Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 17:48:41 07/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 1999 at 18:31:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 19, 1999 at 17:31:25, pete wrote: > >>On July 19, 1999 at 10:05:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On July 18, 1999 at 22:52:23, K1 wrote: >>> >>>>I have started such a site for winboard programs, strictly for fun. URL is at : >>>>http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Base/5978/ >>>>Regards. >>> >>>Those old times: if we all would be still playing 40 moves in 5 minutes >>>at a P75 with 32 mb RAM, so actual speed is >>>a P37.5 >>> >>>Let's calculate a little: >>> >>>a P133 is exactly 3 times slower for DIEP as a Pentium pro200. >>>a PII450 is a little bit more than 2 times faster than a PRO200. >>> >>>So a PII450 is about 4 x 3 x (133/37.5) times faster = 45 times faster. >>> >>>Let's see: 40 moves in 300 seconds = 7.5 seconds a move. >>>That's 7.5 / 45 = 0.167 seconds a move at a PII450. >>> >>>Gotta be a 1 ply search a move tournament... >>>...and winner is a prog searching 2 ply i bet? >>>...hopefully you have good old genius somewhere, cuz >>>it loves those tournaments... >>> >>>I still didn't take into account >>>the small hashsize which caused huge >>>swapping playing the engines against each other. >>> >>>-------------------------------------------------------------- >>>distinct winboard programmes + 3 older versions (#30 to #32, to make total >>>number of competitors = 32) >>> >>>Knock out system (alphabetical order for #1 to #29! Drawn game replayed until >>>winner emerged) >>>Time control : 40 moves/5mins >>>Hardware/OS : Toshiba Libretto, Pentium 75mHz, 32mb ram, Windows 95 >>>All games played using Tim Mann’s Winboard ver 4.0.2 >> >>I also have one of those slow computers a P133 ; 16 MB RAM; and I sometimes like >>to watch games between two computers ( similar to watching TV ) >> >>And as the other one is P233MMX or PII300 I know only one prog that can keep up >>with the ones on the faster computer; and this _is_ genius . > >>I noticed you seem to hate genius ; how come ? And why do people think it is >>dumb ? The moves it makes are usually sensible ; not always the best ones but >>never real bad ones , which is not always true of the best progs now. > >Right you already indicate it. I don't hate richard lang. In contradiction. >I have big respect for what Richard has done: being for many years >the unbeaten number one, defending year after year his titles with success. > >What i like about genius is that at a slow computer it can kick the >hell out of faster hardware. > >However, >this is because it's not only a brilliant program, but >rather because it's always producing a move from a certain level. > >Really brilliant things we can't expect from genius, as the knowledge >is simply not in it. > >Every move is of level x. > >What i find very weird is next position: >white Kh1 >black Kh8 Bf6,h4,h5,h6,h7 > >dead drawn of course. Of course hardly anyprogram sees that. >That's not the thing what i find interesting. > >If you change the selective search depth, then restart genius, >then it produces different scores. *completely* different scores. > >I would love to know how the selective search of genius works, >but i have a feeling it has to do with alfa and beta bigtime! > >>It is simple truth that on very slow hardware genius is still one of the if not >>_the_ absolute best ; and it seems to be also true that genius profits much les >>than other progs from faster hardware . > >>Now can you explain why everyone thinks genius is dumb ? from a naive point of >>view one could also state the complete opposite. > >In contradiction, the proof you have for that it is dumb you explain >as it being smart! > >>and there is one field where genius still seems to rule ; despite of all the >>tablebase stuff ; and this is complex endings; again something not sounding dumb >>:) > >Weird. Even DIEP's bad endgame is enuf to crush genius in the endgame. >Genius endgame is outdated in endgame i guess (like my DIEP, but i'm working >on its endgame right now!). > >>now everyone also seems to agree that genius is basically the same since genius3 >>; and this is reproducable as genius3 scores the same as genius 6 ; so , maybe >>it is just a prog with no serious development in the last years ? > >It has become tactical stronger last few years. >Genius was some years ago tactical one of the strongest programs, >never missing a trick where it could fall for. > >That's why it's still so strong in blitz and at slower hardware it >simply outperforms anything. > >Genius is having a little bit more >pawnstructure code than fritz, but it's all very basical knowledge. > >Very simple knowledge. > >If you debug gnuchess, take some bugs out of its evaluation >(some gross errors there, i heart from others in search they exist too). >speed up gnuchess a lot, and it should already kick ass of >genius, as it's having way more knowledge. > >So genius strength is mainly derived from tactics and never making >a real bad move. > >Against well tested programs having more knowledge and getting above 10 ply >it doesn't make a chance nowadays. It definitely will not in the future >too. > >It's branching factor is from the old days that progs used to >search fullwidth. > >Kind of natural induction! > >>This is a sensible question and I hope you won't feel offended. >>Pete > >Questions are always ok. I'm very objective in that. I can't >garantuee an answer in public always though. > >If i miss any question, then email it to me: diep@xs4all.nl > >I checked last few days CCC a little, but after wasting a >lot of time at writing stuff and the slow internet and >meeting Dave here and, who's >simply not sensible to objective arguments why MTD sucks bigtime >for nowadays chessprograms, i feel i'm gone real soon again >for a while. Uh, yeah. >At CCC except for some posts from Bob i hardly see any interesting >post here. Bunch of beginners posting, and the pro's keeping their >mouth shut. If i would have the guts to quote what some said about MTD, >i mean *all of them*. I spoke with most dudes about MTD in past, >and no one of all those dudes is writing about its experiences with it! Quote away. >Idem for FHR, probcut etc. > >Greetings, >Vincent Dave
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.