MartinBryant wrote:Maybe so.
However, with respect, people like Uri and Michael have tried to debate this issue by providing repeatable empirical evidence. All you have provided is mystery and intrigue. Their evidence is something that any person can get their teeth into and make an objective assessment of. It is a pity you cannot contribute something with objective value for all to assess.
I have no answer yet. I could contribute more in private but Dann wants it in public. I think that is not right especially when the things we know (in detail) cannot and i will not, put here in public.
That post should confirm a few things for me if answered.
I just want to know about that lump of data in Strelka and the kind of things it contains.
No precise details, just the general jist of whats in there.
MartinBryant wrote:Maybe so.
However, with respect, people like Uri and Michael have tried to debate this issue by providing repeatable empirical evidence. All you have provided is mystery and intrigue. Their evidence is something that any person can get their teeth into and make an objective assessment of. It is a pity you cannot contribute something with objective value for all to assess.
I have no answer yet. I could contribute more in private but Dann wants it in public. I think that is not right especially when the things we know (in detail) cannot and i will not, put here in public.
That post should confirm a few things for me if answered.
I just want to know about that lump of data in Strelka and the kind of things it contains.
No precise details, just the general jist of whats in there.
I think my question does not take much answering.
Regards
Christopher
Christopher, I can be wrong, but if you are rigth about what you know,
you already have wrote about it. In my opinion you have doubts about
what you know.
MartinBryant wrote:Maybe so.
However, with respect, people like Uri and Michael have tried to debate this issue by providing repeatable empirical evidence. All you have provided is mystery and intrigue. Their evidence is something that any person can get their teeth into and make an objective assessment of. It is a pity you cannot contribute something with objective value for all to assess.
I have no answer yet. I could contribute more in private but Dann wants it in public. I think that is not right especially when the things we know (in detail) cannot and i will not, put here in public.
That post should confirm a few things for me if answered.
I just want to know about that lump of data in Strelka and the kind of things it contains.
No precise details, just the general jist of whats in there.
I think my question does not take much answering.
Regards
Christopher
Christopher, I can be wrong, but if you are rigth about what you know,
you already have wrote about it. In my opinion you have doubts about
what you know.
Paulo Soares
Well it's better to ask Paulo.
To use reciprocal material scaling or not....that is the question....
Perhaps this is what is meant by a quiet factor?
My futility margin is a lot less in the opening than it is in the endgame but i'm trying to keep my spirits up while I'm waiting.
I guess I must have a high depth optimism margin of remaining calm.
My null bias is zero right now. Let's hope we don't have two null searches as that would be a pity......
If we do, it will be because some people have a lazy eval of the situation.....
Michael Sherwin wrote:Clone? Well something is fishy about Strelka as Strelka does not even appear to be Strelka anymore! One third the exe size and double the node rate? I can not imagine how I could do that to my program and still have the same program.
Rybka has that huge ~1MB internal data pool that nobody knows what it is for, however, it must affect the eval or why have it. Now if Strelka does not have that ~1MB data pool then how is it evaluating the same as Rybka. There is a program that I will not mention the name of, that I believe is probably based on another engine, that artificially inflates the exe size with usless data to hide its true size. And also modifies its output to hide the fact that it is based on another program. Don't ask, I wont say!
There is a clone of my program RomiChess out there. It did not start out as a RomiChess clone and it is no longer a RomiChess clone, However, for a few versions it was a RomiChess clone and the reason that I discovered it was because I was testing RomiChess against it and kept getting confused by watching the games as to which side RomiChess was playing. It was like watching RomiChess play RomiChess. Then I noticed that the node rate was double what it was in earlier versions and later versions. It also had the exact same analysis bug and ponder bug that RomiChess had.
All this just makes me suspicious about Strelka, just suspicious, nothing more!
Congrats, you are the first one to post this difference, seem everyone else is more interested in the clone aspect. The first version of Strelka there was a large static data table which is now no longer there. The one that was in the original was much larger then 1MB.
