TalkChess.com

lkaufman wrote:

IWB wrote:Thx for that (Andreas and Jesus)

The interesting thing is, that adding time and cores does not necessarily mean better game play from a certain point onwards. Cores and long games can be used different!

... and you don't need long time controls to get a proper ranking for rating lists, you just compress the result and make it more difficult to produce and to distinguish entries ...

Comparison of the 40/40 (or 40/20) CCRL and CEGT lists with their 40/4 lists consistently shows Komodo versions ranking higher relative to Stockfish versions on the longer TC lists. ...

On CEGT list this claim is certainly not true

CEGT 40/4
Komodo 10.0 x64 1CPU 3267
Komodo 9.42 x64 1CPU 3259
Stockfish 7.0 x64 1CPU 3253

CEGT 40/20
Komodo 10 x64 1CPU 3256
Stockfish 7.0 x64 1CPU 3244
Komodo 9.42 x64 1CPU 3237

beram wrote:

lkaufman wrote:

IWB wrote:Thx for that (Andreas and Jesus)

The interesting thing is, that adding time and cores does not necessarily mean better game play from a certain point onwards. Cores and long games can be used different!

... and you don't need long time controls to get a proper ranking for rating lists, you just compress the result and make it more difficult to produce and to distinguish entries ...

Comparison of the 40/40 (or 40/20) CCRL and CEGT lists with their 40/4 lists consistently shows Komodo versions ranking higher relative to Stockfish versions on the longer TC lists. ...

On CEGT list this claim is certainly not true

CEGT 40/4
Komodo 10.0 x64 1CPU 3267
Komodo 9.42 x64 1CPU 3259
Stockfish 7.0 x64 1CPU 3253

CEGT 40/20
Komodo 10 x64 1CPU 3256
Stockfish 7.0 x64 1CPU 3244
Komodo 9.42 x64 1CPU 3237

Actually -> your debunking of Larry's statement fails. The difference between 40/4 and 40/20 for K10 and SF 7 is 2 ELO and unless they had played hundreds of thousands of games, which I doubt , is well within the error bars, thus inconclusive. Regardless, I believe , over the history of K and SF it does appear that K had always done better vs SF at longer TC than short TC. Its has certainly appear that way in the hundreds of thousands of games I have played privately.

MikeB wrote:

beram wrote:

lkaufman wrote:

IWB wrote:Thx for that (Andreas and Jesus)

The interesting thing is, that adding time and cores does not necessarily mean better game play from a certain point onwards. Cores and long games can be used different!

... and you don't need long time controls to get a proper ranking for rating lists, you just compress the result and make it more difficult to produce and to distinguish entries ...

Comparison of the 40/40 (or 40/20) CCRL and CEGT lists with their 40/4 lists consistently shows Komodo versions ranking higher relative to Stockfish versions on the longer TC lists. ...

On CEGT list this claim is certainly not true

CEGT 40/4
Komodo 10.0 x64 1CPU 3267
Komodo 9.42 x64 1CPU 3259
Stockfish 7.0 x64 1CPU 3253

CEGT 40/20
Komodo 10 x64 1CPU 3256
Stockfish 7.0 x64 1CPU 3244
Komodo 9.42 x64 1CPU 3237

Actually -> your debunking of Larry's statement fails. The difference between 40/4 and 40/20 for K10 and SF 7 is 2 ELO and unless they had played hundreds of thousands of games, which I doubt , is well within the error bars, thus inconclusive. Regardless, I believe , over the history of K and SF it does appear that K had always done better vs SF at longer TC than short TC. Its has certainly appear that way in the hundreds of thousands of games I have played privately.

It did appear that K was doing (slightly) better against SF at LTC in the past
But nowadays since the last year after several patches regarding lazy smp and regarding LTC, this phenomena has disappeared
As for your remark: ''well within the error bars, thus inconclusive'' well if so than this is a not consistently higher ranking which is the 'debunk' as you wish to call it

beram wrote:

MikeB wrote:

beram wrote:

lkaufman wrote:

IWB wrote:Thx for that (Andreas and Jesus)

The interesting thing is, that adding time and cores does not necessarily mean better game play from a certain point onwards. Cores and long games can be used different!

