Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: Next thing we know we need to have a hardware limit because the commercial teams can afford more.!
Now that Sjeng is commercial I am sure you are aware of the 'fortune' that is earned from selling an engine. We also have to pay more to enter WCCC as I am sure you know as you now have to pay the higher rate.
Next time I'll use big <SARCASM> markers in my posts.
As should be pretty obvious from my posts in the ICGA debacle, I am against hardware limits and I have no problem accepting some people will show up with more expensive hardware than I do. This also applies to other resources than just hardware.
I'm not so concerned about that. I am more interested in the case where a professional book author spends months hand-tuning a book, particularly using potential opponents for tuning, and then lets multiple programs use that same book. The "public" books are not the problem...
Well here is an example. Probably the most professional book author around (Jeroen) has just released a book that he spent months hand tuning. Perhaps he used potential opponents to hand tune this book, I don't know how Jeroen makes his books but it's possible. He cannot stop multiple multiple programs from using that book, it's out there in the public domain. I don't know the statistics, but I would bet that draws are far more likely if two competitors are using the same book, because a good book maker is unlikely to put lines in the book without a refutation for the other side.
One could limit the book in some way, to perhaps 10 moves or so (I know that the testing groups do something similar already). There are at least two downsides to placing limits on the book:
1/ It's much less fun (for me anyway), we don't get to see some exciting cooked line (cooked by someone probably using Rybka)
2/ The dominant engine (currently Rybka) will have an even bigger advantage over the competition, because it is less likely to get caught in a book trap if the book is only 10 moves deep
The benefit of limiting the book of course is that the engine gets to play more of its own moves.
As long as it is public, I am not concerned. I am concerned about the "private books" that have book lines explicitly included for multiple potential tournament opponents. years ago a program reached a position where the opponent resigned, and _every_ move had come from book, having been pre-planned by the opponent by playing against the most recent commercial version of that program. That's fine for a single team to use. Book-cooking has been a common theme in computer chess events since the 1970's. But it isn't fine for that book author to create a private (aka tournament) book that a few selected commercial programs (or even a private program as far as that goes) get to use... it represents a lot of work and is a huge help to the engine. It should only be a big help for one engine...
I play all of my test games sans books to eliminate that factor. Whether we want to go to random starting positions is an interesting question as that would stop all of this in its tracks. It would be nice to eliminate the random factors from influencing the games, and concentrate on the engines. Pick a single position, give it to everyone, and each side plays it with black and then white. No book allowed. But that is not quite "chess" as we know it today. But I'd be more than willing to try it...
Are you serious? No book allowed with random starting positions and concentrate on the engines? For many engines, a book-move selection code *IS* part of the engine. In fact, that was your original argument.
I'm not so concerned about that. I am more interested in the case where a professional book author spends months hand-tuning a book, particularly using potential opponents for tuning, and then lets multiple programs use that same book. The "public" books are not the problem...
Well here is an example. Probably the most professional book author around (Jeroen) has just released a book that he spent months hand tuning. Perhaps he used potential opponents to hand tune this book, I don't know how Jeroen makes his books but it's possible. He cannot stop multiple multiple programs from using that book, it's out there in the public domain. I don't know the statistics, but I would bet that draws are far more likely if two competitors are using the same book, because a good book maker is unlikely to put lines in the book without a refutation for the other side.
One could limit the book in some way, to perhaps 10 moves or so (I know that the testing groups do something similar already). There are at least two downsides to placing limits on the book:
1/ It's much less fun (for me anyway), we don't get to see some exciting cooked line (cooked by someone probably using Rybka)
2/ The dominant engine (currently Rybka) will have an even bigger advantage over the competition, because it is less likely to get caught in a book trap if the book is only 10 moves deep
The benefit of limiting the book of course is that the engine gets to play more of its own moves.
As long as it is public, I am not concerned. I am concerned about the "private books" that have book lines explicitly included for multiple potential tournament opponents. years ago a program reached a position where the opponent resigned, and _every_ move had come from book, having been pre-planned by the opponent by playing against the most recent commercial version of that program. That's fine for a single team to use. Book-cooking has been a common theme in computer chess events since the 1970's. But it isn't fine for that book author to create a private (aka tournament) book that a few selected commercial programs (or even a private program as far as that goes) get to use... it represents a lot of work and is a huge help to the engine. It should only be a big help for one engine...
I play all of my test games sans books to eliminate that factor. Whether we want to go to random starting positions is an interesting question as that would stop all of this in its tracks. It would be nice to eliminate the random factors from influencing the games, and concentrate on the engines. Pick a single position, give it to everyone, and each side plays it with black and then white. No book allowed. But that is not quite "chess" as we know it today. But I'd be more than willing to try it...
