Graham Banks wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 12:40 pm
My thinking was that if I started a game with a given opening line and tried playing that line separately with each setting, that might indeed show a different output for each which would prove that they are somehow being used.
Ah, now I understand your point. Well, I don't think anyone wants to really claim that Shashchess is just Stockfish. (how you get these boxes still amazes me).
Trying this now.
Shashchess latest gives tick boxes for:
- concurrent experience
- High Tal
- Middle Tal
- Low Tal
- Capablanca
- High Petrosian
- Middle Petrosian
- Low Petrosian
There are a million parameters in search and even more in NNUE, having 5 tickboxes probably suggested nothing. Play the same game twice even in single thread will very likely diverge. What does it have anything to do with "Shashin information"? You might just as well enable a tickbox called "quantum fluctuation".
There is also Simex, regardless of how you tick those boxes, it probably shows lesser differences to "just Stockfish" than in between minor Stockfish versions.
I have found this, maybe someone can demonstrate otherwise.
I had read this one, but I didn't think it necessarily amounted to much. If you look at the strange README on Shashin in Shash, where do these +-, += etc even come from to put you into Major Petrosian or Minor Tal mode? From Stockfish would be my guess.
So I assumed Shashchess and Stockfish might be completely identical at depth=1 without this meaning anything too interesting or new.
And then maybe it changes some search parameters based on low level depths at deeper plies. This can't be too much of a deal anyway, as in my personal tests Shashchess and Stockfish behave in a very similar way when it is about chess moves chosen also at higher depths - not to forget Shashchess loses nearly no strength compared to Stockfish.
I didn't look at the source code at all as I am no programmer, so I don't expect to be able to detect anything the ICGA wouldn't have seen anyway during their two month investigation of things.
We share the same impression on the implementation of the "Shashin theory" here - my personal bet is that this is mostly bullshit - but now me, I am out, as I simply lack the knowledge to do more than "suspecting".
Well, it loses quite a lot of elo when you tick those boxes. What I find interesting is that for that amount of elo loss it still scores higher in Simex compared to some old SF that is just about weaker. So I don't know what to make out of that.
I recall stockfish dev vs some previous stockfish from startposition played on fishtest.
And it had the most insane variance from any other test, literally some workers showing +100 elo and some -100 elo and this was stable for this workers.
Problem was that some were underclocked and some were overclocked, so some ran at 10.1+0.101 and some were running at 9.9+0.099.
and this was the sole reason why it would get from -100 to +100 elo from the same position at the single core.
And there you show some "wow, look at this, I made a checkbox and games are completely different, must be a lot of work" - hell, no.
You can achieve the same if not bigger result by not changing engines at all but changing time / game (from my example change doesn't even need to be big), hash, threads and other stuff.
This is constantly shown at so-called alt-finals at navratil, this guy just replays TCEC finals on more powerful hardware but with the same nps ratio. Game pair win for stockfish at TCEC can change to game pair win for leela and game pair win for Leela at TCEC can change to game pair win for SF. Not even talking about such "minor" things as double win becoming double draws and double draws becoming double wins - this also happens a lot.
And trust me this would also happen if he used exactly the same hardware for both engines as TCEC does.
Well, I don't think anyone wants to really claim that Shashchess is just Stockfish. (how you get these boxes still amazes me).
