Author: Chessfun
Date: 23:30:56 01/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2000 at 02:10:08, Christophe Theron wrote: >On January 08, 2000 at 23:55:58, Chessfun wrote: > >>>>Cel 433 >>>>Genius 5. 2kb hash = 1.f6 switches again to Kxg2 after 44 secs then solves >>>>1.f6 posting + score after 3 min 48 secs. >>>>Genius 5. 4kb hash = 1.f6 switches again to Kxg2 after 40 secs then solves >>>>1.f6 posting + score after 3 min 25 secs. >>>>Genius 5. 8kb hash = 1.f6 switches again to kxg2 after 1 min 19 secs solves >>>>1.f6 posting + score after 4 min 29 secs. >>>>Genuis 5. 16kb hash = 1.f6 switches again to kxg2 after 59 secs then solves >>>>1.f6 posting + score after 3 min 25 secs. >>> >>> >>>You mean Mb, not Kb, I presume? >>Correct. >> >>> >>>A very funny thing: Genius has almost the same problem than Tiger: at one point >>>increasing the hash table size gives a longer solution time. Then increasing >>>further yields again a better result. >>> >>I noticed that too, yet with Genius that is a little more extreme. >>Though I must admit I like these Genius programs I am a little >>surprized they didn't do better rating wise. > > >Hey, you never sleep? Looks like you are online all the time! :) I know, it's terrible isn't it. Last night was that CM6666 V CMJosh thing, plus my day and half debate with Michael Cummings. Then today I also just had to watch the Rebel Century game. Lucky It's free LOL :-)!!. > > >The Genius programs are handicaped by their branching factor. Each new ply takes >a little bit more than a new ply on other modern programs. > >But they have a terrific pruning system in the last 3 or 4 plies of the search. > >That means that they perform very well until, say, ply 8 or 9. After that, >almost every modern program is able to go deeper in less time, which is a >terrible handicap for Genius. > This also likely explains how they have such a reputation at blitz. >I'm sure you can check this experimentaly by comparing time to depth for Genius >and, for example, Fritz or Rebel-Tiger. Compare the time needed to complete each >new ply, and notice that the ratio (time for ply N+1)/(time for ply N) is always >higher for Genius (in average). > >However I like the Genius programs a lot. Their evaluation function is one of >the best I have ever seen in term of stability. Maybe not the more accurate in >the absolute, but very homogenous. When Genius sees that it is 0.1 higher than >his opponent, it is going (generally) to keep this 0.1 until the endgame. When >it does not, it's because of lack of search depth. Genius then overlooks a >little trick, and to avoid losing more has to give back some of his positional >advantage. > I only just got it now, the interface is superb and the features are so easy to use, IMHO as good as Fritz 5.32's, I'm still getting familiar with Fritz 6 new interface. >In the endgame, his evaluation is simply unequaled until now. Modern programs >compensate by deeper search, but I'm not sure it's enough to equal Genius in the >endgame. > >I use the term "modern programs" because I think that Genius has not seriously >evolved since several years. Probably since 1995. > Seems that 5, 6 and 6.5 are all very much alike. There was that big toodoo last year when Genius 6 came out about the engine not being new and it would promissed to be upgraded. I am not sure if they ever did upgrade or not. >Sorry for those of you who think that Genius6 and Genius6.5 are new programs. > > > > >>>>Genius 6 times are almost identical. haha that belongs above under the Genius 5 times. And they should be almost identical if they are the same engine. > >Strange... :) > > > > >>>>The other engines I think it is pointless exercise !. >>>>I just try one other engine MCP8 8kb hash = No solve after 18 mins. >>>> >>>>Tiger