Damage 15.3

Discussion about development of draughts in the time of computer and Internet.
Post Reply
BertTuyt
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 19:42

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by BertTuyt » Mon Feb 17, 2020 15:02

Sidiki, the main weakness in Damage (think others could add to this), is the situation in the early game phase with a king for many opposite pieces. Often this is not good for the king, but there are examples where in the end this create a huge advantage.

Another weakness is when both have a king with an imbalance in normal pieces, this is another situation which is hard to evaluate. As there might be not many learning examples, and most likely both sides will introduce many errors, as the right moves are beyond the search horizon.

Bert

Sidiki
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 16:28
Real name: Coulibaly Sidiki

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by Sidiki » Mon Feb 17, 2020 15:30

Nice Bert,
I see , with kings no easy to evaluate. So the importance to have a endgame can solve the problem ?
I understand that make a solid evaluation function for these cases need a huge job to be perfect. A deep knowledge in draughts or the game concerned is't required to fixe this point? Because even the grand Masters have problems with Kings into both sides.
We are glad to the work that you done you and the others. Thank

Sidiki

Sidiki
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 16:28
Real name: Coulibaly Sidiki

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by Sidiki » Mon Feb 17, 2020 16:00

We encourage you and we are waiting the tests until the release, to enjoy Damage.

Sidiki
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 16:28
Real name: Coulibaly Sidiki

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by Sidiki » Thu Feb 20, 2020 16:42

BertTuyt wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 15:02
Sidiki, the main weakness in Damage (think others could add to this), is the situation in the early game phase with a king for many opposite pieces. Often this is not good for the king, but there are examples where in the end this create a huge advantage.

Another weakness is when both have a king with an imbalance in normal pieces, this is another situation which is hard to evaluate. As there might be not many learning examples, and most likely both sides will introduce many errors, as the right moves are beyond the search horizon.

Bert
Hi Bert,
There is 2 kind of programs, the first need to be runed on a powerful computer to reach his top level, another one is focused on the evaluation. Damage, the new is of what side ?
Thank.

Sidiki

BertTuyt
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 19:42

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by BertTuyt » Thu Feb 20, 2020 16:56

Sidiki, Damage (more or less) behaves in a similar way as Scan and Kingsrow.
Most likely also comparable with Maximus, but I never tested that program.

As with the similar structure of the evaluation the programs are now really fast, and in addition to aggressive pruning all reach significant depth.
You don't need powerful hardware for that these days.

Also keep in mind that moderns processors have multiple cores (even the base and/or entry models have 6 or more), and turbo frequencies exceeding 4 GHZ. Even on a laptop.

This yields (at least for Damage) speeds around (maximum) 70 MNodes/second. Kingsrow on my machine even runs at 80 MNodes/second.

With 32 core Threadrippers you enter then the Champions League, but if this speed is really needed is doubtful, as Kingsrow and Scan (most likely) already play close to perfection.

Bert

Sidiki
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 16:28
Real name: Coulibaly Sidiki

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by Sidiki » Thu Feb 20, 2020 17:53

Thank Bert,

I know now that Damage reached a high level. 70Mo/s is enough to be like your already said, to the same league that kingsrow and Scan. This is for our Joy.
I suppose that the engine will run under Hub. So is't possible to do a 32 bits engine version too, we will run it on Android with exagear Windows emulator.

Thank again

Sidiki

BertTuyt
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 19:42

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by BertTuyt » Thu Feb 20, 2020 19:03

Sidiki, the first Damage engine will still be based upon the GUIDE protocol, later i will add a HUB version.

Bert

Sidiki
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 16:28
Real name: Coulibaly Sidiki

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by Sidiki » Fri Feb 21, 2020 01:45

BertTuyt wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 19:03
Sidiki, the first Damage engine will still be based upon the GUIDE protocol, later i will add a HUB version.

Bert
OK, Bert
Understood, this is already nice, the dxp mode will give us many challenges against Kingsrow, Scan, Dragon and Maximus.
Thank, we are very excited by discover it.

Sidiki

BertTuyt
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 19:42

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by BertTuyt » Fri Feb 21, 2020 09:43

Sidiki, I will issue this evening an overview of the tests I did, related to strength of the Damage program , and number of games for learning used.

Bert

Sidiki
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 16:28
Real name: Coulibaly Sidiki

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by Sidiki » Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:08

Very nice Bert,

As i saw it you was very busy these last days. So if the result it's for this evening, we are happy and hopefully to see the good result.
The fact it's that we learn many things from engines that help us again to perfect our game. Having Damage, Dragon, Kingsrow, Maximus and Scan as trainers by learning to these differents playing styles help us.
It's my case, it's why i'm always excited and enjoyed to see a new strong engine.
Thank to you, Ed, Fabien, Michel, Jaap and the others that make it possible. God bless you all.

Sidiki.

