Author: Tony Werten
Date: 14:05:37 10/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2001 at 13:21:55, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 19, 2001 at 03:02:28, José Carlos wrote: > >> Ok. It seems we agree in the background, but disagree in the surface. Software >>is much better now, true. Hardware has helped software developement, true. The >>point we disagree in can (I think) be said in a line: >> I believe that, if Frans would have back then the kind of hardware we have >>now, Fritz 3 would be much stronger, much closer to Fritz 7. And for the same >>reason, if we had now exactly the same machines as at that time, we couldn't >>have done many of the things we do now. That's all. > > > >Many improvements in software do not involve having a better hardware, they just >involve having time to work on the program, having ideas and having time to >implement them. > >It just takes time to imagine the new search algorithms and to work out all the >cases where your evaluation fails. For example it takes time to evaluate better >the passed pawns, and I can tell you it does not involve having a better >computer... > >Fritz3 is pretty poor at evaluating passed pawns. Frans did not need a better >computer to solve this, he just needed more time to work on the program, and >that's why Fritz4 was better in this regard, then Fritz5 was better and so on. I agree about needing time, but I don't think this is a good example. A couple of years ago, memory was quite limited, so no place for pawnhashtables. Without hashtables, evaluating pawnstructures is quite a hard job so it was kept simple. Passed pawns ( with other pawn stuff) is IMO an example of where hardware improvements improved the precision of the evaluation, more than just speed it up. Tony > >In chess programming, I think the human parameter is much more important than >you believe. > > > > Christophe
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.