Search Algorithm

[Krzysztof Grzelak]

Bert I will ask you one question. What to do to draughts 10x10 populnare were more than now.

[TAILLE]

I really don't worry about people stealing an idea, but what actually worries me is people taking the whole source-code, modifying a few lines and claiming the result to be their own original development, look at what happened in chess, this is mainly the reason that I switched to draughts 6 months ago.

Unfortunately there is not much activity over here, to me it feels like draughts has been solved and besides a few people nobody has interest anymore. Maybe this is true but on the other hand I have the feeling that computer-draughts is at the level that computer-chess was 10 years ago and that there is still a lot to gain.

10 years back when chess-programs were at the 2800 level we also saw a lot of draws, later came Rybka, Ippolit and derivatives, Stockfish and Komodo, and now the best chess-programs are at the 3400 level and there is still progress. Of course I can be wrong, maybe the level of the best humans and programs is already near the maximum you can reach with draughts, but I doubt it.

I agree with you Joost, seeing the level of chess programs it is clear for me that the current draugths programs level is far from the maximum expected.
I have no problem by exchanging ideas around draughts program and BTW you saw in this topic I tried to answer all the questions I received. On the other hand I am quite reluctant to exchange code. Any guy claiming having a new draughts program has to do at least the coding effort hasn'it?

Gérard

Very strange and very mistakenly think you Gerard. Not all are thieves code. Think about the people who love programs drafts.

I totaly agree with you Krzysztof, not all are thieves ... but unfortunately certainly a (very) few are. In addition I consider that arguing on new ideas is quite interesting and arguing on code is almost always very poor because instead of discussing the original idea itself the comments generaly focus on the non optimality of the code. I perfectly understand that in this case you discover you can improve your code but that does not compensate the fact your idea has not been really discussed as such.

[Krzysztof Grzelak]

This is not about me, Gerard. I would like to be more popular checkers 10x10, and try for it. But some programmers do not allow this forum.

[Fabien Letouzey]

Hi Bert,

The same was valid for the Truus and Flits era, a long time ago (in a parallel universe).

I was in it for a brief time, and I have an anecdote. I came to visit one tournament with Saïd Koudache, and participated in another (+ one in Paris that I'm not counting here). There were two groups of programs: the strong ones, and the ... normal ones (of which I was part). Although we didn't play, it is my understanding that you were being welcomed to the top group. While cheerful, it felt official. I never saw Truus; it was Flits and Dios when I was there. Buggy was beginning.

Not only that, Fabien revealed all source code and insights, and despite sharing Scan also won the next Olympics.

For completeness, I'm not sharing the development version. Everyone (who wants to) will have to do his own machine learning. We might even end up with more variety than with "manual" features.

Goal is (not easy, or mission possible?) to bypass Scan 2.0

Beginning is hard, because patterns are actually an advanced ML application. Starting directly with 100k+ variables can be intimidating. As for the future, I wouldn't be surprised if Scan 2.0 became one of the worst ML evals in a couple of years.

Fabien.

[BertTuyt]

Fabien, I checked today the Computer History from Leo Nagels.
When you are getting older your memory (like mine) needs some additional support.

Apparently the first Tournament I participated in was the Normal Open Draught Dutch Championship in 1991.
Normal was (at that time) to play (if I remember correctly) 1 hour for every side.
So the tournament was held over 2 days (mostly 2 separate weekends).
The first Normal Championship was held in 1987, and the last (if info is correct) in 2001.

In parallel (also from 1987) there was a Championship with fast time control (think 20 minutes each) which was held in December.
As I didn't liked the stress of fast time control ( ), I did not participate until 1994.
Think the only tournament where we really met was in Culemborg 1999. Damage became 5, Toy the 6th place. But in Toernooibase we apparently didn't play against each other.
According to the History Table, the last Championship (with fast time control, nowadays standard ), was in 2013.
But somewhere in my memory I guess there was a tournament in 2014, but I might be wrong.
Certainly the last 2 years (with the championships in Leiden) these events were skipped.