... and you don't need long time controls to get a proper ranking for rating lists, you just compress the result and make it more difficult to produce and to distinguish entries ...

Comparison of the 40/40 (or 40/20) CCRL and CEGT lists with their 40/4 lists consistently shows Komodo versions ranking higher relative to Stockfish versions on the longer TC lists. ...

On CEGT list this claim is certainly not true

CEGT 40/4
Komodo 10.0 x64 1CPU 3267
Komodo 9.42 x64 1CPU 3259
Stockfish 7.0 x64 1CPU 3253

CEGT 40/20
Komodo 10 x64 1CPU 3256
Stockfish 7.0 x64 1CPU 3244
Komodo 9.42 x64 1CPU 3237

Actually -> your debunking of Larry's statement fails. The difference between 40/4 and 40/20 for K10 and SF 7 is 2 ELO and unless they had played hundreds of thousands of games, which I doubt , is well within the error bars, thus inconclusive. Regardless, I believe , over the history of K and SF it does appear that K had always done better vs SF at longer TC than short TC. Its has certainly appear that way in the hundreds of thousands of games I have played privately.

It did appear that K was doing (slightly) better against SF at LTC in the past
But nowadays since the last year after several patches regarding lazy smp and regarding LTC, this phenomena has disappeared
As for your remark: ''well within the error bars, thus inconclusive'' well if so than this is a not consistently higher ranking which is the 'debunk' as you wish to call it

Ok - I think we actually agree. It used to be clearer , perhaps now , not as clear.

Great stuff. Maybe you could do the same for number of Threads to see at which point increasing processors has no elo gain.

This links to Stockfish and Komodo thread doubling runs:

http://www.fastgm.de/threads.html

mjlef wrote:Great stuff. Maybe you could do the same for number of Threads to see at which point increasing processors has no elo gain.

This links to Stockfish and Komodo thread doubling runs:

http://www.fastgm.de/threads.html

I fitted for Komodo 9.3. I used Amdahl's law of speedup of a task at fixed workload: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law



The improvement practically stops at 2^6=64 threads. Going to 2^10=1024 threads, improvement is an insignificant 10 ELO points above 64 threads. I didn't take into account such things as NUMA with large number of nodes, which can deteriorate performance.

Surprisingly the ancient rule of 75 ELO for double speed is still valid for 640 + 6,4 vs 320 + 3,2! But there was also theory that self-playing exaggerates differences - not valid anymore?

Laskos wrote:It says that at this 3700-3800 CCRL ELO level the doubling won't give any gain and draw rate becomes 100% for Komodo in self-play.

I assume even if this happens it is no evidence that chess is not a win in 75 (55?)moves.

duncan wrote:

Laskos wrote:It says that at this 3700-3800 CCRL ELO level the doubling won't give any gain and draw rate becomes 100% for Komodo in self-play.

I assume even if this happens it is no evidence that chess is not a win in 75 (55?)moves.

Well, theoretically Chess might be even a Black Win from starting position. All I can say is that this is unlikely. The paradigm of Chess seems to follow closely the paradigm of Checkers. When Chinook started having 95%+ draw rates against top humans and 99% draw rate in self-play from the starting position, it took 10 or so more years to weakly solve Checkers as draw. It is more likely, if this capping of Chess at 400-500 more ELO points to current top engines is correct, that engines like Stockfish and Komodo already play non-losing Chess in say 5-10% of games from starting position. I don't believe the ways to win in perfect play the game of Chess are very rare or unique, more likely they are none. And the higher draw rate might indicate a real progress in solving Chess (again, like in Checkers). So, the capping in current paradigm might be not due to current paradigm, but to real progress in strength. It might be that this is the limit to weakly solved Chess as draw ftom starting position. It surely will take much longer than in Checkers, but I don't see a fundamental difference.

Is it likely or unlikely white find himself in zugzwang from starting position?