Author: Tony Werten
Date: 06:00:28 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2000 at 07:31:37, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 10, 2000 at 07:05:45, Graham Laight wrote: > >>It seems to me that PCs' results against GMs are tapering off into a flat line. >>The current style of program may have come as far as they can go. >> >>The battle to generate the highest NPS score is no longer improving the >>computers' performance against humans. Even Deep Junior running on a quad >>processor is only able to score 4.5/9 against the top players. > >Only??? > >4.5/9 is a wonderful result. > >No longer improving the computers performance??? > >4.5/9 against players with average rating of 2700 is the best result of >computers against humans(if I do not include the result of Deeper blue). > >It is even better than the result of deep blue(1996) against kasparov. ????? If numbers tell you that scoring 50 % against the almost best players is better than defeating the best player then you at least have to consider if those numbers are wrong. cheers, Tony > >> >>With dozens of programmers competing to make the "final push" to get programs >>ahead of humans, to impartial observers it looks like the harder they push, the >>more the bandwagon gets stuck in the mud. >> >>Programmers also have to remove knowledge from their eval fns to score higher >>against their computer opponents. > >This is your opinion. >This is not the programmers opinion. > >I see that Programmers add knowledge to their programs in order to have better >score against computers. > >GambitTiger has knowledge about king safety and I can see it winning computers >by sacrifices that other programs do not understand. > >> >>Looks like a doubling of NPS no longer provides an extra 50 Elo rating against >>humans - nothing even close, in fact. > >I am not sure about the nothing even close. ><snipped> >>In other words, shooting up, plateauing for a while, then shooting up again - >>and so on. It's possible that, because chess programmers vary the amount of >>expertise between 20 and (say) 500 distinct pieces of knowledge, they've found a >>plateau (probably the 2nd one), and, angry about being beaten by someone with >>less knowledge but higher NPS, have refused to go down the knowledge route >>seriously. Also, from many years of reading postings in this group, it is >>apparent that NPS, and techniques to raise it, is where the focus lies with this >>particular group of people. > >I disagree. >I know cases when the new version of chess programs have smaller nps. > >One example:Fritz6 is alower in nps than Fritz5.32 > >Uri
This page took 0 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.