How effective is move ordering from TT?

[syzygy]

I can put this another way. I DO believe our evaluation function is one of the best and possibly the best.

"The best" relative to what... How do you compare the strength of two evaluation functions of two different engines?

Have you not read the posts? I do not believe there is a reasonable test for this.

That is what I read, and I agree.

This is a technical forum, so I assumed that your "belief" was at least a scientific belief.

It's a technical forum but that doesn't mean nobody can make a statements without supplying some sort of formal proof. You are just being silly. It's supposed to be completely open to speculation, assertions, bouncing ideas around and so on.

Again, on a technical forum it seems reasonable that readers assume that such speculations, assertions, bounced ideas are at least testable. I am not saying at all that there is no room for speculation. But you are not speculating, you are expressing non-scientific beliefs. That's fine with me as well, but then don't be surprised that you are being misinterpreted.

[voyagerOne]

WOW! Came back to see 19 pages of comments. I guess my question is more involved than I thought.

[Don]

I can put this another way. I DO believe our evaluation function is one of the best and possibly the best.

"The best" relative to what... How do you compare the strength of two evaluation functions of two different engines?

Have you not read the posts? I do not believe there is a reasonable test for this.

That is what I read, and I agree.

This is a technical forum, so I assumed that your "belief" was at least a scientific belief.

It's a technical forum but that doesn't mean nobody can make a statements without supplying some sort of formal proof. You are just being silly. It's supposed to be completely open to speculation, assertions, bouncing ideas around and so on.

Again, on a technical forum it seems reasonable that readers assume that such speculations, assertions, bounced ideas are at least testable.

That is not a very scientific or testable statement. "It seems reasonable?" Can you back that up in a way I can test?

I'm being sarcastic to illustrate to you that this is not how the forum operates. You are not even taking your own advice and I have to say that it does NOT seem reasonable to me that you only present ideas that can be tested. That is a sure way to kill innovation and creative thought. Again I have to say that you are just being silly.

I am not saying at all that there is no room for speculation. But you are not speculating, you are expressing non-scientific beliefs.

I have the right to express any belief that I see fit and so do you. Stop trying to become the idea police.

That's fine with me as well, but then don't be surprised that you are being misinterpreted.

Don't worry, I am not bothered by this.

[wgarvin]

WOW! Came back to see 19 pages of comments. I guess my question is more involved than I thought.

Judging from the last few pages, I think it just means that chess programmers are a fractious breed.

[syzygy]

I'm being sarcastic to illustrate to you that this is not how the forum operates. You are not even taking your own advice and I have to say that it does NOT seem reasonable to me that you only present ideas that can be tested. That is a sure way to kill innovation and creative thought. Again I have to say that you are just being silly.

Yes, I know the modus operandus of this forum is to read everything with a mind willing to misunderstand and to engage in personal attacks. Indeed there is hardly a forum like this one.

Look, you expressed a "belief". Asked how that "belief" should be understood (oh, how silly is that), i.e. what, if true, it would actually mean, you have nothing but "there is no reasonable test". Indeed, there is none.

[lkaufman]

d. you consider your search as average search and you
think the strength has to come from the evaluation ?

Yes.

I'm pretty sure Don meant Komodo has an average search for a top-5 program. Obviously the search is much better than that of any program rated a hundred or more elo below Komodo, as any eval in a serious, state of the art chess program should be within a hundred elo or so of the best one.

[Rebel]

Yes, I have indeed been on about "heavy eval" for years. Curious now how my "heavy eval" from early 1990s is the basis of Fruit. I think you use it too now.

On GM play, the sad truth is that you have no idea.

Fruit? Heavy Eval?

Chris did not say the Fruit eval is heavy.

How does that jive with the following quote?

Curious now how my "heavy eval" from early 1990s is the basis of Fruit. I think you use it too now.

By the mouth of Dann Corbit a quote from Anthony Cozzie:

Anthony Cozzie quit chess programming because he felt that the winning program was nothing more than the biggest bag of tricks collected from all the existing programs.

How could you miss Chris' point?

Insult snipped.

How can one make a point with an outright false statement?

He did not say Fruit's eval is heavy. You know Fruit is not, I know it's not, he knows Fruit's eval is not heavy and after one year R/F debate you know that or you should know that and thus the statement can't be false.

CW - Curious now how my "heavy eval" from early 1990s is the basis of Fruit. I think you use it too now.

You are simply want to read more in the word basis than the intend of the poster. I leave it to Chris from here.

[Don]

I'm being sarcastic to illustrate to you that this is not how the forum operates. You are not even taking your own advice and I have to say that it does NOT seem reasonable to me that you only present ideas that can be tested. That is a sure way to kill innovation and creative thought. Again I have to say that you are just being silly.

Yes, I know the modus operandus of this forum is to read everything with a mind willing to misunderstand and to engage in personal attacks. Indeed there is hardly a forum like this one.

Look, you expressed a "belief". Asked how that "belief" should be understood (oh, how silly is that), i.e. what, if true, it would actually mean, you have nothing but "there is no reasonable test". Indeed, there is none.

I meant nothing personal. But you did jump in as someone else's parrot and I was REALLY annoyed that it was so easy for someone to plant such a stupid and lame idea and have others buy into it without even giving it critical thought.

But honestly it was not personal and I apologize for coming on too strong.

[Laskos]

I think any engine that is not within 50 elo of the top is unlikely to be best at anything important.

I don't think it's 50 points, maybe it's 200 points. It's well known that in certain mainstream openings some engines perform better or worse than on average, by at least 50 points. Therefore in some important problems which are more extreme, say fortresses or closed positions or similar, some generally weaker by 200 points engines could perform better. That's why it's a time when having a Junior or a Hiarcs is still not redundant.

Kai

[Don]

d. you consider your search as average search and you
think the strength has to come from the evaluation ?

Yes.

I'm pretty sure Don meant Komodo has an average search for a top-5 program. Obviously the search is much better than that of any program rated a hundred or more elo below Komodo, as any eval in a serious, state of the art chess program should be within a hundred elo or so of the best one.

I was not technically speaking about the quality of the search heuristics so maybe I was misunderstood. Komodo is perfectly adequate in that regard.

I was talking about the basic speed of the program. Komodo is outplaying many very strong programs that are doing significantly more nodes per second. It's hard to come to the conclusion that the evaluation function is "average."

I think one problem with this thread is that we expressed a belief that is very obvious to us and almost has "axiom" status from our point of view and I did not expect it to be challenged so vigorously. I don't have a direct proof of it but it just seems ridiculous to conclude that our evaluation is the weak point and that it's really our blazing speed making all the difference.

Imagine how strong Komodo would be if it had some sort of evaluation function.