Number 1 engine on long time controls

[Don]

6 seconds a game type time controls are giving zero information back as compared to alternative forms of testing.

Don't you believe in time control testing? By the way, this is not 6 seconds per game, it's Fischer 6 + 0.1 which is roughly equivalent to 12 seconds per side per game - a typical 60 move game should last about 24 seconds. We do not like sudden death time controls.

[diep]

6 seconds a game type time controls are giving zero information back as compared to alternative forms of testing.

Don't you believe in time control testing? By the way, this is not 6 seconds per game, it's Fischer 6 + 0.1 which is roughly equivalent to 12 seconds per side per game - a typical 60 move game should last about 24 seconds. We do not like sudden death time controls.

We have lots of people posting nonsense into this forum, but they all forget that most engine authors here basically produced something similar to rybka and basically got the first 3200 elopoints for free, and therefore are far from genius improving those engines by a few elopoints.

The fact no one claimed source code ownership of that code, nor started huge courtcases, also clearly proves it all was government sponsored; only governments are stupid enough to do so.

If you play engines that are very similar to each other against each other, then usually the one searching deeper wins.

All this 6 seconds a game time controls won't improve the beancounter engines much of course.

You can also prove of course that most algorithms invented in 90s, i invented a couple of dozens, if i retest most of them now, that back then Diep just didn't have the system time, so didn't get enough nodes per search, to even remotely break even with those algorithms.

At 6 seconds entire game you won't be getting enough nodes per search either to break even.

6 seconds single core entire game, what is it: 0.1 second a move or so.

0.1 * what do you get single core, like 2 million nps?

So we speak about 200k nodes for each search.

That's not gonna show of course whether a new 'search enhancement' is working.

It's just looking great on this forum and will prove nothing of course.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

6 seconds a game type time controls are giving zero information back as compared to alternative forms of testing.

Don't you believe in time control testing? By the way, this is not 6 seconds per game, it's Fischer 6 + 0.1 which is roughly equivalent to 12 seconds per side per game - a typical 60 move game should last about 24 seconds. We do not like sudden death time controls.

We have lots of people posting nonsense into this forum, but they all forget that most engine authors here basically produced something similar to rybka and basically got the first 3200 elopoints for free, and therefore are far from genius improving those engines by a few elopoints.

The fact no one claimed source code ownership of that code, nor started huge courtcases, also clearly proves it all was government sponsored; only governments are stupid enough to do so.

If you play engines that are very similar to each other against each other, then usually the one searching deeper wins.

All this 6 seconds a game time controls won't improve the beancounter engines much of course.

You can also prove of course that most algorithms invented in 90s, i invented a couple of dozens, if i retest most of them now, that back then Diep just didn't have the system time, so didn't get enough nodes per search, to even remotely break even with those algorithms.

At 6 seconds entire game you won't be getting enough nodes per search either to break even.

6 seconds single core entire game, what is it: 0.1 second a move or so.

0.1 * what do you get single core, like 2 million nps?

So we speak about 200k nodes for each search.

That's not gonna show of course whether a new 'search enhancement' is working.

It's just looking great on this forum and will prove nothing of course.

It's a stupid time control indeed....

[Don]

Is this thread about Komodo being better than Houdini if enough cores and enough time are used on a hardware no mortals have?

It seems the days bestowed on this debate could have been better used to develop Komodo so that it won't require stellar means to beat Houdini. Or is that hopeless?

The test is not taking any of my time, but that's my decision. I spend more time making these posts than running the test.

The question of how a program scales is not just a theoretical issue, it's right to the point. It's the entire reason computer chess enthusiasts buy faster computers, overclock the ones they have and bring the fastest possible hardware to tournaments.

In fact a program that scales better than another one IS the better program from the point of view of computer science. The reason why is that the level and hardware you might choose to test is totally arbitrary - so we have to focus on the theoretical properties to determine which is the superior algorithm. How well a program is optimized for example is a constant (which for practical reasons might make a program stronger at some fixed level and hardware) but scalability is a quality that "keeps on giving" - if you run it in analysis mode or on a future faster computer you have a different program, not just the same program running faster.