Sidiki
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 16:28
Real name: Coulibaly Sidiki

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by Sidiki » Fri Feb 21, 2020 12:43

BertTuyt wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 16:56
Sidiki, Damage (more or less) behaves in a similar way as Scan and Kingsrow.
Most likely also comparable with Maximus, but I never tested that program.

As with the similar structure of the evaluation the programs are now really fast, and in addition to aggressive pruning all reach significant depth.
You don't need powerful hardware for that these days.

Also keep in mind that moderns processors have multiple cores (even the base and/or entry models have 6 or more), and turbo frequencies exceeding 4 GHZ. Even on a laptop.

This yields (at least for Damage) speeds around (maximum) 70 MNodes/second. Kingsrow on my machine even runs at 80 MNodes/second.

With 32 core Threadrippers you enter then the Champions League, but if this speed is really needed is doubtful, as Kingsrow and Scan (most likely) already play close to perfection.

Bert
Bert,
It seem that Montecarlo's algorithm it's more used these days instead of alpha-bêta. Is't for speed or ? Because i think that the first one it's optimal.
Thank
Sidiki

BertTuyt
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 19:42

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by BertTuyt » Fri Feb 21, 2020 13:25

Sidiki, it is not for speed, it is a different approach.
Often used in combination with NN (Neural Network), where the NN is embedded in a GPU.
Good examples in Go (AlphaZero) and chess (Leela).

Bert

Sidiki
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 16:28
Real name: Coulibaly Sidiki

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by Sidiki » Fri Feb 21, 2020 13:54

OK Bert , i understand now that it's linked to NN, thank again.
So, my Last and not least question for you😎: It question of Damage, what's the advantage to use self learning or learning option ? Because of Alphazero famous games, it's writed that he learned chess in 4 hours of computing. In draughts how can we reach it. Maximus for example used in his latest version, it's strongh but don't enough to defeat Scan or Kingsrow.
You mentionned learning into Damage, what's for you the limit or the benefit or danger to use this latest technology?
Sorry if I ask many question, it's for understand very well some concepts.
Thank

Sidiki.

BertTuyt
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 19:42

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by BertTuyt » Fri Feb 21, 2020 14:25

Sidiki, herewith some answers, and others might have a different opinion.
* The advantage of learning is that you can write now very fast, and very good evaluation functions, without the need to have draughts domain knowledge.

* The 4 hours are also related to the hardware Google has, will provide a more detailed answer later today.

* The strength of the Engine is a combination of search, evaluation, opening book, endgame DBs, time management, processing power.....
In the case of Maximus it could be that the evaluation is equal (or even better), but due to a less effective search and the somewhat slower Java, the overall strength is below Scan.
If we all would use a 32 core (4 GHZ) Threadripper and 20/min game, I guess most top programs would draw all the time.

* The limit and danger is the draw black hole. With machine learning one can write a strong draughts program without domain knowledge, and when you add the power of a multi-core CPU, than all programs draw in the end. All known search algorithms and enhancements are very well documented and available on the web (Scan, Stockfish). Ed provided his 8p DB to the community.
So people who start today, and who study and use all ideas and insights all on the internet, can have a jump start (see all the clones in chess).

You only might have differences when you limit the match to very short time controls, and/or limit the number of cores used. When regular time is used and all the CPU power is available you need to play zillions of games to see a win-lose.

For chess this is different as we still see ELO increase on a yearly basis.
I believe that with draughts we are close to perfection, and I dont believe that we see a program in the future to beat Kingsrow/Scan with regular time (2-5 min/game) with a score like 10 win -0 lose -148 draw, with the normal 158 DXP match. But I also thought a long time ago that Kingsrow was the end-point, end i was wrong too.

If this is the case (draw black hole) then people might lose their interest in Computer Draughts.
A way out is to change the rules, like going to killer or breakthrough Draughts.
Or go away from alpha-beta search , and only do tournaments with MCTS and NN, which is interesting!

Hope this, partly, answers your questions.

Bert

Sidiki
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 16:28
Real name: Coulibaly Sidiki

Re: Damage 15.3

Post by Sidiki » Fri Feb 21, 2020 14:52

Thank a lot Bert,
You answered more that i hoped.
It's clear that with the programs that exist in draughts, the strenght is closer of perfection. It's also true that draw are frequently saw into 158 dxp games at the top level.

*Like you, in the past, for me Truus was the end point, after Buggy, and Damy, and Kingsrow, and Scan, and now the "3" Scan, Damage, Kingsrow.
Just to say that, only if we don't find any new programming method, like you said, some 10-0-148 result will never appear again.

*Concerning killer rules, i think that we will apply it to draughts engines, because this perfection of draughts itsn't yet reached even by GMI.
So i think that we will prepare a tournament for all engines that have killer implementation to have a fun.

Thank again for taking time to answer to the question, i understood many things.

Sidiki.

Post Reply