cma6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:08 pm
"The idea is to use NNUE only on quite balanced material positions."
This was based on the fact that SF-NNUE searches much more slowly than classic SF on most hardware. But if one has fast hardware, so that SF-NNUE runs fast enough, then why not always use SF-NNUE?
How is stockfish defining 'quite balanced material positions', thanks.
zullil wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:58 pm
Yes, I can modify source code before compiling so that "Use NNUE" means "Use NNUE only". But that's going to get old very quickly.
So, basically you just want someone that doesn't find this getting old quickly to maintain a Stockfish fork and do this for you?
zullil wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:58 pm
Yes, I can modify source code before compiling so that "Use NNUE" means "Use NNUE only". But that's going to get old very quickly.
So, basically you just want someone that doesn't find this getting old quickly to maintain a Stockfish fork and do this for you?
Yes Like my new hero, Joerg!
(Though eventually I should spend the time to learn how to use git fully myself. )
Last edited by zullil on Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cma6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:08 pm
"The idea is to use NNUE only on quite balanced material positions."
This was based on the fact that SF-NNUE searches much more slowly than classic SF on most hardware. But if one has fast hardware, so that SF-NNUE runs fast enough, then why not always use SF-NNUE?
How is stockfish defining 'quite balanced material positions', thanks.
cma6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:08 pm
"The idea is to use NNUE only on quite balanced material positions."
This was based on the fact that SF-NNUE searches much more slowly than classic SF on most hardware. But if one has fast hardware, so that SF-NNUE runs fast enough, then why not always use SF-NNUE?
How is stockfish defining 'quite balanced material positions', thanks.
Thanks, does NNUEThreshold = Value(500) mean 5 pawns, 0.5 pawns or something else.
Hmmm ... ok now I understand it better. I was under the impression that a more sophisticated algo was used to decide when to turn NN off. I think there will be a lot more easy ELO points gained as this formula gets modified and tested. Maybe a 20mb is too small a network and things would be better with a larger network as per Lc0. Maybe the number of pieces remaining on the board or the number of possible good branching moves available are better identifiers of when to cut NN off. Will certainly be an interesting period as this gets developed further. It is pretty incredible what a game changer Alpha Zero and AI has been in revolutionizing chess engines. I sort of expected this to happen eventually but in 20 years or so from now ... but this is happening today!
MikeB wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:32 pm
Amen - I love it when I see an atheist quoting the Bible ... an old friend of my said this once - lets just say the atheist view is correct - well ,when we die, we die and and we all go back to dust
. But just say there is a God, then atheist gets to spend his eternal years in hell and the rest of us are in the Glory of God for eternal time - what would a risk averse person do?
<Thread Hijack!>
Pascal's Wager is an awfully thin rationale for believing. As the wise Homer Simpson observed: "But Marge, suppose we've chosen the wrong god? Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder!"
And, seriously, do you really think any god that would torture his own creations is worthy of worship? That's a pretty twisted world view!
<We now return to the normal TC bickering and sniping! >
MikeB wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:32 pm
Amen - I love it when I see an atheist quoting the Bible ... an old friend of my said this once - lets just say the atheist view is correct - well ,when we die, we die and and we all go back to dust
. But just say there is a God, then atheist gets to spend his eternal years in hell and the rest of us are in the Glory of God for eternal time - what would a risk averse person do?
<Thread Hijack!>
Pascal's Wager is an awfully thin rationale for believing. As the wise Homer Simpson observed: "But Marge, suppose we've chosen the wrong god? Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder!"
And, seriously, do you really think any god that would torture his own creations is worthy of worship? That's a pretty twisted world view!
<We now return to the normal TC bickering and sniping! >
I can see that God does not live up to your standards or expectations. Nothing like the created poking his finger in the eye of the Creator.
Strikes me as ideal for researching positions that arise at the ‘end of opening’ phase.
How best to set this up for simple analysis of options in those positions?
Also, taking Chessbase as an example, is all one need to do: download the file containing
Save that onto your hard drive. I save mine in: This PC ->Documents ->ChessBase-> Engines (Local).
Then activate one (lets say popcount), “add engine” to ChessBase engine options with properties options “Use NNUE” checked, EvalFile: ./eval/nn.bin; and I have chosen Analysis Contempt – “Off”
….and then analyze the position you want to delve into?
It defeats the purpose if the NNUE cannot always be set to active [as an option], because then you're at the mercy of the engine only using NNUE when it chooses. Hopefully the SF team will wake up to the fact that people also use the engine for analysis.
carldaman wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 10:57 pm
It defeats the purpose if the NNUE cannot always be set to active [as an option], because then you're at the mercy of the engine only using NNUE when it chooses. Hopefully the SF team will wake up to the fact that people also use the engine for analysis.
With a trivial change to the source code, you can build your own executable which always uses NNUE.
However this change can never yield stronger analysis.
Over time, using "always NNUE" will be gradually weaker and weaker as the nets are optimized for their intended use in balanced positions.
Last edited by Deberger on Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
)
>