Author: David Dory
Date: 21:35:06 04/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2002 at 06:08:21, Sune Fischer wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------> >In theory bigger is better, in practise you don't get much improvement beyond a >certain size. You're thinking of hash sizes. If you can't use a LOT more ram memory, HUMONGOUS hard disks, BIGGER cache(s), and FASTER EVERYTHING, in your program, your programmer is brain dead, pull the respirator! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >do you have any idea how Christophe got Tiger 200 elo stronger than Crafty? They are both using the same alpha-beta, so how >could one possibly be 200 elo stronger, explain that! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Simple: Christophe has put in a great amount of time and effort and testing and has found ways to better tune his evalu8, his extensions, futility pruning, further optimized his code for speed, added more chess knowledge, etc. And all that work won't equal the improvement Chess Tiger will get when he's able to re-compile and optimize his program for the next (faster), CPU and system, later this year. You won't SEE that gain compared to other engines because (guess what), ALL the top engines will be stepping up to the latest hardware, also! Thus the HARDWARE IMPROVEMENT for chess programs may not be so well noticed, but I assure you - it's there, and it is the major factor in the improvement of chess programs in the last 20 years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >The countless number of hours put into testing and analysing, you don't think >that is going to pay off? The software will improve - but slowly, much more slowly than the hardware. I don't care how many "hours of testing and analysing" the programmer's do. You don't think hardware engineers aren't spending "hours of testing and analyzing"? >Hardware _is_ a factor, but not the only factor, which you seem to think. THAT'S NOT WHAT I WROTE: I said hardware improvements were the cause of MOST of the improvements in chess program strength in the last 20 years. I never said "All the improvements were due to hardware." I'm disappointed that you wrote the above when clearly I didn't say that. If you believe that "top programmers break new ground every day", well I've got a "shovel" and will be glad to re-introduce you to the "ground". It's very hard, and doesn't move when you yell at it "get out of the way". <grin> All this "break new ground every day", stuff is one-half hype, which has to be put into context. A programmer may "break new ground", but that doesn't mean it will improve the strength of the program, even a little bit. The "new ground" will be tested, and many times goes right into the shitter! It takes a lot of work just to get an extra 25-50 elo out of a good program. Meanwhile, HARDWARE is improving by leaps and bound. >So I take it you still believe programs are 15,000 times stronger because of >faster harddrives? >Well, at least I tried... ;) >-S. NEVER SAID THAT, I do wish you'd follow the discussion more closely. I stated quite clearly that no program could use these system hardware improvements, fully, but that HARDWARE is responsible for more chess strength improvement in the last 20 years, than software. David
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.