Some fun with Komodo 8
Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson
Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Some fun with Komodo 8
1/ Effective branching factors with and without LMR and Null Move
Komodo 8
Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 130966 Branching = 2.03
Ply:12 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 256428 Branching = 1.96
Ply:13 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 496702 Branching = 1.94
Ply:14 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 952252 Branching = 1.92
Ply:15 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1722201 Branching = 1.81
EBF 1.93
Komodo 8 no LMR
Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 15755 Branching = 2.13
Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 36239 Branching = 2.30
Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 88718 Branching = 2.45
Ply:10 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 229883 Branching = 2.59
Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 596821 Branching = 2.60
EBF 2.41
Komodo 8 no LMR no Null Move
Ply: 5 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5305 Branching = 2.44
Ply: 6 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 11355 Branching = 2.14
Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 29124 Branching = 2.56
Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 77321 Branching = 2.65
Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 265114 Branching = 3.43
EBF 2.61
2/ Fixed depth Elo loss due to LMR and Null Move
Fixed depth 12:
Score of K8 vs K8 no LMR: 8  59  33 [0.24] 100
ELO difference: 196
Fixed depth 12:
Score of K8 vs K8 no Null Move: 17  47  36 [0.35] 100
ELO difference: 108
3/ Fixed time Elo gain due to LMR and Null Move
Fixed time 10''+0.1''
Score of K8 vs K8 no LMR: 48  11  41 [0.69] 100
ELO difference: 135
Fixed time 10''+0.1''
Score of K8 vs K8 no Null Move: 51  17  32 [0.67] 100
ELO difference: 123
Fixed time 10''+0.1''
Score of K8 no Null Move vs K 8 no LMR: 39  26  35 [0.56] 100
ELO difference: 45
/4 Legendary Komodo widening on parallel search
Fixed depth 11:
Score of K8 8 threads vs K8 1 thread: 39  15  46 [0.62] 100
ELO difference: 85
Komodo 8
Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 130966 Branching = 2.03
Ply:12 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 256428 Branching = 1.96
Ply:13 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 496702 Branching = 1.94
Ply:14 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 952252 Branching = 1.92
Ply:15 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1722201 Branching = 1.81
EBF 1.93
Komodo 8 no LMR
Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 15755 Branching = 2.13
Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 36239 Branching = 2.30
Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 88718 Branching = 2.45
Ply:10 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 229883 Branching = 2.59
Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 596821 Branching = 2.60
EBF 2.41
Komodo 8 no LMR no Null Move
Ply: 5 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5305 Branching = 2.44
Ply: 6 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 11355 Branching = 2.14
Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 29124 Branching = 2.56
Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 77321 Branching = 2.65
Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 265114 Branching = 3.43
EBF 2.61
2/ Fixed depth Elo loss due to LMR and Null Move
Fixed depth 12:
Score of K8 vs K8 no LMR: 8  59  33 [0.24] 100
ELO difference: 196
Fixed depth 12:
Score of K8 vs K8 no Null Move: 17  47  36 [0.35] 100
ELO difference: 108
3/ Fixed time Elo gain due to LMR and Null Move
Fixed time 10''+0.1''
Score of K8 vs K8 no LMR: 48  11  41 [0.69] 100
ELO difference: 135
Fixed time 10''+0.1''
Score of K8 vs K8 no Null Move: 51  17  32 [0.67] 100
ELO difference: 123
Fixed time 10''+0.1''
Score of K8 no Null Move vs K 8 no LMR: 39  26  35 [0.56] 100
ELO difference: 45
/4 Legendary Komodo widening on parallel search
Fixed depth 11:
Score of K8 8 threads vs K8 1 thread: 39  15  46 [0.62] 100
ELO difference: 85

 Posts: 154
 Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 6:12 pm
Re: Some fun with Komodo 8
Interesting
Can you provide results for
2/Komodo 8 vs no null and no LMR
3/Komodo 8 vs no null and no LMR
Can you provide results for
2/Komodo 8 vs no null and no LMR
3/Komodo 8 vs no null and no LMR
Re: Some fun with Komodo 8
Fixed time: 10''+0.1''voyagerOne wrote:Interesting
Can you provide results for
2/Komodo 8 vs no null and no LMR
3/Komodo 8 vs no null and no LMR
Score of K8 vs K8 no LMR no Null Move: 79  6  15 [0.86] 100
ELO difference: 323
Fixes depth 11:
Score of K8 vs K8 no LMR no Null Move: 10  67  23 [0.21] 100
ELO difference: 225

 Posts: 154
 Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 6:12 pm
Re: Some fun with Komodo 8
Thanks Kai! I really appreciate it.
