Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:07:35 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2000 at 09:00:28, Tony Werten wrote: >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 like Uri i like to look to the games too and especially the number of obvious bad moves made a game by the opponent of the computer. Taking that into account junior achieved the best performance by a large margin so far. However if you look to the lost games and also the positions that it didn't manage to convert to a win (like 2 pawns up against khalifman and still he draws) then there is still a lot to achieve. Basically a very well rude statement of mine: "i can draw programs at any time of the day, because i can convert to drawn endgames", seems a very cool statement, and practically implemented a lot. They however still don't seem to use a different statement of mine: "just go out for a draw against the computer, you'll have your draw then but most likely it will blow it somewhere giving you a chance to win". let's pray shredder plays a match against kaspy or kramnik real soon, because that would be real cool. the program with the best endgame against the best player(s). However i think the message of Uri reflected clearly that knowledge has become more important now, despite that he seemingly draws the wrong conclusion. >> >>> >>>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.