The future of computer chess

[smatovic]

I wonder if there really was a SOFTWARE progress in computerchess that was NOT caused by hardware progress.

If there really WAS a software progress it should be possible to best martin bryant, richard lang or ed schroeder on those 8 bit hardware. This means 6502 or z80a and maximum of 64 kb rom and 8 kb ram.

IF , and yes IF there was ever a progress concerning algorithms, that is not based on hardware progress, it should be possible to best martin bryant, richard lang or ed schroeder on their 8 bit machines.

Or ??

Maybe there is no software progress but instead hardware progress in computer chess.

I think you have posted this argument over a dozen times, but did you ever think of letting Fruit or Rybka from 2005 or so play the latest Stockfish on current hardware?

I think Thorsten has a point, not that Fruit beats Stockfish, but that the programmers back then got more Elo out of their machines available:

Comparing Chess Engines over History or Architectures - Elo / (Transistorcount*Frequency)
viewtopic.php?p=938469#p938469

Might be a "natural" progress towards perfect play chess engines:
viewtopic.php?p=938480#p938480

--
Srdja

[syzygy]

I wonder if there really was a SOFTWARE progress in computerchess that was NOT caused by hardware progress.

If there really WAS a software progress it should be possible to best martin bryant, richard lang or ed schroeder on those 8 bit hardware. This means 6502 or z80a and maximum of 64 kb rom and 8 kb ram.

IF , and yes IF there was ever a progress concerning algorithms, that is not based on hardware progress, it should be possible to best martin bryant, richard lang or ed schroeder on their 8 bit machines.

Or ??

Maybe there is no software progress but instead hardware progress in computer chess.

I think you have posted this argument over a dozen times, but did you ever think of letting Fruit or Rybka from 2005 or so play the latest Stockfish on current hardware?

I think Thorsten has a point, not that Fruit beats Stockfish, but that the programmers back then got more Elo out of their machines available:

If Fruit cannot draw Stockfish, then he does not have a point. Then there is progress in software. And very, very obviously there has been tremendous progress in software. Not because the programmers of today are more talented but because they can stand on the shoulders of who came before them (in large part thanks to the internet). And of course they are programming today's machines, not 8-bit processors.

That said, it would be interesting to see what could now be achieved on a 6502.
But it would be easy to beat all the old engines on the old hardware by taking the best engine of the time and optimizing all its parameters. This is something that could not practically be done back then. But it can be done today and it results in better software -> software progress.

Comparing Chess Engines over History or Architectures - Elo / (Transistorcount*Frequency)
viewtopic.php?p=938469#p938469

Take an old 6502 engine, reimplement it in x86-64 assembly but modified to use a 64GB hash table.
It is not going to come anywhere close to Stockfish.

[smatovic]

I wonder if there really was a SOFTWARE progress in computerchess that was NOT caused by hardware progress.

If there really WAS a software progress it should be possible to best martin bryant, richard lang or ed schroeder on those 8 bit hardware. This means 6502 or z80a and maximum of 64 kb rom and 8 kb ram.

IF , and yes IF there was ever a progress concerning algorithms, that is not based on hardware progress, it should be possible to best martin bryant, richard lang or ed schroeder on their 8 bit machines.

Or ??

Maybe there is no software progress but instead hardware progress in computer chess.

I think you have posted this argument over a dozen times, but did you ever think of letting Fruit or Rybka from 2005 or so play the latest Stockfish on current hardware?

I think Thorsten has a point, not that Fruit beats Stockfish, but that the programmers back then got more Elo out of their machines available:

If Fruit cannot draw Stockfish, then he does not have a point. Then there is progress in software. And very, very obviously there has been tremendous progress in software. Not because the programmers of today are more talented but because they can stand on the shoulders of who came before them (in large part thanks to the internet). And of course they are programming today's machines, not 8-bit processors.

That said, it would be interesting to see what could now be achieved on a 6502.
But it would be easy to beat all the old engines on the old hardware by taking the best engine of the time and optimizing all its parameters. This is something that could not practically be done back then. But it can be done today and it results in better software -> software progress.

Comparing Chess Engines over History or Architectures - Elo / (Transistorcount*Frequency)
viewtopic.php?p=938469#p938469

Take an old 6502 engine, reimplement it in x86-64 assembly but modified to use a 64GB hash table.
It is not going to come anywhere close to Stockfish.

I know, the Sargon port by Bill Foster:

Re: History of Memory Wall in Computer Chess?
viewtopic.php?p=856414#p856414

And yes, nowadays you would tune eval and search parameters if you backport something onto 6502. But tuning is only possible by having plenty of hardware available.

--
Srdja

[chrisw]

I wonder if there really was a SOFTWARE progress in computerchess that was NOT caused by hardware progress.

If there really WAS a software progress it should be possible to best martin bryant, richard lang or ed schroeder on those 8 bit hardware. This means 6502 or z80a and maximum of 64 kb rom and 8 kb ram.

IF , and yes IF there was ever a progress concerning algorithms, that is not based on hardware progress, it should be possible to best martin bryant, richard lang or ed schroeder on their 8 bit machines.

Or ??

Maybe there is no software progress but instead hardware progress in computer chess.

I think you have posted this argument over a dozen times, but did you ever think of letting Fruit or Rybka from 2005 or so play the latest Stockfish on current hardware?