One last request if you are up to it...
I am curious what the B.F. will be with no null, no lmr, and no transposition table.
One last request if you are up to it...
I am curious what the B.F. will be with no null, no lmr, and no transposition table.
Re: Some fun with Komodo 8
Komodo 8 no LMR no Null Move no TTvoyagerOne wrote:Thanks Kai! I really appreciate it.
One last request if you are up to it...
I am curious what the B.F. will be with no null, no lmr, and no transposition table.
Ply: 5 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5191 Branching = 2.54
Ply: 6 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 11650 Branching = 2.24
Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 28506 Branching = 2.45
Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 76675 Branching = 2.69
Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 269659 Branching = 3.52
EBF 2.66
TT has a moderate effect on EBF (2.66 to 2.61).

 Posts: 154
 Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 6:12 pm
Re: Some fun with Komodo 8
OP delivers once again!
Thanks!
Thanks!
Re: Some fun with Komodo 8
Thanks for the information.Laskos wrote:1/ Effective branching factors with and without LMR and Null Move
Komodo 8
Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 130966 Branching = 2.03
Ply:12 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 256428 Branching = 1.96
Ply:13 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 496702 Branching = 1.94
Ply:14 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 952252 Branching = 1.92
Ply:15 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1722201 Branching = 1.81
EBF 1.93
Komodo 8 no LMR
Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 15755 Branching = 2.13
Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 36239 Branching = 2.30
Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 88718 Branching = 2.45
Ply:10 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 229883 Branching = 2.59
Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 596821 Branching = 2.60
EBF 2.41
Komodo 8 no LMR no Null Move
Ply: 5 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5305 Branching = 2.44
Ply: 6 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 11355 Branching = 2.14
Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 29124 Branching = 2.56
Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 77321 Branching = 2.65
Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 265114 Branching = 3.43
EBF 2.61
2/ Fixed depth Elo loss due to LMR and Null Move
Fixed depth 12:
Score of K8 vs K8 no LMR: 8  59  33 [0.24] 100
ELO difference: 196
Fixed depth 12:
Score of K8 vs K8 no Null Move: 17  47  36 [0.35] 100
ELO difference: 108
3/ Fixed time Elo gain due to LMR and Null Move
Fixed time 10''+0.1''
Score of K8 vs K8 no LMR: 48  11  41 [0.69] 100
ELO difference: 135
Fixed time 10''+0.1''
Score of K8 vs K8 no Null Move: 51  17  32 [0.67] 100
ELO difference: 123
Fixed time 10''+0.1''
Score of K8 no Null Move vs K 8 no LMR: 39  26  35 [0.56] 100
ELO difference: 45
/4 Legendary Komodo widening on parallel search
Fixed depth 11:
Score of K8 8 threads vs K8 1 thread: 39  15  46 [0.62] 100
ELO difference: 85
It may be interesting to know the effective branching factor with the default version also for stockfish and also for higher depths than depths 1115
It may be interesting to know if the EBF tend to go down when the depth go up to get some formula of the average nodes that chess programs need to get depth n both for stockfish and komodo.
Re: Some fun with Komodo 8
I am on my weak notebook, so the depths achieved are not very high.Uri Blass wrote:
Thanks for the information.
It may be interesting to know the effective branching factor with the default version also for stockfish and also for higher depths than depths 1115
It may be interesting to know if the EBF tend to go down when the depth go up to get some formula of the average nodes that chess programs need to get depth n both for stockfish and komodo.
