Author: pete
Date: 13:33:29 09/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 1999 at 10:06:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 13, 1999 at 01:22:12, blass uri wrote: > >>On September 12, 1999 at 20:54:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 12, 1999 at 10:43:37, Randy Schmidt wrote: >>> >>>>I do not believe that Crafty running on any processor(s) would >>>>be stronger than Hiarcs7.1, or for that matter Junior. My >>>>large caveat is that the time control be something like eight >>>>hours a move (perhaps even 50 hours a move). >>>> >>>>My point is that the positional elements of Junior and Hiarcs >>>>would supercede the speed of crafty on a souped up computer. >>>>On any time control faster than 40/2, I think Crafty would have >>>>a decisive advantage. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Here's a point to ponder. If "junior" has a lot more 'positional understanding' >>>than crafty, how would you explain the fact that it is _far_ faster than crafty. >>>In fact, it is likely the fastest program running that I have seen NPS numbers >>>for. >> >>The theory that slow searchers are better positional understanding is not a >>right theory because the question is not nps for second but if the evaluation >>function is good. >> >>For example I think that Crafty has better positional understanding relative to >>tal because tal is too optimistic about the positional advantage. >> >>It is not clear to me if Junior is a better positional player relative to crafty >>but you cannot learn about it by the number of nodes per second. >> >>I believe that the latest version of Junior is better in >>positional understnding relative to previous versions and it is looking at the >>same number of nodes per second. >> >>Uri > > >I agree partially... but there _is_ a direct correlation between NPS and "amount >of stuff" in the evaluation. IE in my code, the evaluation is about 50% of the >total search time. In Hiarcs I would bet it is closer to 75-80%. In Junior I'd >guess at 10%-20% max. Does that mean I do more? Probably. Does that mean mine >does better? Not necessarily. Tuning also plays an important role, of course. > >But one thing is pretty clear. you can't go fast _and_ do a thorough eval. You >have to depend more on piece/square stuff and quick things you can detect. And >you run into trouble in the right kinds of positions... like when you don't >handle outside passed pawns against a program that does, you get ripped by that >repeatedly. Or where you don't understand something like Bxh2 or Bxa2, and you >get ripped. And I won't name names about the programs that _still_ fall for >this one... but the ones that are very fast do, the ones that are slower don't. > >The reason is pretty obvious... :) this is most interesting stuff and not obious at all I think ; junior has a hard time in polemic discussions as it doesn't know a few things a 1600 player will know ; ie underpromotion or the a2,a7,h2,h7 stuff ; obvious , and if you see it happen it is a pain as _everybody_ knows it ; I am only a chessplayer watching the progs sometimes , and these things don't happen _that_ often ; it is a question of prize and cost . junior _very_ often plays very deep positional moves ; I don't know why ; probably because of tactics ; but see : a.) I have never seen a single match played under serious conditions where Hiarcs was able to beat Junior ( in my own tourney it has just been a 3-1 for Junior ) b.) what is intelligence ? programs won't _ever_ have GM knowledge I think ; some programs have the knowledge of a 2200 player , so us lesser players are impressed , but are we also able to judge if the prize of speed was a good investment ? ) I have seen too many games where Junior played grat positionally ( maybe just because it was able to search a ply deeper ) to be easily convinced that slower means more clever . pete
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.