Goodbye Talkchess

[Dann Corbit]

The cases of Ruffian and fruit are clearly different.

Ruffian started as strong free program but not stronger than shredder that was at the top at that time.

Fruit started as fruit1.0 and was relatively strong but not close to be the strongest.

Uri

My first version was 0.98a:
protocol.cpp ( 115): send("id name Fruit 0.98a");
I think that version 1.0 was the first version that worked properly as a Winboard engine on Windows.

I was wrong twice. Version 0.98a is a fully functional UCI engine and fruit was never a Winboard engine.

Here is something from down memory lane:

Code: Select all

C:\pgn\winboard-engines\fruit_src>fruit_src
uci
id name Fruit 0.98a
id author Fabien Letouzey
option name Clear Hash type button
option name Hash type spin default 4 min 1 max 1024
option name Log type check default false
option name LogFile type string default fruit.log
option name OwnBook type check default false
option name Ponder type check default false
uciok
ucinewgame
go infinite
info depth 1
info score cp 74 depth 1 nodes 1085 time 0 pv b5c6 b7c6 d4e5 b4c3 b2c3 g4f3 g2f3
info depth 1 nodes 95701 time 46
info depth 2
info score cp 74 depth 2 nodes 97024 time 46 pv b5c6 b7c6 d4e5 b4c3 b2c3 g4f3 g2f3
info depth 2 nodes 97881 time 46
info depth 3
info score cp 74 depth 3 nodes 101168 time 62 pv b5c6 b7c6 d4e5 b4c3 b2c3 g4f3 g2f3
info depth 3 nodes 118034 time 62
info depth 4
info score cp 74 depth 4 nodes 127214 time 78 pv b5c6 b7c6 d4e5 b4c3 b2c3 g4f3 g2f3
info depth 4 nodes 153355 time 78
info depth 5
info score cp 74 depth 5 nodes 170318 time 93 pv b5c6 b7c6 d4e5 b4c3 b2c3 g4f3 g2f3
info score cp 150 depth 5 nodes 197619 time 109 pv d4e5 g4f3 g2f3 d5d4 e5f6 d4c3 b5c6 b7c6
info depth 5 nodes 211500 time 109
info depth 6
info score cp 150 depth 6 nodes 261002 time 140 pv d4e5 g4f3 g2f3 d5d4 e5f6 d4c3 b5c6 b7c6
info depth 6 nodes 283779 time 156
info depth 7
info score cp 150 depth 7 nodes 372031 time 202 pv d4e5 g4f3 g2f3 d5d4 e5f6 d4c3 b5c6 b7c6
info depth 7 nodes 411815 time 234
info depth 8
info score cp 140 depth 8 nodes 563107 time 327 pv d4e5 g4f3 d1f3 d5e4 b5c6 b7c6 f3h3 d8d5 g5f6 g7f6 e5f6
info depth 8 nodes 780127 time 452
info depth 9
info score cp 148 depth 9 nodes 1125438 time 639 pv d4e5 g4f3 g2f3 d5d4 e5f6 g7f6 b5c6 b7c6 a2a3 f6g5 a3b4 d4c3 b2c3 d8d1 a1d1
info depth 9 nodes 1489884 time 858
info depth 10
info score cp 142 depth 10 nodes 2214889 time 1279 pv d4e5 g4f3 g2f3 d5d4 e5f6 g7f6 b5c6 b7c6 g5d2 d4c3 d2c3 b4c3 b2c3
info depth 10 nodes 3220600 time 1840
info depth 11
info score cp 161 depth 11 nodes 5195464 time 2979 pv d4e5 g4f3 e5f6 b4c3 b2c3 f3d1 f6g7 h8g8 g5d8 a8d8 a1d1 d5e4 d1d8 e8d8 b5c6 b7c6
info depth 11 nodes 6837841 time 3915
info depth 12
info score cp 151 depth 12 nodes 10492672 time 6037 pv d4e5 g4f3 e5f6 f3d1 f6g7 h8g8 g5d8 a8d8 a1d1 d5d4 b5c6 b7c6 a2a3 b4c3 b2c3 g8g7 c3d4 g7g2
info depth 12 nodes 15173029 time 8751
info depth 13
info score cp 169 depth 13 nodes 22683258 time 13197 pv d4e5 g4f3 g2f3 d5d4 a2a3 d4c3 d1d8 a8d8 a3b4 c3b2 a1b1 h7h6 g5h4 g7g5 e5f6 g5h4 b5c6 b7c6 b1b2
info depth 13 nodes 30845107 time 17940
info depth 14

[Albert Silver]

Fabian's first iteration of Fruit that I saw was not particularly strong. Elo was a little over 2000. He obviously made rapid progress, though.

