Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:43:48 02/08/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2006 at 04:15:33, enrico carrisco wrote: >On February 07, 2006 at 06:59:21, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 07, 2006 at 01:37:23, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On February 06, 2006 at 22:25:35, Ryan B. wrote: >>> >>>>On February 06, 2006 at 21:58:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 06, 2006 at 21:47:09, Ryan B. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 06, 2006 at 17:20:00, Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Some time ago I saw someone reporting (don't remember if it was here) Rybka >>>>>>>doing 30Knps, while crafy 19.x doing 800Knps and Fritz8 doing over a million nps >>>>>>>on his pc while beating both crafty and fritz. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Over the years computer programmers said that nps was an importante factor in an >>>>>>>engine performance, (and I agree, look at Deep Blue and Hydra). >>>>>>>In face of Rybka nps, my question is: >>>>>>>What the hell is going on? >>>>>>>In this department Rybka seams to prove that nps isn't a factor for performance >>>>>>>at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Please state you opinion on this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>best regards, >>>>>>>Alvaro Cardoso >>>>>> >>>>>>Rather it is to hide extra hidden search or for marketing propaganda I do not >>>>>>know but I do know Rybka manipulates its node count. >>>>> >>>>>By what means do you know this? >>>>> >>>>>>What is really important >>>>>>is the tactical strength of Rybka not the NPS. It will be interesting to see >>>>>>what other engines have similar success after going back to try “old” ideas. >>>>>>Also not that Rybka is bad in endgames, I think it is rather good, but it will >>>>>>be interesting to see how Vas handles the endgame issues in Rybka. It does not >>>>>>seem that it will be as simple as just adding endgame knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Ryan >>>> >>>> >>>>At low depths the node count can go down from one depth to the next. That >>>>should be proof enough as node count should never go down. >>> >>>It could conceivably happen due to hash table and forced replies. >> >>Reduction in nodes per second can happen but not reduction in the total number >>of nodes and I remember a post of enrique that showed reduction of total number >>of nodes in rybka at small depth and you probably need slow hardware to >>reproduce it. >> >>If you see Reduction in nodes per second after few seconds of analysis with >>rybka then the conclusion is that Rybka probably manipulates its node count. >> >>Uri > >Hello Uri. > >I've realized that the technical side of this forum has been lost -- no one >really cares about such things and the question of "why?" As long as they can >set up engine tournaments and receive the end results -- who cares about the >actual games, what makes the engines play the moves they do and search at the >speed they do (or report.) It's no wonder Anthony decided to quit posting (as >did a few others, seen by their inactivity...) > >As far as the post you were talking about above, here was the basic info: > >P233MHz Laptop with Rybka > > >00:00:00.3 0.31 3 24056 exf6 >00:00:00.6 0.18 4 47432 exf6 >00:00:02.8 0.26 5 200296 exf6 Bxf2+ Kxf2 Qxf6 >00:00:06.1 0.33 6 6837 exf6 Bxf2+ Kxf2 Qxf6 Nb3 >00:00:12.4 0.33 7 15424 exf6 Bxf2+ Kxf2 Qxf6 Nb3 Ne5 >00:00:28.0 0.40 8 35355 exf6 Bxf2+ Kxf2 Qxf6 Nb3 Ne5 Nc5 >00:01:03.7 0.47 9 80989 exf6 Bxf2+ Kxf2 Qxf6 Nb3 Ne5 Nc5 Rae8 >00:02:12.3 0.45 10 174555 exf6 Bxf2+ Kxf2 Qxf6 Nb3 Ne5 Nc5 Rae8 Kg1 > >00:00:03.9 -0.34 3 95224 Bf5 >00:00:04.2 -0.33 4 118472 Bf5 >00:00:05.1 -0.33 5 178384 Bf5 Nb3 >00:00:08.7 -0.40 6 8895 Bf5 Bxf5 Bxf2+ Qxf2 Qxf5 >00:00:19.2 -0.44 7 22847 Bf5 Bxf5 Bxf2+ Qxf2 Qxf5 Qc5 >00:00:36.4 -0.49 8 50814 Bf5 Bxf5 Bxf2+ Qxf2 Qxf5 Qc5 Qe6 >00:01:12.5 -0.71 9 114651 Bf5 Bxf5 Bxf2+ Qxf2 Qxf5 Qc5 Qd7 a4 >00:01:58.2 -0.66 9 182030 b4 Ba4 Bg4 Bxc6 Bxf2+ Qxf2 Qxc6 cxb4 > >00:00:01.1 0.37 3 78768 a4 >00:00:01.8 0.54 3 132152 Qd3 >00:00:03.4 0.55 4 245176 Qd3 >00:00:05.5 0.55 5 390048 Qd3 Qf5 >00:00:10.5 0.61 6 10084 Qd3 Qf5 Qxf5 >00:00:14.0 0.61 7 15315 Qd3 Qf5 Qxf5 Bxf5 Bb3 >00:00:42.3 0.66 8 49569 Qd3 Qf5 Qxf5 Bxf5 Bb3 Rad8 >00:01:35.7 0.69 9 128294 Qd3 Qf5 Qxf5 Bxf5 Bb3 Rad8 Nh4 >00:02:41.9 0.72 10 225286 Qd3 Qf5 Qxf5 Bxf5 Bb3 Be6 a4 Rae8 > >[D]r4rk1/2p3pp/p1n2q2/1pbp4/6b1/2P2N2/PPBN1RPP/R1B2QK1 w - - 2 1 >Raw UCI output: > >position r4rk1/2p3pp/p1n2q2/1pbp4/6b1/2P2N2/PPBN1RPP/R1B2QK1 w - - 2 1 >go depth 8 >info depth 3 >info depth 3 score cp 7 time 660 nodes 47096 nps 0 tbhits 0 pv b1c3 >info depth 3 time 665 nodes 47536 nps 0 tbhits 0 >info depth 4 >info depth 4 score cp 3 time 1216 nodes 86824 nps 0 tbhits 0 pv b1c3 >info depth 4 time 1374 nodes 98376 nps 0 tbhits 0 >info depth 5 >info depth 5 score cp 8 time 1559 nodes 111808 nps 0 tbhits 0 pv b1c3 b8c6 >info depth 5 time 1669 nodes 119848 nps 0 tbhits 0 >info depth 6 >info depth 6 score cp 3 time 1934 nodes 139232 nps 0 tbhits 0 pv b1c3 b8c6 g1f3 >info depth 6 time 2489 nodes 180056 nps 0 tbhits 0 >info depth 7 >info depth 7 score cp 5 time 3719 nodes 6159 nps 1695 tbhits 0 pv b1c3 b8c6 g1f3 > g8f6 >info depth 7 time 6625 nodes 9833 nps 1519 tbhits 0 >info depth 8 >info depth 8 score cp 6 time 9459 nodes 17667 nps 1912 tbhits 0 pv b1c3 b8c6 g1f >3 g8f6 d2d4 >info depth 8 time 13654 nodes 23246 nps 1743 tbhits 0 >info time 13658 nodes 23242 nps 1742 tbhits 0 >bestmove b1c3 ponder b8c6 > > >isready >readyok >position r4rk1/2p3pp/p1n2q2/1pbp4/6b1/2P2N2/PPBN1RPP/R1B2QK1 w - - 2 1 >go depth 9 >info depth 3 >info depth 3 score cp 7 time 2890 nodes 205424 nps 0 tbhits 0 pv b1c3 >info depth 3 time 2900 nodes 206224 nps 0 tbhits 0 >info depth 4 >info depth 4 score cp 3 time 4224 nodes 300392 nps 0 tbhits 0 pv b1c3 >info depth 4 time 5716 nodes 406656 nps 0 tbhits 0 >info depth 5 >info depth 5 score cp 8 time 7690 nodes 547104 nps 0 tbhits 0 pv b1c3 b8c6 >info depth 5 time 8755 nodes 622952 nps 0 tbhits 0 >info depth 6 >info depth 6 score cp 3 time 11895 nodes 846464 nps 0 tbhits 0 pv b1c3 b8c6 g1f3 > >info depth 6 time 20727 nodes 1474960 nps 0 tbhits 0 >info depth 7 >info depth 7 score cp 5 time 34393 nodes 6153 nps 183 tbhits 0 pv b1c3 b8c6 g1f3 > g8f6 >info depth 7 time 45825 nodes 9833 nps 219 tbhits 0 >info depth 8 > > >At ply 5 it was doing almost 71kn/s (but didn't show it), ply 6 it drops the >total nodes searched from 390kn to *10kn*, then it shows kn/s (which was 960 >nodes/second? 70 times slower?) > >In the raw UCI output you can see it not counting NPS until it gets "modified", >then reports low end kn/s... Nothing more to really say about this -- the proof >of the nps being manipulated is quite clear. Even the "don't confuse me with >the facts, my mind is made up" folks should see that. > >What I don't understand is why not just display the truth (nps, pv, etc.) and >say look how _fast_ *and* _strong_ it plays? Why deliberately _spend_ _effort_ >to hide it? I agree until here except one thing. I do not know nothing about the real nps of rybka except the fact that they are manipulated so I do not know if it is relatively fast in nodes per second. I only know that it does not report correct number. > >It's clear Rybka relies much more on search than eval. Here I do not agree and I think that rybka has both good search and good evaluation. You cannot be at the top without good evaluation. 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.