24
2 Toga II 1.1 ½½½01½½10½001½½0½½100½00 9.5/24
!!!
and toga was maybe together with fruit in the moment the strongest
programs.
and even worse for s9
rybka 1.0 beta 32bit - s9, 40'/40+40'/4 2005
123456
1 Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit ½111½1 5.0/6
2 Shredder 9 ½000½0 1.0/6
rybka is IMO another example of the new paradigm that will break through the
classicistic programs.
chris whittington once said:
When should we expect a major breakthrough in science ?
When will a lone developer 'step through the looking-glass' ?
Who will this developer be ?
The answer to the above two questions is of course whenever the old, classical
programmers say 'we've reached perfection, there is no way to improve'; when the
old paradigm says 'there is only one way'; when all the developers produce
roughly equal results.
To play chess without knowledge of chess is not to play chess,
The classical program play chess as if it were the First World War in the
trenches, no concept of mobility, no concept of cooperation of forces, no
concept of knocking the enemy off balance with well timed blows; just material
and pawn structure - if it plays boring chess, that's why - if it blunders
against club players, that's why. It understands nothing of consequence.
The philosophers of classical search claim that search finds everything and
knows everything -
To answer our third question - 'who will be the developer ?', it is necessary to
look at the personality of the classical programmers and their hangers-on. These
programmers are characterised by a failure to show their emotions (do they ever
smile), fear (just watch them operating at tournaments), refusal to discuss how
their programs work (just try talking to them) , aversion to taking risks. It
has always surprised me that the 'top' programmers are not good chess players.
The hangers-on only make a little money, they jealously support their chosen
proteges, and viciously attack their opponents. The hangers-on know little,
pretend to know much and are governed by fear and greed.
Overall the impression is of a static, non-risk taking, hostile, World War I
environment. The new paradigm will come from an unexpected quarter. From a
developer with extrovert personality, accustomed to taking risks, a developer
with chess knowledge, probably someone unpopular with the classical paradigm
supporters, certainly unpopular
with the hangers-on and computer chess entourage. This developer will have been
and certainly will be furiously attacked by the classicists.
The 'looking-glass' paradigm makes slow and complex evaluations at each node and
prefers to prune the search tree by use of this evaluation function. In this
model search is to be avoided
unless absolutely necessary. Thus the search tree is not central to the new
paradigm, rather the search tree is used to find details overlooked, or mistakes
made, by the evaluation function. The 'looking-glass' paradigm has the
components of human thought - detailed, intuitive evaluation, with search
carried out to ensure that the program is not
falling into any traps. I estimate that the difference in nodes per second
between and extreme classical program and a 'looking-glass' program will be of
the order of 20-30 times, sufficient to give the classical program an extra two
plies of search (albeit with reduced knowledge at the nodes).
If, as is said, chess is war, then there must be lessons to be learnt from
military history. I have already alluded to the static, boring First World War
style of the classical programs (and their programmers !). The opposite style
can be found in several histories, Rommel in North Africa, Alexander the Great
against Darius, Von Manstein in Russia. Alexander, despite being outnumbered
many times, concentrated the powerful mobile part of his army, attacked the
stronger Persians, cut through and went straight for Darius himself. The bulk of
Darius's army was not engaged, but the battle was decisively won - a classic
king attack. Von Manstein (and Rommel) both understood that the power of the
outnumbered German army lay in superior staff work, concentration of forces,
striking blows to knock the enemy off balance. The looking-glass chess program
must contain knowledge of these dynamic elements; and it is only the
looking-glass program that has the knowledge and evaluation time available to
calculate such ephemerals. "
maybe this is the case here with rybka.
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.