His eval function used floating point at one time. You won't see many like that.

Hmmm..... Does that mean it would be better suited to run on a GPU? I have seen many claim that while powerful, GPUs are not well-suited for chess engines, which is why no one really tries to make an uber-engine on it.

[bob]

Fabian's first iteration of Fruit that I saw was not particularly strong. Elo was a little over 2000. He obviously made rapid progress, though.

His eval function used floating point at one time. You won't see many like that.

Hmmm..... Does that mean it would be better suited to run on a GPU? I have seen many claim that while powerful, GPUs are not well-suited for chess engines, which is why no one really tries to make an uber-engine on it.

Floating point or not is not the primary issue. Graphics devices have poor memory latency, they are designed to stream lots of data (high bandwidth) thru, because the primary function is to manipulate pixels as quickly as possible to update a graphical display. Chess engines don't step thru memory sequentially and run into ugly latency issues. Also the concept of a "cache" is foreign.

[Albert Silver]

Fabian's first iteration of Fruit that I saw was not particularly strong. Elo was a little over 2000. He obviously made rapid progress, though.

His eval function used floating point at one time. You won't see many like that.

Hmmm..... Does that mean it would be better suited to run on a GPU? I have seen many claim that while powerful, GPUs are not well-suited for chess engines, which is why no one really tries to make an uber-engine on it.

Floating point or not is not the primary issue. Graphics devices have poor memory latency, they are designed to stream lots of data (high bandwidth) thru, because the primary function is to manipulate pixels as quickly as possible to update a graphical display. Chess engines don't step thru memory sequentially and run into ugly latency issues. Also the concept of a "cache" is foreign.

Is there a way to combine the strengths of a CPU and a GPU in such a way that the gains outweigh the losses?

[Dann Corbit]

Fabian's first iteration of Fruit that I saw was not particularly strong. Elo was a little over 2000. He obviously made rapid progress, though.

His eval function used floating point at one time. You won't see many like that.

Hmmm..... Does that mean it would be better suited to run on a GPU? I have seen many claim that while powerful, GPUs are not well-suited for chess engines, which is why no one really tries to make an uber-engine on it.

Floating point or not is not the primary issue. Graphics devices have poor memory latency, they are designed to stream lots of data (high bandwidth) thru, because the primary function is to manipulate pixels as quickly as possible to update a graphical display. Chess engines don't step thru memory sequentially and run into ugly latency issues. Also the concept of a "cache" is foreign.

Is there a way to combine the strengths of a CPU and a GPU in such a way that the gains outweigh the losses?

There are several efforts at chess on a GPU farm, but there are many big problems. Memory transfer is one, and complete lack of recursion is another.

[Sam Hull]

Point was, the old board treated everybody the same. If you could see anything, you could see everything...

Point is, the board works now just like it did then for anyone who wants to legitimately sign up. These forums exist as a service for members and there is no obligation whatsoever to provide/expose any contributed material to the general public. The fact that parts of the board can now be viewed by non-members is simply a bonus.

Hint: read, parse, understand. You will _never_ be able to produce _any_ quote that said warez links are OK. True Warez-type links. True copied/stolen/cracked software. I challenge you to find _any_ such quote. My only comments have been related to Fruit/Rybka/Robo, which is quite a different matter altogether.

Clue: if you believe some links should be deleted and others shouldn't, somebody is going to have to decide which are which; i.e., moderators. That's exactly what I stated above if you read, parse, and understand it.

Having grown up in the US, having lived here for all of my 62 years, from having my grand father fight in WW1, by father in WW2, all in the name of freedom and the US constitution, yes, I believe in "Innocent until proven guilty." Those proven guilty have met with swift action over the years with respect to clones. Those unproven were left alone. Whether it be from claims made at an ICGA event, an ACM event, or here on CCC.

Disallowing download links to questionable software isn't unpatriotic and it isn't equivalent to a criminal conviction. Airport security does not allow items on airplanes that could be used as a weapon; does that imply that anyone who has to surrender his pocketknife is a felon? No.

... We originally _did_ disallow any links to IP* and family if you look back. And waited on "reasonable proof". _NONE_ was ever offered. After several months, we decided that "innocent until proven guilty" was the rational course. I think the decision was right then, and it is still right today. Not what has been done with the blatant attempt to hide the discussions since it seems obvious they can not be completely quashed.