Are you serious? No book allowed with random starting positions and concentrate on the engines? For many engines, a book-move selection code *IS* part of the engine. In fact, that was your original argument.
Miguel
Yes it was. But if we _eliminate_ that part of the equation, that particular problem goes away. Someone has already pointed out how impossibly difficult it would be to show that book A and book B have a common author, if that fact is not voluntarily exposed. Who could tell??? Which brings us around to the usual idea of "if you can't control something, no matter how hard you try, then eliminate it...
The extremes appear to be (a) continue as has been done in the past, single book author preparing books for several programs, programmers stealing commercial opening books and using those, etc... or (b) have no book at all.
Something in the middle would be nice, but given A or B, I would probably take B.
michiguel wrote:
Are you serious? No book allowed with random starting positions and concentrate on the engines? For many engines, a book-move selection code *IS* part of the engine. In fact, that was your original argument.
Miguel
Yes it was. But if we _eliminate_ that part of the equation, that particular problem goes away.
If you eliminate that part of the equation you no more have a real world championship!
A world champion is _not_ the most balanced program that will do best on average from a large set of predefined positions.
The world champion is the one who will do best from the startposition following the rules of chess.
This is _completely_ different.
We may imagine that an engine plays powerfully from 1.e4 and badly from 1.d4.
As the rules of chess allow to always play 1.e4 and never 1.d4 this engine may win the world championship with the rules that have been always used so far.
But with your suggestion of banning opening books and going for startpositions this same engine will never win.
So if you decide to ban opening books and to go for a set of a standard start positions you introduce one of the most important changes since CC championships begun. It becomes a completely different game.
michiguel wrote:
Are you serious? No book allowed with random starting positions and concentrate on the engines? For many engines, a book-move selection code *IS* part of the engine. In fact, that was your original argument.
Miguel
Yes it was. But if we _eliminate_ that part of the equation, that particular problem goes away.
If you eliminate that part of the equation you no more have a real world championship!
A world champion is _not_ the most balanced program that will do best on average from a large set of predefined positions.
The world champion is the one who will do best from the startposition following the rules of chess.
This is _completely_ different.
We may imagine that an engine plays powerfully from 1.e4 and badly from 1.d4.
As the rules of chess allow to always play 1.e4 and never 1.d4 this engine may win the world championship with the rules that have been always used so far.
But with your suggestion of banning opening books and going for startpositions this same engine will never win.
So if you decide to ban opening books and to go for a set of a standard start positions you introduce one of the most important changes since CC championships begun. It becomes a completely different game.
Marc
I don't disagree. but there are already significant issues dealing with books, and I've become used to testing from all sorts of opening positions, which _does_ make an engine stronger btw... This way you don't have to worry about transposing from an opening you can handle into one you can't, as you can deal with them all...
I'm not so concerned about that. I am more interested in the case where a professional book author spends months hand-tuning a book, particularly using potential opponents for tuning, and then lets multiple programs use that same book. The "public" books are not the problem...
Well here is an example. Probably the most professional book author around (Jeroen) has just released a book that he spent months hand tuning. Perhaps he used potential opponents to hand tune this book, I don't know how Jeroen makes his books but it's possible. He cannot stop multiple multiple programs from using that book, it's out there in the public domain. I don't know the statistics, but I would bet that draws are far more likely if two competitors are using the same book, because a good book maker is unlikely to put lines in the book without a refutation for the other side.
One could limit the book in some way, to perhaps 10 moves or so (I know that the testing groups do something similar already). There are at least two downsides to placing limits on the book:
1/ It's much less fun (for me anyway), we don't get to see some exciting cooked line (cooked by someone probably using Rybka)
2/ The dominant engine (currently Rybka) will have an even bigger advantage over the competition, because it is less likely to get caught in a book trap if the book is only 10 moves deep
The benefit of limiting the book of course is that the engine gets to play more of its own moves.
As long as it is public, I am not concerned. I am concerned about the "private books" that have book lines explicitly included for multiple potential tournament opponents. years ago a program reached a position where the opponent resigned, and _every_ move had come from book, having been pre-planned by the opponent by playing against the most recent commercial version of that program. That's fine for a single team to use. Book-cooking has been a common theme in computer chess events since the 1970's. But it isn't fine for that book author to create a private (aka tournament) book that a few selected commercial programs (or even a private program as far as that goes) get to use... it represents a lot of work and is a huge help to the engine. It should only be a big help for one engine...
I play all of my test games sans books to eliminate that factor. Whether we want to go to random starting positions is an interesting question as that would stop all of this in its tracks. It would be nice to eliminate the random factors from influencing the games, and concentrate on the engines. Pick a single position, give it to everyone, and each side plays it with black and then white. No book allowed. But that is not quite "chess" as we know it today. But I'd be more than willing to try it...