So (in my case) from 1991 till 2016 is 25 years (no one told you when to run you missed the starting gun , Pink Floyd).
It is still an interesting time, with many Computer Draughts Friends from the early beginning (Leo, Ton, Frank, Harm, Ron), and friends who joined somewhat later (Michel, Ed, Gerard, Jelle, Jan-Jaap, Maurits, and you), and people from the Draughts family who were away for some time and rejoined recently, like Joost.
And also the pater familias who as a referee and co-organizer Jaap Bus was involved from the early days.
And excuses for those I didnt mention here initially (Chris, Adri, Klaas, Vincent,Nicolas, Stef, Said, to name a few) who were part of the wonderful history book we wrote together, but no longer participate.

Unfortunately also when the family grows older, some people pass away, like Feike, who's sun Roel is playing in December for the world championship.

It is a privilege to be part of this family, and I'm looking forward to all new thoughts, ideas, source code, we share as a team, and to boldly go where no one has gone before.......

Bert

[BertTuyt]

Forgot to mention, some years ago I wanted to capture the Computer Draughts History, and I started to write a paper related to this topic.
As I moved to Switzerland, and workload prevented to spent more time on it, I did not update the document, but think it might be interesting for some.
Unfortunately in Dutch.

See below link.

Bert

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dobgyhyxxkoq ... q3Ida?dl=0

[Krzysztof Grzelak]

History of beauty, but what to do next with all this.

[BertTuyt]

The reason for this all, is very good summarized and described in the poem Ithaka.

Bert

As you set out for Ithaka
hope the voyage is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops,
angry Poseidon—don’t be afraid of them:
you’ll never find things like that on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as a rare excitement
stirs your spirit and your body.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops,
wild Poseidon—you won’t encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you.

Hope the voyage is a long one.
May there be many a summer morning when,
with what pleasure, what joy,
you come into harbors seen for the first time;
may you stop at Phoenician trading stations
to buy fine things,
mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
sensual perfume of every kind—
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
to gather stores of knowledge from their scholars.

Keep Ithaka always in your mind.
Arriving there is what you are destined for.
But do not hurry the journey at all.
Better if it lasts for years,
so you are old by the time you reach the island,
wealthy with all you have gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaka to make you rich.

Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you would not have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.

And if you find her poor, Ithaka won’t have fooled you.
Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you will have understood by then what these Ithakas mean.

[Krzysztof Grzelak]

Bert I would like to know your opinions and do not read the row.

[BertTuyt]

Think it is all about infinity.

Bert

THE INFINITE

Always to me beloved was this lonely hillside
And the hedgerow creeping over and always hiding
The distances, the horizon's furthest reaches.
But as I sit and gaze, there is an endless
Space still beyond, there is a more than mortal
Silence spread out to the last depth of peace,
Which in my thought I shape until my heart
Scarcely can hide a fear. And as the wind
Comes through the copses sighing to my ears,
The infinite silence and the passing voice
I must compare: remembering the seasons,
Quiet in dead eternity, and the present,
Living and sounding still. And into this
Immensity my thought sinks ever drowning,
And it is sweet to shipwreck in such a sea.

[Krzysztof Grzelak]

Bert whether you are a poet. You do not want to answer, I understand that. Let me answer that. I think that it would appear.
For a few years they will Championships Netherlands Draughts organized by Jaap Bus. Later this tournament will disappear at all and remain only draughts Olympics. At the Olympics there will be fewer programmers arrive. At this point, fewer and fewer programmers in the world will have written programs in international checkers and come to the fact that the checkers become less and less popular.

[BertTuyt]

I guess I answered your question, so another attempt to clarify my point of view.
As it is all about Ithaka.

Some years ago I met the son of Sir Edmund Hillary.
He told me about his father, why he choose the Mount Everest to climb.
And apparently the reason was, while it is there, and because it is difficult.
Dealing with an challenging topic gives positive energy.
Thats the reason that many people started (when personnel computers became available) to program games.