A good example to hep you understand is bubble sort vs quicksort. Everyone knows that quicksort is "superior" but if you are sorting a few items bubble sort or insertion sort might be faster. But we don't measure the superiority that way unless there is some engineering decision that dictates using bubble sort for some very specific and highly constrained problem such as that you will never be sorting more than 5 items for some specific use. Usually it turns out that programmers get themselves into trouble when they make decisions like that such as using bubblesort or insertion sort because they don't think there will ever be more than a few items.

[Don]

6 seconds a game type time controls are giving zero information back as compared to alternative forms of testing.

Don't you believe in time control testing? By the way, this is not 6 seconds per game, it's Fischer 6 + 0.1 which is roughly equivalent to 12 seconds per side per game - a typical 60 move game should last about 24 seconds. We do not like sudden death time controls.

We have lots of people posting nonsense into this forum, but they all forget that most engine authors here basically produced something similar to rybka and basically got the first 3200 elopoints for free, and therefore are far from genius improving those engines by a few elopoints.

The fact no one claimed source code ownership of that code, nor started huge courtcases, also clearly proves it all was government sponsored; only governments are stupid enough to do so.

If you play engines that are very similar to each other against each other, then usually the one searching deeper wins.

All this 6 seconds a game time controls won't improve the beancounter engines much of course.

You can also prove of course that most algorithms invented in 90s, i invented a couple of dozens, if i retest most of them now, that back then Diep just didn't have the system time, so didn't get enough nodes per search, to even remotely break even with those algorithms.

At 6 seconds entire game you won't be getting enough nodes per search either to break even.

6 seconds single core entire game, what is it: 0.1 second a move or so.

0.1 * what do you get single core, like 2 million nps?

So we speak about 200k nodes for each search.

That's not gonna show of course whether a new 'search enhancement' is working.

It's just looking great on this forum and will prove nothing of course.

It's a stupid time control indeed....

Brilliant comment.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

6 seconds a game type time controls are giving zero information back as compared to alternative forms of testing.

Don't you believe in time control testing? By the way, this is not 6 seconds per game, it's Fischer 6 + 0.1 which is roughly equivalent to 12 seconds per side per game - a typical 60 move game should last about 24 seconds. We do not like sudden death time controls.

We have lots of people posting nonsense into this forum, but they all forget that most engine authors here basically produced something similar to rybka and basically got the first 3200 elopoints for free, and therefore are far from genius improving those engines by a few elopoints.

The fact no one claimed source code ownership of that code, nor started huge courtcases, also clearly proves it all was government sponsored; only governments are stupid enough to do so.

If you play engines that are very similar to each other against each other, then usually the one searching deeper wins.

All this 6 seconds a game time controls won't improve the beancounter engines much of course.

You can also prove of course that most algorithms invented in 90s, i invented a couple of dozens, if i retest most of them now, that back then Diep just didn't have the system time, so didn't get enough nodes per search, to even remotely break even with those algorithms.

At 6 seconds entire game you won't be getting enough nodes per search either to break even.

6 seconds single core entire game, what is it: 0.1 second a move or so.

0.1 * what do you get single core, like 2 million nps?

So we speak about 200k nodes for each search.

That's not gonna show of course whether a new 'search enhancement' is working.

It's just looking great on this forum and will prove nothing of course.

It's a stupid time control indeed....

Brilliant comment.

Don,don't take it personally or as a direct strike toward you....

Through all these years when I started testing computer chess programs,I've always avoided such ultra fast time controls....as you everyone can see from the above thread,they're useless to say the least....
Dr.D

[Don]

6 seconds a game type time controls are giving zero information back as compared to alternative forms of testing.

Don't you believe in time control testing? By the way, this is not 6 seconds per game, it's Fischer 6 + 0.1 which is roughly equivalent to 12 seconds per side per game - a typical 60 move game should last about 24 seconds. We do not like sudden death time controls.

We have lots of people posting nonsense into this forum, but they all forget that most engine authors here basically produced something similar to rybka and basically got the first 3200 elopoints for free, and therefore are far from genius improving those engines by a few elopoints.

