Author: Randolph S. Baker
Date: 07:42:40 11/13/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1997 at 09:16:27, Graham Laight wrote: > >On November 13, 1997 at 07:13:03, Chris Whittington wrote: > >>This is not directed specifically at Amir ....... >> >>I think the whole lot of you are avoiding the crucial issue from the >>games at WMCCC. >> >>The fast searchers, even with 767 alphas, were expected to sweep the >>board. Manifestly they didn't. >> >>Some other fast searchers, running on PC's also under-performed >>according to expectations. >> >>Several programs (ranging from very slow, to quite fast, but none of >>them brute monsters) were not even spoken about before the WMCCC as >>being of any interest, performed way above expectations. >> >>One program (self-promotion prize Kim-il-Sung already awarded) running >>at 4000 nps did really rather well. >> >>Something is going on, and none of you is addressing it. >> >>Compare the cock-crowing and hubris from before the event .... >> >>The old knowledge-speed issue which gets jumped on as >>boring/tedious/been through it all before/our way is best by the usual >>culprits rears its ugly head again :) >> >>Chris Whittington > >If increasing computer hardware speed is tipping the knowledge/speed >battle in favour of knowledge (which seems to be the prevailing >doctrine), then one could expect the following effects: > >If a clever program played a quick one at low time controls (e.g. game >in 5), the quick ones should win. > >At medium time controls (e.g. tournament chess times), it should be >getting more even. > >At long time controls, the clever programs should be dominant. > I observed a very similar pattern in playing Fritz5 versus the Hiarcs6 engine, with 1 additional discrepancy which also makes sense: at very short (relatively) time controls, search wins over knowledge because the knowledge programs miss tactics. (My testing was done on a P90, so some appropriate scale applied to the time controls compared with a P233 would also account for it). In very fast games (e.g. 4'+2'' or 5' fixed), Fritz5 wins handily. At modest blitz speeds (5'+12'') Hiarcs6 was even or slightly better. At somewhat longer time controls (25' fixed), Fritz5 was slightly better. I haven't run many tournament time matches, but I have 20 game Nunn match at 40/2 in progress. Results for first 6 games are Fritz5 +3-2=1, (too close to call.) >So - if Tal was to play Fritz at a rate of 1 hour per move, would it >have a better chance of winning? It should have. According to Chris, Tal >should be the perfect program for correspondence chess. > >However, I have my doubts and suspicions as to whether it really would >dominate at long time controls. I agree with the theory, but I have >nagging doubts as to whether practice would agree with the theory. Has >anyone done any testing along these lines?
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.