Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 11:56:36 07/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2003 at 14:27:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 14, 2003 at 13:38:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 14, 2003 at 03:27:27, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On July 14, 2003 at 00:00:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 13, 2003 at 15:03:38, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 13, 2003 at 12:42:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>I (and many others) believe that the Elo system works well for players >>>>>>that are pretty close in rating. It seems to work less well (in the case >>>>>>of computers) for players that are significantly separated in ratings. >>>>> >>>>>I agree mostly, not sure why it should be different for computers though. >>>> >>>>I'm not either. But if you watch a 2000 computer play a 2600 computer, it >>>>_seems_ to me that the 2000 computer wins more games than it should. Or at >>>>least draws more than it should. I certainly can't prove this however, but >>>>experience seems to (at least in my case) support this conclusion. >>> >>>What experience? >> >>On servers. >> >>At a couple of dozen ACM and WCCC and WMCCC events. >> >>on matches played here locally during testing. >> >>Etc. >> >>> >>>If you use games on chess servers then it is possible that the 2000 computer >>>simply updated the software but the result are still not written in the rating >>>list so this is different experience than ssdf. >>> >>>If you are talking about static programs than based on my memory there was a >>>version of cray blitz that beated Genius1 in every game. >> >>With a big hardware advantage. But It didn't win every game even though >>it certainly should have. I don't remember the specifics now, but I played >>something like 20 games and hit two or three draws. That was suggesting >>a difference of 400+ rating points. The real difference was far greater. >> >> >> >>> >>>Cray blitz had a big hardware difference but I do not think that the difference >>>was more than 600 elo. >> >>At that point in time, we were talking about 500K nodes per second for >>Cray Blitz vs genius on a 486/33, if I recall the hardware. The difference >>was probably way more than 600 elo, based on human vs computer games against >>both. > >It is possible that Genius has some weakness that humans could take advantage of >it. > >Based on the ssdf rating list we have difference of less than 500 elo between >Crafty(A1200) and Genius1(486/33 mhz). > >Crafty 18.12/CB 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2614 >Chess Genius 1.0 486/33 MHz 2140 > >The difference is less than 500 ssdf elo and 500K nodes per second for cray >blitz suggest that it was not better than Crafty on A1200 in the games that you >played. Is this not the same bad NPS assumption that VD makes all the time? A CB node is not a crafty node. Matt > >I remember that latest Cray blitz could search 7M nodes per second but I >understood also that you limited Cray blitz >in the games against Genius1 so 500K nodes per second seems logical. > >Uri
This page took 0.01 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.