Author: Bernardo Wesler
Date: 10:42:36 12/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2002 at 07:05:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 09, 2002 at 22:26:11, Bernardo Wesler wrote: > >>Do they consider it as an uthopy? > Consider what as an uthopy? What is your question here? THE ALGORITHM. A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA THAT , FOR EXAMPLE, ASSURE YOU THAT IF YOU DO THE FIRST MOVE YOU ALWAYS WIN. I MEAN TO THINK ABOUT DISCOVERING A CHESS ALGORITHM IS AN UTHOPY? > >>If so, what is the scientific reason? > Idem I MEAN APPLYING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO TELL WHY GETTING AN ALGOTITHM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS AN UTHOPY.. >>If it was possible, how far are they from that point? Did they find any >>evidence? > Away from which point? IS ANYBODY WORKING IN GETTING THE CHESS GAME ALGORITHM??? IF SO, HOW FAR IS HE AHEAD? > >>Anyway, which is the possibility to get a very powerful chess engine or program >>or soft that depends almost nothing upon the hardware? > > Hardware is very important if the evaluation of a program is very good. > > Of course putting gnuchess or crafty at 10000 processors > doesn't make sense, apart > from that making an algorithm that gives a positive speedup at 10000 > processors is 1000x more difficult to make than a program at the level > of gnuchess. > > Evaluation dominates. I see at least 3 programs which are setting > the standards towards progress in evaluation: Brutus, Shredder, DIEP. > > Also indicative is Fritz. The latest fritz also has way more evaluation > than the old versions, though it still is very little compared to the > above 3, whereas we must see Shredder as a kind of middle solution between > the other 2. > > Shredder is very well tested basically. > >BUT, EXPLAIN TO ME, BECAUSE I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN PROGRAMMING, DOESNT THE EVALUATION DEPEND ALSO UPON THE HARD? > > > >>Thx. >>Dr Wesler >>blwesler@mail.retina.ar
This page took 0.03 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.