Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:04:41 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2000 at 12:17:01, Joshua Lee wrote: > >>two questions come to mind: >> >>1) I presume the difference between the older Cray and the latest and greatest >>T90 is more than some overclocking, so mightn't it be _possible_ to write a >>better optimized CB, that took advantage of the hardware's evolution, and thus >>achieved a much faster node count (among other things) than the current version? >> >>2) You mentioned that even letting Crafty going over CB's 1986 games with >>greater time and depth, it was at a loss to find a tactical goof by CB, >>suggesting that CB's tactical search was considerably superior. Is this only due >>software differences made possible by hardware differences, or do you think it >>would be possible to use similar searches/extensions in Crafty today? Would this >>hurt it? I know nothing is without a cost, big or small, which is why I ask. >> >> Albert > > >Actually the mistake is there in that game ..... it just takes crafty 14ply or >more to find it ....i didn't have too much time to look i will recheck and leave >it for 1hr. my explination as earlier is Ne6 white (CB) gets the queen for 3 >minor pieces Chiptest will have to mate and it isn't going to happen without >promoting a pawn and that is far off so probably a draw at worst for CB Something is wrong. Chiptest didn't play in the 1986 WCCC event. It played in the 1986 ACM event, but Cray Blitz didn't. It sounds like you are looking at the 1987 ACM event where CB changed from Ne6 at the last minute and played something that lost, due to some unknown parallel search glitch? But no Chiptest on Germany in 1986, which was the set of games I used for the test I mentioned.
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.