| |
Main
Date: 08 Oct 2006 18:42:45
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Karmnick vs Fritz starts November 25 i belive
|
That should be good ......
What do you guys think ?
He will play 6 games...
|
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Karmnick vs Fritz starts November 25 i belive
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 12:52:26
From:
Subject: Re: Karmnick vs Fritz starts November 25 i belive
|
Wilma wrote:
> I'd put my money on Deep Fritz. I had CM9k analyze two of the games from
> his match with Topalov, Games 9 and 10. He did not play with great
> precision in either game with the settings I used, 4Mb hash, 180 seconds
> per move. Compared with what CM says is the best move, Kramnik scored 53%
> in Game 9 which he lost and 64% in Game 10 which he won.
>
> If these two games are representative, he may not be playing with
> sufficient precision to beat a GM program.
>
> Wilma
Only 4 MB hash for analysis? That's nowhere NEAR enough. For 3 minutes
per move (assuming a reasonable fast computer, let's say a 2.4 GHz) you
should have 24 MB of hash to be safe.
Here's how to test how much hash you need. Find any reasonably complex
middle-game position and turn on the Mentor window. Count how many
positions are analyzed in 10 seconds. That is how many BYTES (rounded
upward to the nearest MB) you would want to allocate if you were going
to analyze for 10 seconds per move.
For 180 seconds, simply multiply that amount by 18. Make sense?
jm
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 18:02:53
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Karmnick vs Fritz starts November 25 i belive
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Wilma wrote:
>> I used, 4Mb hash, 180 seconds per move.
>
> Only 4 MB hash for analysis? That's nowhere NEAR enough. For 3 minutes
> per move (assuming a reasonable fast computer, let's say a 2.4 GHz) you
> should have 24 MB of hash to be safe.
>
> Here's how to test how much hash you need. Find any reasonably complex
> middle-game position and turn on the Mentor window. Count how many
> positions are analyzed in 10 seconds. That is how many BYTES (rounded
> upward to the nearest MB) you would want to allocate if you were going
> to analyze for 10 seconds per move.
That calculation is meaningless.
Firstly, each hash table entry must take much more than one byte. At
the very least, it has to be storing the hash key (presumably 64
bits), the recommended move (say, another 8 bits), the evaluation of
that move (say, 16 bits) and the depth to which that evaluation has
been made (say, 8 bits). So that means that each entry is taking
about twelve bytes, not one.
Secondly, hash tables are essentially random beasts so there's very
little chance that, if you store a million positions in a hash table,
you'll be able to get them all out again. If you're going to be
looking at a million positions, you need a hash table with many more
entries than that to be able to retrieve a large proportion of those:
allow at least a factor of two.
Thirdly, if the hash table isn't being cleared between moves, the
bigger your hash table is, the greater is the chance of being able to
retrieve positions that the engine thought about last move. So again,
bigger is better.
I've yet to see a convincing argument that the correct size to use for
the hash table is anything other than ``as much as you can fit in RAM
without swapping.''
Dave.
--
David Richerby Flammable Gerbil (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ children's pet but it burns really
easily!
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 20:33:29
From: Wilma
Subject: Re: Karmnick vs Fritz starts November 25 i belive
|
Okay. I'll do that for my 1.66 computer. I'm getting a 2.8gh at the end
of October with a 1gb memory, so I should be able to get a more accurate
measure then. Or, I'll just use 64mb hash on both computers. Thanks,
John.
Does it nake any difference that a player may not have the equivalent of
64mb in his head? Probably not, since we're looking at relative
precision between players and need only to be sure I use the same hash
table for all players and games.
Wilma
[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Wilma wrote:
>> I'd put my money on Deep Fritz. I had CM9k analyze two of the games
>> from his match with Topalov, Games 9 and 10. He did not play with
>> great precision in either game with the settings I used, 4Mb hash,
>> 180 seconds per move. Compared with what CM says is the best move,
>> Kramnik scored 53% in Game 9 which he lost and 64% in Game 10 which
>> he won.
>>
>> If these two games are representative, he may not be playing with
>> sufficient precision to beat a GM program.
>>
>> Wilma
>
> Only 4 MB hash for analysis? That's nowhere NEAR enough. For 3 minutes
> per move (assuming a reasonable fast computer, let's say a 2.4 GHz)
> you should have 24 MB of hash to be safe.
>
> Here's how to test how much hash you need. Find any reasonably complex
> middle-game position and turn on the Mentor window. Count how many
> positions are analyzed in 10 seconds. That is how many BYTES (rounded
> upward to the nearest MB) you would want to allocate if you were going
> to analyze for 10 seconds per move.
>
> For 180 seconds, simply multiply that amount by 18. Make sense?
>
> jm
>
>
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 09:42:07
From: Wilma
Subject: Re: Karmnick vs Fritz starts November 25 i belive
|
I'd put my money on Deep Fritz. I had CM9k analyze two of the games from
his match with Topalov, Games 9 and 10. He did not play with great
precision in either game with the settings I used, 4Mb hash, 180 seconds
per move. Compared with what CM says is the best move, Kramnik scored 53%
in Game 9 which he lost and 64% in Game 10 which he won.
