Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:23:18 09/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 1999 at 16:33:29, pete wrote: >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 ) Now you have seen one where Hiarcs beat Junior, and there have been others posted by members. SSDF Results, Hiarcs 7 beat Junior 5 - 28.5 to 11.5. Junior 5.0 64MB P200 MMX, 2543 Opponent Result CM6000 P200X 0-2 Hiarcs7 P200X 11½-28½ Fritz 5 P200X 21-17 Rebel 9 P200X 17½-23½ Nimzo98 P200X 23½-16½ Hiarcs6 P200X 26½-14½ MCP 6 P200MMX 11-13 Shred 2 P200X 10½-9½ MCP 8 P200MMX 14½-9½ Rebel 9.0 P90 14-8 Rebel 8.0 P90 14½-5½ Hiarcs 6 P90 15½-4½ Genius 5 P90 17-9 MCPro 6.0 P90 14-8 Nimzo 3.5 P90 28-12 Junior 4 P90 18-6 CometA90P200X 17-5 Fritz 3.0 P90 36½-9½ WChess P90 36½-7½ Comet32 P90 17½-2½ > >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.