Code: Select all
Komodo 8
TotTime: 121:01m SolTime: 121:01m
Ply: 0 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 0 Branching = 0.00
Ply: 1 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 145 Branching = 0.00
Ply: 2 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 361 Branching = 2.49
Ply: 3 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 735 Branching = 2.04
Ply: 4 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1604 Branching = 2.18
Ply: 5 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 2925 Branching = 1.82
Ply: 6 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5034 Branching = 1.72
Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 9015 Branching = 1.79
Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 16481 Branching = 1.83
Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 32833 Branching = 1.99
Ply:10 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 64039 Branching = 1.95
Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 130712 Branching = 2.04
Ply:12 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 258195 Branching = 1.98
Ply:13 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 493481 Branching = 1.91
Ply:14 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 942114 Branching = 1.91
Ply:15 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1706669 Branching = 1.81
Ply:16 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 3093132 Branching = 1.81
Ply:17 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5904301 Branching = 1.91
SF 21092014
TotTime: 99:42m SolTime: 99:42m
Ply: 0 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 0 Branching = 0.00
Ply: 1 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 143 Branching = 0.00
Ply: 2 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 454 Branching = 3.17
Ply: 3 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 920 Branching = 2.03
Ply: 4 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1716 Branching = 1.87
Ply: 5 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 2994 Branching = 1.74
Ply: 6 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5161 Branching = 1.72
Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 8765 Branching = 1.70
Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 15862 Branching = 1.81
Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 32596 Branching = 2.05
Ply:10 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 64130 Branching = 1.97
Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 114509 Branching = 1.79
Ply:12 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 214187 Branching = 1.87
Ply:13 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 387621 Branching = 1.81
Ply:14 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 642514 Branching = 1.66
Ply:15 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1131855 Branching = 1.76
Ply:16 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1895303 Branching = 1.67
Ply:17 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 3085415 Branching = 1.63
Ply:18 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 4856014 Branching = 1.57
Ply:19 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 7714003 Branching = 1.59
2/ Better take EBF of last 5 plies, which are better predictor for higher depths. Keep in mind that I used Hash of 1GB, which was never fully filled during the test.
So, for EBF in the last 5 plies:
EBF Komodo 8: 1.87
EBF SF: 1.64
And their respective predictions for higher depths (with enough Hash) are:
Komodo 8: Nodes=5904301*1.87^(depth17)
SF 21092014: Nodes=7714003*1.64^(depth19)
Re: Some fun with Komodo 8
You assume constant branching factor but I suspect that the branching factor tends to goes down with more nodes so it is going to be less than itLaskos wrote:I am on my weak notebook, so the depths achieved are not very high.Uri Blass wrote:
Thanks for the information.
It may be interesting to know the effective branching factor with the default version also for stockfish and also for higher depths than depths 1115
It may be interesting to know if the EBF tend to go down when the depth go up to get some formula of the average nodes that chess programs need to get depth n both for stockfish and komodo.1/ If we take EBF as Nodes^(1/Depth) then we will get misleading EBF Komodo 2.50 and EBF SF 2.30. That's because of Ply 1, which suddenly rises to large values.Code: Select all
Komodo 8 TotTime: 121:01m SolTime: 121:01m Ply: 0 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 0 Branching = 0.00 Ply: 1 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 145 Branching = 0.00 Ply: 2 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 361 Branching = 2.49 Ply: 3 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 735 Branching = 2.04 Ply: 4 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1604 Branching = 2.18 Ply: 5 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 2925 Branching = 1.82 Ply: 6 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5034 Branching = 1.72 Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 9015 Branching = 1.79 Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 16481 Branching = 1.83 Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 32833 Branching = 1.99 Ply:10 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 64039 Branching = 1.95 Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 130712 Branching = 2.04 Ply:12 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 258195 Branching = 1.98 Ply:13 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 493481 Branching = 1.91 Ply:14 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 942114 Branching = 1.91 Ply:15 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1706669 Branching = 1.81 Ply:16 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 3093132 Branching = 1.81 Ply:17 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5904301 Branching = 1.91 SF 21092014 TotTime: 99:42m SolTime: 99:42m Ply: 0 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 0 Branching = 0.00 Ply: 1 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 143 Branching = 0.00 Ply: 2 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 454 Branching = 3.17 Ply: 3 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 920 Branching = 2.03 Ply: 4 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1716 Branching = 1.87 Ply: 5 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 2994 Branching = 1.74 Ply: 6 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5161 Branching = 1.72 Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 8765 Branching = 1.70 Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 15862 Branching = 1.81 Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 32596 Branching = 2.05 Ply:10 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 64130 Branching = 1.97 Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 114509 Branching = 1.79 Ply:12 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 214187 Branching = 1.87 Ply:13 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 387621 Branching = 1.81 Ply:14 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 642514 Branching = 1.66 Ply:15 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1131855 Branching = 1.76 Ply:16 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1895303 Branching = 1.67 Ply:17 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 3085415 Branching = 1.63 Ply:18 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 4856014 Branching = 1.57 Ply:19 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 7714003 Branching = 1.59
2/ Better take EBF of last 5 plies, which are better predictor for higher depths. Keep in mind that I used Hash of 1GB, which was never fully filled during the test.