In other words, your mod team made the call on whether or not to allow links, and you initially deleted questionable links. I assume at the time you didn't think deleting those links was "stupid." The current team is doing the same thing - you just disagree with some of the calls, just as there has been disagreement with some of yours.

The notion that discussions available to every single member of this board are being "hidden" is silly. Was CCC "hiding" everything on the board for the first nine years of its existence?


-Sam-

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Fabian's first iteration of Fruit that I saw was not particularly strong. Elo was a little over 2000. He obviously made rapid progress, though.

His eval function used floating point at one time. You won't see many like that.

Hmmm..... Does that mean it would be better suited to run on a GPU? I have seen many claim that while powerful, GPUs are not well-suited for chess engines, which is why no one really tries to make an uber-engine on it.

Floating point or not is not the primary issue. Graphics devices have poor memory latency, they are designed to stream lots of data (high bandwidth) thru, because the primary function is to manipulate pixels as quickly as possible to update a graphical display. Chess engines don't step thru memory sequentially and run into ugly latency issues. Also the concept of a "cache" is foreign.

Is there a way to combine the strengths of a CPU and a GPU in such a way that the gains outweigh the losses?

I wonder why this great idea hasn't benn realized yet....taking under consideration the powerfull GPUs that are in the market nowadays....but it looks like there are reasons for the lack of interest from the programers side....
Dr.D

[Thomas Mayer]

Hi Bob,

And so far, all we have for IP* is that the code _appears_ to be reverse-engineered. From what is unknown.

we definitely have a bit more then that, e.g. Gian-Carlo presented a lot more observations. Also we have the sayings of Don Daily & Larry Kaufmann - which you called real guys in one of your postings. They both clearly pointed out that they have seen enough to call it a Rybka derivative. With not accepting their foundings you clearly call them liars. Is that your real opinion about Larry & Don ?

Greets, Thomas

[bob]

Fabian's first iteration of Fruit that I saw was not particularly strong. Elo was a little over 2000. He obviously made rapid progress, though.

His eval function used floating point at one time. You won't see many like that.

Hmmm..... Does that mean it would be better suited to run on a GPU? I have seen many claim that while powerful, GPUs are not well-suited for chess engines, which is why no one really tries to make an uber-engine on it.

Floating point or not is not the primary issue. Graphics devices have poor memory latency, they are designed to stream lots of data (high bandwidth) thru, because the primary function is to manipulate pixels as quickly as possible to update a graphical display. Chess engines don't step thru memory sequentially and run into ugly latency issues. Also the concept of a "cache" is foreign.

Is there a way to combine the strengths of a CPU and a GPU in such a way that the gains outweigh the losses?

Everything we do is a compromise of sorts. For example, with multiple CPUs, we still have one path to memory and contention becomes an issue. AMD uses a NUMA architecture to provide more paths, at a cost of more latency. GPUs are slowly becoming more general purpose in nature, because of their power. So anything is possible. And the ultimate might one day be a "cluster on a single board" where we might have the equivalent of the cluster I test on but on a single board anyone can use, rather than needing 30 tons of AC to keep it cool and a huge room to hold the thing.

But their primary impetus is graphics, which is all about taking a large array of pixels and modifying them as quickly as possible so that one can draw smooth images that move and look natural. So sucking in 24 bits per pixel, modifying the entire thing in some form, and then spitting it back out into video/main memory so that it can be displayed, is what this is all about. High bandwidth, latency irrelevant, parallel computation important so that multiple pixels can be computed at once to improve the frame rate.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

No idea, since I have not participated in one in a long while. I suppose someone _could_ if they saw fit, as it is a real issue.

Then perhaps that would be the way to settle this long festering issue once and for all?

How so? Do you think Vas would release his source to them? ICGA is not going to go through the effort of reverse-engineering to prove/disprove this.

When you join the tournament, you submit to the rules, which is that you must be able to provide sources to the TD.

At least in the past, the ICGA applied them (Graz, 2003). I am not entirely confident they would do so for Rybka, but let's still assume the rules are valid for everyone.

Assuming then that Rybka was derived from Fruit (I am operating in a pure what-if scenario here, I do not want to make any claim for or against this), the question is still if it would be recognizable after x years of fulltime development.

If you believe it is, you should complain the next time Rybka and Crafty are together in a tournament.