The problem at hardware back then would be that todays software needs 10x more cycles per node than software they produced.Don wrote:I would like to see a test of Genius vs any top program that is normalized by node count run at less than say 20,000 nodes. As you say those programs were handicapped by the hardware - they were forced to make compromises we don't have to make. If I had to take a wild guess I would say Komodo would win, but if it turned out the opposite I would not be surprised. Komodo was not designed to do 20k node searches.diep wrote:Uri, just shut up with this total idiocy you write here.Uri Blass wrote:I think that this system is clearly wrong also in the days of Genius(Genius3 is from 1994) and the only reason that it was effective in games is that people did not know to write a good evaluation at that time.Don wrote:In those days the piece square tables tended to be pre-processed and with some creativity you could have a very comprehensive evaluation function that was also very cheap because the values were determined just once, before each search begins. You could take the time to have a very expensive analysis to determine where to put pieces.Rebel wrote:Yes, all of that. I have seen part of his documentation, the Ossi papers as I have called them. They were wrongly (as I later found out) mailed to me instead of Richard's home address, a package of 200 A4 pages. Ossi wrote very instructive an detailed eval terms with clarifying diagrams that went into some form of PST structure initialized before the search started. Hundreds of patterns and pawn structures. Hence CG had a fast eval driven by a kind of sophisticated PST based system.Steve Maughan wrote:Hi Don,
Over the years I've had quite a few conversations with Richard. Here's what I know (and I'm sure he wouldn't mind me sharing).
- CG doesn't have a Q Search as Ed rightly said
I know from playing with the engines its search is extremely asymetrical i.e it searches broadly on opponents moves and narrow on its own moves
It doesn't use null move (or didn't back in 2000)
It keeps an incremental attack table for each square
It uses evaluation terms at each node to prune (in lieu of null move)
Some of my early programs also had such a system - in fact I built a little language so that Larry could express evaluation concepts in a more natural way. This has it's limitations for a deep searching program but it was quite effective for programs that could only search a fraction of the depth today's programs could.
Fritz5 and Fritz5.32 used this system and I believe that they changed it in Fritz6 and got a signficant improvement.
From the ssdf rating list:
97 Fritz 6.0 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2612 17 -17 1751 48%
108 Fritz 5.32 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2555 20 -20 1194 48%
From the CEGT 40/4 rating list that may be equivalent to tournament time control at the time of Genius:
666 Fritz 6 2455 13 13 1791 49.1% 2462 31.7%
729 Fritz 5.32 2425 13 13 2006 52.0% 2411 29.7%
These guys got engines to work at cpu's with 128 bytes RAM and 2KB rom.
Later on they had 4 kilobyte of RAM and a 1Mhz H8 chip. That chip is a lot slower than a 1 Mhz ARM/MIPS type cpu.
Later CPU's had a 4KB RAM and 64KB ROM and a few Mhz.
You just don't have the system time nor code to get real deep.
It's true things are better now, but that's because we have more RAM and faster cpu's in the first place and we had 30 years more time.
If you are sure you are gonna get 4 ply with a todays engine and 6 plies with what they did do, then i'm not so sure any of todays engine would stand a chance. Besides that todays engines you care about forward prune last 3 plies without picking up tactics, so they would lose everything against Genius, as Genius simply would win tactical every game as todays engines are last few plies tactical 500 elo weaker than what engines back then picked up last few plies.
Today if I do 20k nodes Komodo searches on average 9.5 ply deep. It has a far superior evaluation to CG so I think it would win - however everything you say is true too - although genius is selective Komodo is more selective. I could see Komodo losing some games for this reason but in general I would expect it to outplay Genius. And tactics dominate little searches.
I wish Richard would package up genius into a UCI compatible engine for PC's without making any other changes so we would not have to speculate, one of the early versions that really dominated computer chess at the time. I would rather that than one of the later versions even if the later CG's are technically stronger. I'm pretty sure our memories will not match the reality and we might be disappointed when comparing to modern programs.
I think it might be possible, if the source code to any dos emulator is available, to wrap this up and make a single executable (without the graphics) with a UCI interface? There should be some attempt to preserve these old programs in some form that is accessible by modern GUI's.
Don
If we would use the same evaluation function they used back then at the hardware they massively sold, then todays search would completely lose, as you won't search 4 nor 5 plies, you'll get 3.