And whether it was Othello, Chess, Checkers 10x10 international draughts, or go, is not relevant.
Its the challenge the journey into the unknown.
Although the Ithaka is to solve the game, to crack the code, I assume that traveling through progress is more important than the ultimate goal.

I'm certain that Ed and Jonathan Schaeffer had a weird feeling when their program reached the level of near perfection , or (weakly) solved the game, as is the case with Chinook.
From that point onwards Computer Checkers competition makes no sense.
Like tic-tac-toe, four in a row, and other programs which are solved.

I guess that for the Computer Draughts Computer community the initial challenge was that computers were able to play the game of Draughts.
Although nowadays taken for granted, back then with Commodore 64, Sinclair ZX81, often in machine code, not easy and or straightforward.
I remember the first tournament when amateur players were laughing when the saw the results.
And many of them were sure that these animals would never master the game on a acceptable human level.
It was logical, computers have no creativity, no intuition, and computers do as told, and therefore it was common sense, that they never could become better than their creators.

I think there is nothing to prove anyone anymore, in terms of performance.
Although we still need an official machine-human match to set the record straight.

Maybe Joost is right, and are we only at the starting point of the progress curve, and 10 years behind the computer chess community.

But progress will not stop, and although Moores law will slow down, we will see significant improvement over the years.
I tend to agree with Fabien, in the future we will consider the Scan ML implementation embryonic.

My Ithaka destination is to solve the game.
And I'm aware that I will not reach that, even worse I hope I will never get there.
Also when the number of people dealing with this weird hobby will decrease, or that as a result of the draw rate computer tournament will vanish , we will continue, because infinite still challenges us.

I will not reach the Ithaka, nor the people now part of the family.
But Im certain we all will understand...

Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you would not have set out.

Bert

[Joost Buijs]

I think there is nothing to prove anyone anymore, in terms of performance.
Although we still need an official machine-human match to set the record straight.

Maybe Joost is right, and are we only at the starting point of the progress curve, and 10 years behind the computer chess community.

But progress will not stop, and although Moores law will slow down, we will see significant improvement over the years.
I tend to agree with Fabien, in the future we will consider the Scan ML implementation embryonic.
Bert

Bert,

Maybe you are right that there is nothing to gain anymore in terms of performance, but when we look at the 'Feike Boomstra' computer vs human tourney from last year the computers were not significantly stronger than the humans. I don't know the level of these human players, maybe they are all FM or IM but I doubt they are at the level players like Ton Sijbrands had in the past.

It is possible that the game is very simple and when you don't make big mistakes it always will end in a draw, I really don't know, my understanding of the game is nihil, I played maybe 4 draught games in my whole life so don't ask me. The only thing I notice is that the current crop of draughts programs is relatively simple compared to their chess siblings, this is why I expect there is still a lot to gain.

Moores law has to do with hardware, I don't think single cores will get much faster than they are now, in the future they will maybe run at 5 or 6 GHz., on the contrary the number of cores will continue to grow rapidly, Intel has already processors with 32 cores in the pipeline (albeit with a low clock-frequency). For the things we do I believe it is better to have 10 cores at 4GHz. than to have 24 cores at 2.5 GHz. because the overhead increases rapidly with the number of cores.
Lately I've been tweaking a lot in my SMP search and this morning I saw for the first time a time to depth speedup of > 8 with 10 cores so it is possible to keep the overhead under control by carefully tweaking things. The average speedup (time to depth) is lower though, somewhere around 6 to 7.

Joost

[Rein Halbersma]

Forgot to mention, some years ago I wanted to capture the Computer Draughts History, and I started to write a paper related to this topic.
As I moved to Switzerland, and workload prevented to spent more time on it, I did not update the document, but think it might be interesting for some.
Unfortunately in Dutch.

See below link.

Bert

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dobgyhyxxkoq ... q3Ida?dl=0

Very nice, Bert! Can't wait for the update with small pieces on Damy, Scan etc.

[BertTuyt]

Rein, I more or less forgot that I once started with this document.
Will at least try to update with the recent new tournaments.
Thanks you for the advice/suggestion.

Bert