Are you serious? No book allowed with random starting positions and concentrate on the engines? For many engines, a book-move selection code *IS* part of the engine. In fact, that was your original argument.
Miguel
Yes it was. But if we _eliminate_ that part of the equation, that particular problem goes away. Someone has already pointed out how impossibly difficult it would be to show that book A and book B have a common author, if that fact is not voluntarily exposed. Who could tell??? Which brings us around to the usual idea of "if you can't control something, no matter how hard you try, then eliminate it...
The extremes appear to be (a) continue as has been done in the past, single book author preparing books for several programs, programmers stealing commercial opening books and using those, etc... or (b) have no book at all.
Something in the middle would be nice, but given A or B, I would probably take B.
You can't control that anybody uses any book right after the random position is selected. I do not see anything useful accomplished and too many drawbacks.
In addition, this is supposed to be some sort of competition where artificial intelligence is somehow advanced a little each time. Now we have limited hardware, same EGTBs, or the same books... and you propose to remove openings from the equation?
I'm not so concerned about that. I am more interested in the case where a professional book author spends months hand-tuning a book, particularly using potential opponents for tuning, and then lets multiple programs use that same book. The "public" books are not the problem...
Well here is an example. Probably the most professional book author around (Jeroen) has just released a book that he spent months hand tuning. Perhaps he used potential opponents to hand tune this book, I don't know how Jeroen makes his books but it's possible. He cannot stop multiple multiple programs from using that book, it's out there in the public domain. I don't know the statistics, but I would bet that draws are far more likely if two competitors are using the same book, because a good book maker is unlikely to put lines in the book without a refutation for the other side.
One could limit the book in some way, to perhaps 10 moves or so (I know that the testing groups do something similar already). There are at least two downsides to placing limits on the book:
1/ It's much less fun (for me anyway), we don't get to see some exciting cooked line (cooked by someone probably using Rybka)
2/ The dominant engine (currently Rybka) will have an even bigger advantage over the competition, because it is less likely to get caught in a book trap if the book is only 10 moves deep
The benefit of limiting the book of course is that the engine gets to play more of its own moves.
As long as it is public, I am not concerned. I am concerned about the "private books" that have book lines explicitly included for multiple potential tournament opponents. years ago a program reached a position where the opponent resigned, and _every_ move had come from book, having been pre-planned by the opponent by playing against the most recent commercial version of that program. That's fine for a single team to use. Book-cooking has been a common theme in computer chess events since the 1970's. But it isn't fine for that book author to create a private (aka tournament) book that a few selected commercial programs (or even a private program as far as that goes) get to use... it represents a lot of work and is a huge help to the engine. It should only be a big help for one engine...
I play all of my test games sans books to eliminate that factor. Whether we want to go to random starting positions is an interesting question as that would stop all of this in its tracks. It would be nice to eliminate the random factors from influencing the games, and concentrate on the engines. Pick a single position, give it to everyone, and each side plays it with black and then white. No book allowed. But that is not quite "chess" as we know it today. But I'd be more than willing to try it...
Are you serious? No book allowed with random starting positions and concentrate on the engines? For many engines, a book-move selection code *IS* part of the engine. In fact, that was your original argument.
Miguel
Yes it was. But if we _eliminate_ that part of the equation, that particular problem goes away. Someone has already pointed out how impossibly difficult it would be to show that book A and book B have a common author, if that fact is not voluntarily exposed. Who could tell??? Which brings us around to the usual idea of "if you can't control something, no matter how hard you try, then eliminate it...
The extremes appear to be (a) continue as has been done in the past, single book author preparing books for several programs, programmers stealing commercial opening books and using those, etc... or (b) have no book at all.
Something in the middle would be nice, but given A or B, I would probably take B.
You can't control that anybody uses any book right after the random position is selected. I do not see anything useful accomplished and too many drawbacks.
In addition, this is supposed to be some sort of competition where artificial intelligence is somehow advanced a little each time. Now we have limited hardware, same EGTBs, or the same books... and you propose to remove openings from the equation?
Vasik Rajlich wrote:There is no benefit to the chess world in having me or anyone else roll his own EGTB implementation.
Vas
That's like saying Nalimov can't be improved upon. Think 6-men bitbases, for example.
Once you reach a certain size, a 10-fold size reduction begins to not be so interesting. 10% of infinity is still infinity, as it were...
That is assuming that we stick to the current solution. I think Gian's point is that a better solution can still be invented.
I don't see how. The "Godel number" is a big issue, as these things can not be searched, so they have to be indexed somehow. And the current approach of a series of square numbers for each piece seems to be the only viable solution, And the sheer size of the files, particularly beyond 6 pieces which is already beyond a TB becomes a problem. Even for bitbases. For chess engines, 1TB is not appreciably worse than 100gb, since neither will fit in ram.