I think Thorsten has a point, not that Fruit beats Stockfish, but that the programmers back then got more Elo out of their machines available:

If Fruit cannot draw Stockfish, then he does not have a point. Then there is progress in software. And very, very obviously there has been tremendous progress in software. Not because the programmers of today are more talented but because they can stand on the shoulders of who came before them (in large part thanks to the internet). And of course they are programming today's machines, not 8-bit processors.

That said, it would be interesting to see what could now be achieved on a 6502.
But it would be easy to beat all the old engines on the old hardware by taking the best engine of the time and optimizing all its parameters. This is something that could not practically be done back then. But it can be done today and it results in better software -> software progress.

Comparing Chess Engines over History or Architectures - Elo / (Transistorcount*Frequency)
viewtopic.php?p=938469#p938469

Take an old 6502 engine, reimplement it in x86-64 assembly but modified to use a 64GB hash table.
It is not going to come anywhere close to Stockfish.

That wouldn’t be the question. Instead take SF, force it to use only 64K RAM (which will take out a good many of the huge lookup tables and their associated heuristics) of course force HCE, and slow it down to 8 MHz equivalent.
You can allow tuning because that can be done on hardware outside of the 6502 framework.
Possibly HCE SF 11 on 8Mhz equivalent with memory tables removed/reduced to fit into 64K.
Then you have a fair test, with software improvements due to massive hardware availability removed. My money would still be on SF

[syzygy]

But tuning is only possible by having plenty of hardware available.

If the point is that there is no evidence that a programmer of today would have written a stronger 6502 engine if he had been a programmer in the 1980s, then I am not going to dispute that. I have already acknowledged this.

[syzygy]

That wouldn’t be the question. Instead take SF, force it to use only 64K RAM (which will take out a good many of the huge lookup tables and their associated heuristics) of course force HCE, and slow it down to 8 MHz equivalent.

So it wouldn't fit. What is the point? Does this prove that there has been no progress in software?
OK you win! Heh

You cannot compare 6502 programming with x86-64 programming.
But that is not evidence that there is no progress in software.
What you can compare is Fruit of 2005/06 and Stockfish today.

[mclane]

One has to see how the pioneers like Ed Schroeder, dave Kittinger, The spracklens and many others
had done so well in creating playing strength out of tiny and slow ressources on a
6502 8 bit cpu running 5 mhz and using 32-64 kb ROM and 8 kb RAM.

They achieved 1950 ELO on 5 mhz 8 bit hardware without hash, without Tablebases. Without gpu.

Now relate THIS hardware platform to the immense hardware , ram, rom, sizes , the 64 bit for bitboards and the GPU power used for todays computerchess.

Relate the factors with each other and then ask yourself:
How much of the progress is really software.
And how much is part of the different hardware designs and the new possibilities the better hardware allows now.

I have very big respect for the 8 bit pioneers.

[smatovic]

Yes Thorsten, but it can be explained with the law of dimishing returns towards perfect play chess engines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

The closer we get to perfect play, despite more hardware as input, we get less Elo as output.

--
Srdja

[mclane]

True.
But at least two 8 bit pioneers (ed Schroeder and Chris W.) demonstrated on todays hardware/ressources
that they are capable to create strong competitive and even interesting playing engines in todays technics.

Would the younger generations of programmers be capable to beat ed schroeders 8 bit 6502 computers if they would use similar ressources ? I highly doubt that.

Take a look here:

http://ssdf.bosjo.net/long.txt

354 Mephisto Nigel Short 6502 5 MHz 1950 ELO

This is a dedicated unit of ed schroeder using 5 mhz cpu 8 bit 6502.
https://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/i ... igel_Short


379 Novag Super Expert C 6502 6 MHz Sel 5 1868 ELO
Dave Kittingers strongest 8 bit 6502 engine
https://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/i ... r_Expert_C

393 Mephisto Modena 6502 4 MHz 1805 ELO
Frans Morsch strongest 8 bit 6502 engine.
https://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/i ... sto_Modena

399 Saitek Turboking II 6502 5 MHz 1777 ELO
Julio Kaplan’s strongest 8 bit unit.
https://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/i ... bo_King_II


400 Conchess Plymate Victoria 6502 5.5 MHz 1776 ELO

Ulf Rathsmanns strongest 8bit

https://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/i ... e_Victoria

404 Fidelity Par Excellence 6502 5 MHz 1745 ELO
Spracklens strongest 8 bit unit.
https://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/i ... Excellence

So where are today’s programmers if they had the ressources of the past ????

Choose assembler, c++ , c, pascal or whatever compiler.
But use the hardware ed schroeder made the most ELO out of 5 mhz.

If you would ask me to tell about ed schroeder, i would begin with showing you a bronze monument.
How good we still can ask him about those days.

1950 ELO Ed Schroeder was able to create out of the 6502 5 mhz 8 bit cpu 64/8 kb rom/ram.

How much can YOU do with today’s algorithms??

[syzygy]

One has to see how the pioneers like Ed Schroeder, dave Kittinger, The spracklens and many others
had done so well in creating playing strength out of tiny and slow ressources on a
6502 8 bit cpu running 5 mhz and using 32-64 kb ROM and 8 kb RAM.

Nobody is taking anything away from their achievements by stating that there has been progress in software.