Author: David Dory
Date: 00:17:50 04/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2002 at 03:44:45, Sune Fischer wrote: >On April 16, 2002 at 00:35:06, David Dory wrote: > >>On April 15, 2002 at 06:08:21, Sune Fischer wrote: >So the Tiger on a Plam OS must be brain dead? Palm's ARM or STRONG ARM CPU is far stronger than the original PC. It's a full 32 bit RISC processor. Re-compile Chess Tiger for a Zilog Z80 at 4Mhz, and let's see how strong it is! Max. memory of 64K, of course! :-) >I don't mean to insult you, but you have never written an engine, have you? You don't insult me. Not relevant. My chess program is slowly taking shape, though. Since I learned to program in DOS, I find the Windows event-driven environment difficult to program in. >I don't believe they are at the hardware limit just yet, it may come at one >point. AFAIK Chris said Tiger had improved greatly since he started working with >Ed (was it?). I can't find the interview just now... > Yes, he said Ed had helped improve CT. So here's another chess programmer, saying his program is stronger for the reporters. And I believe him. But it ain't much stronger. <snip> >You state the obvious. I thought so, but it seems to bypass some. >Hmm, so explain this: > >AMD K6-2 400 MHz: >Fritz 5.32 - 2552 >Fritz 6 - 2623 >------------------ >elo progress in development: 71 points > >Deep Fritz: >K6-2 450MHz 128 MB hash - 2654 >Athlon 1200MHz 256 MB hash - 2726 >----------------- >elo progress by 3.5 (and NOT 2) times better hardware: 72 points > >How many years was it between the K6-2 and the Athlon 1200, >and how many between Fritz 5.32 and Frtiz 6? > >I'm pretty sure software is a pretty big factor here, DAVID! > When you test, you use STANDARDS THAT DON'T CHANGE. You know as well as I do that elo is a moving target, it depends upon the opponents you play, (and of course, their hardware, and other factors, all of which are changing). In my other post, I put up an UNCHANGING standard, year by year, noting the tremendous improvement in hardware. Your "How many years", and elo figures above (without even the source being noted), lacking even a time frame, pale in comparison to Jonathan Schaeffer's FACTS. I thought you would really respect his documentation, since he is a chess programming pioneer, with PHOENIX, a PH.D. and researcher in Computer Science, and a very good chess player OTB. >>>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. > >talk talk talk, show us your data please. I did show mine, you didn't show yours. <grin> Their is no absolute data for chess software improvement over the past 20 years that I know of. I mean real data, against standards, not a relative thing like elo. The reason is simple - there has been precious little progress made in chess software. I'd love to re-compile the old 1970's SARGON chess program for 32 bit CPU's, and watch it in a tournament, or Lang's old 6502 REBEL program, or Mephisto, or how about the Spracklin's Fidelity program, that'd be great. They wouldn't win, because they wouldn't use the new HARDWARE component effectively, but they'd be fun. >Oh, so you meant NOTHING but NONSENSE with those numbers, why post them then, >DAVID? I meant just what I said. I compared some old computer hardware, with some new computer hardware. I was NOT comparing chess program strength in that paragraph, and I stated that clearly at the time, and repeatedly since then. I thought the numbers were interesting. Of course, they are verifiable, and quantifiable facts, and that doesn't seem to be something you tolerate very well. >(oh no, I've been infected with the troll caps-lock disease, must go see doctor >soon...) Perhaps the good doc can prescribe something for your allergy to Schaeffer's standardized test results, which document the tremendous improvement in HARDWARE to his chess program's performance. Whether you accept it or act cartoony, is your choice. >doh? 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.