The fact no one claimed source code ownership of that code, nor started huge courtcases, also clearly proves it all was government sponsored; only governments are stupid enough to do so.

If you play engines that are very similar to each other against each other, then usually the one searching deeper wins.

All this 6 seconds a game time controls won't improve the beancounter engines much of course.

You can also prove of course that most algorithms invented in 90s, i invented a couple of dozens, if i retest most of them now, that back then Diep just didn't have the system time, so didn't get enough nodes per search, to even remotely break even with those algorithms.

At 6 seconds entire game you won't be getting enough nodes per search either to break even.

6 seconds single core entire game, what is it: 0.1 second a move or so.

0.1 * what do you get single core, like 2 million nps?

So we speak about 200k nodes for each search.

That's not gonna show of course whether a new 'search enhancement' is working.

It's just looking great on this forum and will prove nothing of course.

It's a stupid time control indeed....

Brilliant comment.

Don,don't take it personally or as a direct strike toward you....

Through all these years when I started testing computer chess programs,I've always avoided such ultra fast time controls....as you everyone can see from the above thread,they're useless to say the least....
Dr.D

But I cannot believe that you didn't notice that this was a study with many different levels, each one double the previous and that 6s + 0.1 was just the lowest level as a starting point. In the context of the discussion I did not take it as an insult, just as a really stupid comment.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

6 seconds a game type time controls are giving zero information back as compared to alternative forms of testing.

Don't you believe in time control testing? By the way, this is not 6 seconds per game, it's Fischer 6 + 0.1 which is roughly equivalent to 12 seconds per side per game - a typical 60 move game should last about 24 seconds. We do not like sudden death time controls.

We have lots of people posting nonsense into this forum, but they all forget that most engine authors here basically produced something similar to rybka and basically got the first 3200 elopoints for free, and therefore are far from genius improving those engines by a few elopoints.

The fact no one claimed source code ownership of that code, nor started huge courtcases, also clearly proves it all was government sponsored; only governments are stupid enough to do so.

If you play engines that are very similar to each other against each other, then usually the one searching deeper wins.

All this 6 seconds a game time controls won't improve the beancounter engines much of course.

You can also prove of course that most algorithms invented in 90s, i invented a couple of dozens, if i retest most of them now, that back then Diep just didn't have the system time, so didn't get enough nodes per search, to even remotely break even with those algorithms.

At 6 seconds entire game you won't be getting enough nodes per search either to break even.

6 seconds single core entire game, what is it: 0.1 second a move or so.

0.1 * what do you get single core, like 2 million nps?

So we speak about 200k nodes for each search.

That's not gonna show of course whether a new 'search enhancement' is working.

It's just looking great on this forum and will prove nothing of course.

It's a stupid time control indeed....

Brilliant comment.

Don,don't take it personally or as a direct strike toward you....

Through all these years when I started testing computer chess programs,I've always avoided such ultra fast time controls....as you everyone can see from the above thread,they're useless to say the least....
Dr.D

But I cannot believe that you didn't notice that this was a study with many different levels, each one double the previous and that 6s + 0.1 was just the lowest level as a starting point. In the context of the discussion I did not take it as an insult, just as a really stupid comment.

No,Ive noticed the different levels of testing you've introduced....

The comment is not stupid,it's the time control you've used....

Read what the programmer of Diep wrote carefully....
Dr.D

[Werewolf]

Don't waste all your precious time on the forum...keep developing Komodo!!

By the way do you have a rough eta of Komodo MP?

I can't remember but did you say you were aiming for a 12 monthly release schedule or something more frequent than that?

[lkaufman]

Don't waste all your precious time on the forum...keep developing Komodo!!

By the way do you have a rough eta of Komodo MP?

I can't remember but did you say you were aiming for a 12 monthly release schedule or something more frequent than that?

The main bottleneck is always testing time, so answering questions on the forum while waiting for tests is not much of a slowdown. The newest Komodo SP is perhaps 15 or so elo ahead of Komodo 4. We should have MP data in a few days. We will certainly release more often than once a year, but how often depends on the rate of future progress, and the future is unknown.