Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:12:24 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 01:05:23, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 05, 2002 at 19:58:09, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On May 05, 2002 at 19:25:07, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>I mean, where are we? I cannot make it out yet. >>>Can we safely say that a top program of today can beat all programs from before >>>1996, i.e. 1995 and below? >> >> >>Year of release? >> >>Wrong thinking. >> >>What you need to consider is the number of years the programmer has spent >>actively working on his program. >> >>That gives much better figures. >> >>Genius 5 is a program of 1996, but it represents approximately 15 years of hard >>work by Richard Lang. >> >>Now consider an amateur program of 2002, on which the programmer works since >>1996. >> >>Are you going to compare 1996 and 2002 and decide that the 2002 program is >>probably better? > >The amateur of 2002 has the advantage that the programmer could get more ideas >about programming from reading and also could do better testing thanks to better >hardware and software. > >I can give you one example for the last point and it was about testing to find >bugs in my move generator: > >There are a lot of programs that calculate today the perft function for every >position(perft 6 is the number of legal games of 6 moves from the position) . >They helped to find bugs in my complicated move generator(if I see that perft 5 >is not correct then I can find the bug by finding a position when perft 4 is >wrong,finding a position when perft 3 is wrong...). > >I guess that many years ago there was no free software to calculate that >function and even if there was software to do it the hardware caused it to be >clearly slower so testing and finding bugs was an harder task. > >>about when they talk about knowledge) makes for 10% of the strength of a chess >>program. >> >>Chess is 90% about tactics (which is a concept close to "search"). > >It is possible that evaluation may be more important but programmers failed to >write the right evaluation to prove it. > >I am not impressed by the knowledge of hiarcs based on it's evaluation. > >It failed to evaluate a fortress position correctly in one of the draws against >smirin and in another game it failed to evaluate that the passed pawn that it >has is a weak pawn. > > >I think that programs like hiarcs and shredder that are called knowledge based >programs are only 2 more programs that their main advantage relative to most of >the amatuers is being better in tactics. > >Uri a) shredder is very weak tactical b) Hiarcs doesn't have much knowledge but it is the 'godfather' of mobility.
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.