posts a + at 28 secs without going back? Genius picks 1. f6 always >>>>but not with a + score which is when it switches to Kxg2 before switching back. >>>>Trouble comes for Genius at depth 12/24 when it sees Kxg2 as better. >>>> >>>>I'll trade yer two Genius's for a Tiger !! LOL. >>>>Thanks. >>> >>> >>>Here is the output from the Rebel-Tiger (K6-2 450MHz, 32Mb hash tables): >>> >>> >>>200:00:00.1 4.12 9 60006 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kg3 a4 h5 f6 gxf6 a5 >>>00:00:00.4 1.12 9 83505 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kg3 c6 dxc6 f6 gxf6 a4 c5 >>>00:00:00.3 -0.44 10 123820 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kg3 c6 dxc6 dxc6 Kf4 a4 Ke4 >>>Kxg2 h5 >>>00:00:01.8 -1.33 11 213308 f6 >>>00:00:01.5 -1.16 11 263647 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg4 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke4 >>>a5 Kxd5 >>>00:00:02.1 -1.15 11 356087 c6 >>>00:00:02.4 -1.14 11 445570 d6 >>>00:00:03.7 -0.28 11 478497 d6 cxd6 Kxg2 Kg4 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kxf5 a4 Ke5 >>>a5 Kd5 >>>00:00:04.7 -1.17 12 611167 f6 >>>00:00:04.1 -0.20 12 699197 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg4 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke4 >>>d6 cxd6 a5 >>>00:020:05.7 -0.19 12 766013 Kxg2 >>>00:00:05.3 0.62 12 812882 Kxg2 >>>00:00:06.4 4.16 12 1006462 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf6 d6 cxd6 a4 dxc5 >>>a5 c4 Kf3 >>>00:00:06.0 4.16 13 1006467 Kxg2 Kg5 >>>00:00:10.5 1.44 14 1609096 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf6 a4 Ke7 a5 Kd8 >>>a6 Kc8 Kh3 h6 Kg3 >>>00:00:16.5 1.21 15 2565155 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf6 a4 Ke7 a5 Kd8 >>>c6 dxc6 dxc6 Kc8 >>>00:00:27.9 1.22 15 4300739 f6 >>>00:00:37.3 2.34 15 6108693 f6 >>>00:00:43.0 2.33 15 6946271 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg4 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke4 >>>d6 cxd6 c6 dxc6 a5 Kd5 >>>00:01:14.9 3.23 16 12181241 f6 >>>00:01:56.7 5.33 16 19201142 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg4 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke4 >>>d6 cxd6 c6 dxc6 a5 c5 a6 >>>00:02:29.3 5.33 17 24464726 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg4 >>>00:042:22.5 5.31 18 43205717 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke4 >>>d6 cxd6 c6 dxc6 a5 c5 >>>00:09:45.2 5.00 19 96545193 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke5 >>>d6 cxd6 c6 dxc6 a5 c5 a6 c4 a7 c3 >>>00:20:04.9 5.00 19 196144774 f6 gxf6 Kxg2 Kg5 a4 bxa3ep bxa3 Kf4 a4 Ke5 >>> d6 cxd6 c6 dxc6 a5 c5 a6 c4 a7 c3 >>> >>> >>>I know this is not easy to read, but first column is time, second is score, >>>third is ply-depth, fourth is number of positions evaluated, and then you have >>>the best line. >>> >>>I have stopped the program exactly after 20 minutes, 4 seconds, 9 tenths. The >>>last line just repeats the last best line, as you see. >>> >>>So Tiger would play f6 very quickly, without knowing exactly why, then it would >>>play Kxg2, then sees that this is not as good as expected and would eventually >>>play f6 in about 28 seconds without changing his mind in 20 minutes. >>> >>> >>No it is clear enough 27.9 secs, I wouldn't have believed it would be that >>fast. So you got to 15 ply in only 4,300,000 positions, funny CM didn't see it I >>had that at 43,000,000. > > >I'm a little bit surprised too... > >I think ply depth 15 does not mean the same thing in Tiger and in CM. Probably >CM does less pruning and sees more things at the same depth because it does much >more extensions? Just a guess, I don't have CM6000. > From what I see it means different things to all programs due to pruning. > > > Christophe Thanks.
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.