larger nets for SF?
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:24 pm
larger nets for SF?
If Fat Fritz 2 is basically SF 12 with a larger net, but has an elo roughly the same as SF 13, why don't the SF team combine larger nets to make SF Dev much stronger?
-
- Posts: 12541
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: larger nets for SF?
Because Fat Fritz has put fear into their hearts. This usurper has beaten us with very, very, very little resources:
http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20Li ... liste.html
Now, they know they were wrong, but they are careful to react because they don't want to look stupid.
When the stronger cards appear, they will be positively forced to react, but for now, they cower in a corner, with their hands over their heads.
I believe it was monty python who bravely said, "run away! run away!"
http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20Li ... liste.html
Now, they know they were wrong, but they are careful to react because they don't want to look stupid.
When the stronger cards appear, they will be positively forced to react, but for now, they cower in a corner, with their hands over their heads.
I believe it was monty python who bravely said, "run away! run away!"
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:55 am
- Full name: Ted Wong
Re: larger nets for SF?
FF2 is closer to SF13 than SF12.
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:24 pm
Re: larger nets for SF?
Kinderchoc - thanks, that makes a lot of sense. So basically the FF2 net doesn't add as much as claimed, but it looked like it did when it was thought FF2 was based on SF12
-
- Posts: 4190
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:47 am
Re: larger nets for SF?
Cards??? What cards? What the hell are you talking about? It's Fat Fritz 2 that is in question i.e. SF clone, not Fat Fritz (1) that is Lc0 clone.Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:19 am Because Fat Fritz has put fear into their hearts. This usurper has beaten us with very, very, very little resources:
http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20Li ... liste.html
Now, they know they were wrong, but they are careful to react because they don't want to look stupid.
When the stronger cards appear, they will be positively forced to react, but for now, they cower in a corner, with their hands over their heads.
I believe it was monty python who bravely said, "run away! run away!"
-
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:39 pm
- Full name: Tomasz Sobczyk
Re: larger nets for SF?
That's how far false marketing can go.
Fat Fritz 2 is based on a development version of stockfish from early february this year and is worse than said base.
Fat Fritz 2 is based on a development version of stockfish from early february this year and is worse than said base.
dangi12012 wrote:No one wants to touch anything you have posted. That proves you now have negative reputations since everyone knows already you are a forum troll.
Maybe you copied your stockfish commits from someone else too?
I will look into that.
-
- Posts: 12541
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: larger nets for SF?
It appears that my point was missed entirely.
If you examine the Elo of the LC0 nets, the larger the net, the larger the Elo. And it isn't close. The big nets CLOBBER the smaller ones.
I think that bigger and bigger nets should be constructed until it is no longer true.
Similarly with SF.
Yes, Albert spent a great deal of money testing out his ideas. But the resources he could purchase are not nearly so large as the free resource of the SF mega-team has at their very fingertips.
And yet this upstart beats them all:
http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20Li ... liste.html
What did he do?
Well, one OBVIOUS thing is to double the net size.
Now, he also did special analysis to vary the input data, which is not to be discounted.
But why shouldn't the SF team double, quadruple, and so on the size of the net until no more Elo falls out of it?
To me, it seems an utter no-brainer.
If you examine the Elo of the LC0 nets, the larger the net, the larger the Elo. And it isn't close. The big nets CLOBBER the smaller ones.
I think that bigger and bigger nets should be constructed until it is no longer true.
Similarly with SF.
Yes, Albert spent a great deal of money testing out his ideas. But the resources he could purchase are not nearly so large as the free resource of the SF mega-team has at their very fingertips.
And yet this upstart beats them all:
http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20Li ... liste.html
What did he do?
Well, one OBVIOUS thing is to double the net size.
Now, he also did special analysis to vary the input data, which is not to be discounted.
But why shouldn't the SF team double, quadruple, and so on the size of the net until no more Elo falls out of it?
To me, it seems an utter no-brainer.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 4889
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:34 am
- Location: Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania
Re: larger nets for SF?
hmmm... I see a difference in style of play and FRC was certainly better, but Elo gain from doubling? - from whatever possible gain was obtained, it does not appear to be worth the extra 20MB of space to store... just my $.02 .. I do like the fact that Albert tried something new and maybe he is on to something, but I am not sure yet.Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:47 am It appears that my point was missed entirely.
If you examine the Elo of the LC0 nets, the larger the net, the larger the Elo. And it isn't close. The big nets CLOBBER the smaller ones.
I think that bigger and bigger nets should be constructed until it is no longer true.
Similarly with SF.
Yes, Albert spent a great deal of money testing out his ideas. But the resources he could purchase are not nearly so large as the free resource of the SF mega-team has at their very fingertips.
And yet this upstart beats them all:
http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20Li ... liste.html
What did he do?
Well, one OBVIOUS thing is to double the net size.
Now, he also did special analysis to vary the input data, which is not to be discounted.
But why shouldn't the SF team double, quadruple, and so on the size of the net until no more Elo falls out of it?
To me, it seems an utter no-brainer.
-
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:18 pm
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
- Full name: Srdja Matovic
Re: larger nets for SF?
I think it is a trade-off, bigger nets = less nps = shallower AB searches. Elo gain by bigger nets vs. Elo gain by deeper searches, or alike. With more horse-power from vector units on CPU the net size will rise for sure.Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:47 am ...
But why shouldn't the SF team double, quadruple, and so on the size of the net until no more Elo falls out of it?
...
--
Srdja
-
- Posts: 1563
- Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:47 am
- Location: Almere, The Netherlands
Re: larger nets for SF?
It's nothing new, everybody understands that a larger network can hold more information. With current computers the storage space is not a problem too, it's all a trade-off between speed and network size. At the point that the Elo gain from increasing the network size becomes less than the Elo loss from the decreased speed you don't want to make it larger anymore.MikeB wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:18 am hmmm... I see a difference in style of play and FRC was certainly better, but Elo gain from doubling? - from whatever possible gain was obtained, it does not appear to be worth the extra 20MB of space to store... just my $.02 .. I do like the fact that Albert tried something new and maybe he is on to something, but I am not sure yet.