So, for EBF in the last 5 plies:
EBF Komodo 8: 1.87
EBF SF: 1.64
And their respective predictions for higher depths (with enough Hash) are:
Komodo 8: Nodes=5904301*1.87^(depth17)
SF 21092014: Nodes=7714003*1.64^(depth19)
and you may need a different formula
Somebody claimed that
the amount N of nodes to depth d in the opening position
fits the formula
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgr ... y7WosULKWk
Sergey Morozov suggested the following formula as an estimate based on analysis of the opening position
Nodes= 1.5*15^(depth^0.6)
Of course a single position may be misleading but it may be interesting to find the best A,B,C for a formula of the type
Nodes=C*A^(depth^B).
Re: Some fun with Komodo 8
I fitted with least squares the results for SF (ply 1 to 19) and Komodo 8 (ply 1 to 17).Uri Blass wrote:You assume constant branching factor but I suspect that the branching factor tends to goes down with more nodes so it is going to be less than itLaskos wrote:I am on my weak notebook, so the depths achieved are not very high.Uri Blass wrote:
Thanks for the information.
It may be interesting to know the effective branching factor with the default version also for stockfish and also for higher depths than depths 1115
It may be interesting to know if the EBF tend to go down when the depth go up to get some formula of the average nodes that chess programs need to get depth n both for stockfish and komodo.1/ If we take EBF as Nodes^(1/Depth) then we will get misleading EBF Komodo 2.50 and EBF SF 2.30. That's because of Ply 1, which suddenly rises to large values.Code: Select all
Komodo 8 TotTime: 121:01m SolTime: 121:01m Ply: 0 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 0 Branching = 0.00 Ply: 1 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 145 Branching = 0.00 Ply: 2 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 361 Branching = 2.49 Ply: 3 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 735 Branching = 2.04 Ply: 4 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1604 Branching = 2.18 Ply: 5 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 2925 Branching = 1.82 Ply: 6 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5034 Branching = 1.72 Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 9015 Branching = 1.79 Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 16481 Branching = 1.83 Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 32833 Branching = 1.99 Ply:10 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 64039 Branching = 1.95 Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 130712 Branching = 2.04 Ply:12 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 258195 Branching = 1.98 Ply:13 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 493481 Branching = 1.91 Ply:14 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 942114 Branching = 1.91 Ply:15 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1706669 Branching = 1.81 Ply:16 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 3093132 Branching = 1.81 Ply:17 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5904301 Branching = 1.91 SF 21092014 TotTime: 99:42m SolTime: 99:42m Ply: 0 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 0 Branching = 0.00 Ply: 1 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 143 Branching = 0.00 Ply: 2 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 454 Branching = 3.17 Ply: 3 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 920 Branching = 2.03 Ply: 4 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1716 Branching = 1.87 Ply: 5 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 2994 Branching = 1.74 Ply: 6 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 5161 Branching = 1.72 Ply: 7 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 8765 Branching = 1.70 Ply: 8 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 15862 Branching = 1.81 Ply: 9 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 32596 Branching = 2.05 Ply:10 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 64130 Branching = 1.97 Ply:11 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 114509 Branching = 1.79 Ply:12 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 214187 Branching = 1.87 Ply:13 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 387621 Branching = 1.81 Ply:14 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 642514 Branching = 1.66 Ply:15 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1131855 Branching = 1.76 Ply:16 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 1895303 Branching = 1.67 Ply:17 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 3085415 Branching = 1.63 Ply:18 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 4856014 Branching = 1.57 Ply:19 Positions:150 Avg Nodes: 7714003 Branching = 1.59
2/ Better take EBF of last 5 plies, which are better predictor for higher depths. Keep in mind that I used Hash of 1GB, which was never fully filled during the test.
So, for EBF in the last 5 plies:
EBF Komodo 8: 1.87
EBF SF: 1.64
And their respective predictions for higher depths (with enough Hash) are:
Komodo 8: Nodes=5904301*1.87^(depth17)
SF 21092014: Nodes=7714003*1.64^(depth19)
and you may need a different formula
Somebody claimed that
the amount N of nodes to depth d in the opening position
fits the formula
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgr ... y7WosULKWk
Sergey Morozov suggested the following formula as an estimate based on analysis of the opening position
Nodes= 1.5*15^(depth^0.6)
Of course a single position may be misleading but it may be interesting to find the best A,B,C for a formula of the type
Nodes=C*A^(depth^B).
SF: Nodes = 51.1*3.908^(depth^0.7367)
The branching factor here indeed goes down with depth (with unlimited Hash size).
But for Komodo 8: Nodes = 268.2*1.621^(depth^1.069)
The branching factor here goes very mildly up with depth (with unlimited Hash size).