If these two games are representative, he may not be playing with
sufficient precision to beat a GM program.
Wilma
[email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote in news:9136-4529A915-1977@storefull-
3336.bay.webtv.net:
> That should be good ......
>
> What do you guys think ?
>
> He will play 6 games...
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 17:32:21
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Karmnick vs Fritz starts November 25 i belive
|
Wilma <[email protected] > wrote:
> I'd put my money on Deep Fritz. I had CM9k analyze two of the games from
> his match with Topalov, Games 9 and 10. He did not play with great
> precision in either game with the settings I used, 4Mb hash, 180 seconds
> per move. Compared with what CM says is the best move, Kramnik scored 53%
> in Game 9 which he lost and 64% in Game 10 which he won.
>
I guess the validity of the computer analysis depends upon whether Kramnik can
beat CM9k or not. If so, then perhaps Kramnik should be analyzing whether
CM9k can beat Topalov. ;-)
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2006 23:19:04
From: Wilma
Subject: Re: Karmnick vs Fritz starts November 25 i belive
|
It would be harder to get a measure of Topalov, I imagine, because his
genius is highly variable and often idiosyncratic. He sees things in
positions computers don't look for or are well beyond the horizon. Kramnic,
on the other hand, impresses me as steady and reliable.
So far as I know, Christensen has been the only GM to play against CM. He
lost the 4-game match and against 4 different CM personalities. The only
one he beat was the Alekhine personality, probably because that personality
is set to refuse draws unless it's practically beaten already.
I remind myself that this computer analysis thing is more fun than it is
reliably predictive. So far. But who knows? I may hit on something someday.
Wilma
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected] > wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Wilma <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'd put my money on Deep Fritz. I had CM9k analyze two of the games
>> from his match with Topalov, Games 9 and 10. He did not play with
>> great precision in either game with the settings I used, 4Mb hash,
>> 180 seconds per move. Compared with what CM says is the best move,
>> Kramnik scored 53% in Game 9 which he lost and 64% in Game 10 which
>> he won.
>>
>
> I guess the validity of the computer analysis depends upon whether
> Kramnik can beat CM9k or not. If so, then perhaps Kramnik should be
> analyzing whether CM9k can beat Topalov. ;-)
>
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 21:22:12
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: Karmnick vs Fritz starts November 25 i belive
|
"Wilma" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> I'd put my money on Deep Fritz. I had CM9k analyze two of the games from
> his match with Topalov, Games 9 and 10. He did not play with great
> precision in either game with the settings I used, 4Mb hash, 180 seconds
> per move. Compared with what CM says is the best move, Kramnik scored 53%
> in Game 9 which he lost and 64% in Game 10 which he won.
>
> If these two games are representative, he may not be playing with
> sufficient precision to beat a GM program.
>
> Wilma
I don't really get the point, because Kramnik doesn't play the same moves as
the pc he plays worse? Maybe he just plays better moves?
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 21:27:08
From: Wilma
Subject: Re: Karmnick vs Fritz starts November 25 i belive
|
Yes. The assumption is that the computer makes more precise and correct
moves. The assumption may be wrong.
Wilma
"bruno de baenst" <[email protected] > wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Wilma" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
> news:[email protected]...
>> I'd put my money on Deep Fritz. I had CM9k analyze two of the games
>> from his match with Topalov, Games 9 and 10. He did not play with
>> great precision in either game with the settings I used, 4Mb hash,
>> 180 seconds per move. Compared with what CM says is the best move,
>> Kramnik scored 53% in Game 9 which he lost and 64% in Game 10 which
>> he won.
>>
>> If these two games are representative, he may not be playing with
>> sufficient precision to beat a GM program.
>>
>> Wilma
>
> I don't really get the point, because Kramnik doesn't play the same
> moves as the pc he plays worse? Maybe he just plays better moves?
>
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 12:37:17
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Karmnick vs Fritz starts November 25 i belive
|
Wilma wrote:
> I'd put my money on Deep Fritz. I had CM9k analyze two of the games from
> his match with Topalov, Games 9 and 10. He did not play with great
> precision in either game with the settings I used, 4Mb hash, 180 seconds
> per move. Compared with what CM says is the best move, Kramnik scored 53%
> in Game 9 which he lost and 64% in Game 10 which he won.
>
> If these two games are representative,
Which is a very big *IF* Two games seems to me to be inadequate to draw
any significant conclusions.
> he may not be playing with
> sufficient precision to beat a GM program.
>
> Wilma
Programs are good at tactics, but less so at strategy. Hence such raw
statistics are not as meaningful as they might appear to be.
Crafty is not the strongest chess program around, but I doubt it would
be that difficult to compute similar statistics for 100's or 1000's of
games with crafty, with no need for someone to laboriously do the work.
Much of it could be automated.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)
|
|
