Author: Pete Galati
Date: 16:18:05 02/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2001 at 18:58:07, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On February 24, 2001 at 17:20:10, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>The point is the sheer size of the jump from one kind of hardware to another. Of >>course I know, as everydoby else, about improvements due to equipment, but this >>one is so large that, looking things from a reverse point of view, It could be >>said that the negative jump from a very fast hardware to a more average one is >>too great. And if the negative jump is too great, then I have certain ground to >>consider that when the product was commercially released they did not put >>enough concern in how the thing was going to run in an average kind of machine >>proper of the average consummer, even in CCC. Or to say again in another way: >>delivery was premature at the cost of the purchaser. My idea is that even in >>chess programming, as in fact practically does almost every company of >>programmer, you ensure that the release will be enough good for the average >>machine proper of time. That's the reason that we, with machines from 90 to 800 >>Mhz, all can say this or that product is very good, etc, although recognizing >>that with the fastest one is better. The point is they give us something good >>even when running in no so fast equipment. So we not complain about Tiber or >>Rebel on the ground that they only run OK when loaded in a 1,2 Giga monster. >>I hope my point is clear, Mogens > >Yes, I do understand what you're saying. The point just isn't a valid concern in >my opinion. To my knowledge all top chess programs performs at a high level on >less than impressive hardware. There may be problems with certain processors >or/and very low clock speeds, but nothing that spoils the experience of a good >chess program AFAIK. > >The ones that don't, comparatively speaking, do so because of the way they're >constructed by the author. A prime example would probably be CS Tal, even though >I've never tried the program. It would be a shame if that project had been >compromised or cancelled due to speculations about processor speed. > >Requirement of certain conditions that needs to be fulfilled imposes a >limitation on ideas IMO. That isn't a sound development for the consumer or the >program authors. > >So I honestly don't see a problem lurking in the horizon. > >Regards, >Mogens Anyway, Gandalf is far from being a mass market consumer program like for example Chessmaster or Fritz. It is however a very interesting first example of a comercial Chess program that is only a Winboard engine, and not a Winboard engine that is also offered with an interface Chess program (like Nimzo). As far as money spent on a program vs strength and versitility, it's still not posible to get more for your dollar than downloading Crafty. But for someone who collects Chess programs, Gandalf might be considered a must have type of purchase because it breaks new ground. I'll be very interested in seeing how it finishes up in this tournament. Pete
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.