Author: Dan Ellwein
Date: 12:50:57 11/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2000 at 14:43:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 16, 2000 at 14:39:50, Bertil Eklund wrote: > >>On November 16, 2000 at 14:28:14, Ritter Rost wrote: >> >>>On November 16, 2000 at 13:24:25, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On November 16, 2000 at 09:07:23, walter irvin wrote: >>>> >>>>>to me programs fall into 2 list bean counters and knowledge based . >>>>>bean counters >>>>>fritz >>>>>junior >>>>>nimzo >>>>>lg2000a >>>>> >>>>>knowledge based >>>>>shredder >>>>>hiarcs >>>>>rebel >>>>>tiger >>>>>diep >>>>>crafty >>>>>king >>>>> >>>>>now you would think that the knowledge based programs would destroy bean >>>>>counters .but that is usually not the case .bean counters are some of the best >>>>>and strongest .which makes me wonder if trying to put so much knowledge in a >>>>>program really makes it better .i think that depth of search would count for >>>>>more than knowledge . >>>> >>>>To me, they fall into two categories, A-M, and N-Z. I think that the balance of >>>>power has favored A-M (Genius, MChess, Fritz, Hiarcs), but over time we are >>>>seeing an increase in strength in N-Z (Shredder, Tiger, Nimzo). >>>> >>>>My personal favorites are mostly A-M programs, and my own program is definitely >>>>an A-M program (Ferret), but I do have a few sentimental favorites in the N-Z's >>>>(XXXX). >>>> >>>>The A-M's also include the top mainframe programs (Deep Blue, Hitech, Cray >>>>Blitz), and the best open-source program (Crafty), so all in all I think that >>>>A-M is still doing better than N-Z. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>>For me this is the post of the year. >> >>Agree >> >>Bertil > > >The only thing I couldn't figure out is which group is "new paradigm"??? > >:) ahh... new paradigm would be the group N-P, of course... is that - new paradigm, no paradigm, or simply an anomaly... :)
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.