Author: martin fierz
Date: 06:59:33 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2004 at 17:23:32, Steven Edwards wrote: >On March 15, 2004 at 16:52:40, martin fierz wrote: >>On March 15, 2004 at 16:38:53, Steven Edwards wrote: > >>>Hmmn. Maybe I should offer a wager or two here to the doubters. Like, if I >>>can't get this to work, then I'll stop complaining about the mundane nature of >>>traditional A/B searchers; if I do get it too work, each doubter can send me a >>>new battery for one of my Macintosh notebooks. (Approx. US$150 each.) >> >>i'll accept the wager, but you have to define "can't get this to work" a bit >>more clearly for me. e.g. IIRC your list had an item "become world champion", >>and i would accept that you had "got it to work" long before that. >>for me, the getting it to work part has to be spelled out as some kind of rating >>level - what do you think? what level would you specify? > >Well, first let's hope our board sponsor won't get upset with a little gambling. > >I posted the primary and secondary goals back last month but can't find the CCC >reference. So you are welcome to read them again from the entry 2004.02.19 in >my journal: > >http://www.livejournal.com/users/chessnotation/ > >Point #8 in the primary goal set (combined with #12) is what I claim to be >sufficient for proof of concept, and I'll make the output public for inspection. i'm still not clear on what this means - because in a post further down this thread you start talking about 3 min/move for a test suite. goal number 5 was: "Limitation of the search node count to a mean of one thousand." i don't know how long symbolic will need to achieve this, but isn't it it sort of a contradiction to have either a number of nodes or a time limit?! you also state >I'll claim that #19 is satisfied if Symbolic can solve at least 200 of >WAC, 667 of WCSAC, and 667 of BWTC with a mean time limit of 180 seconds >per position on hardware roughly equal to #11 (400 MHz PPC with 256 MByte >RAM and 10 GByte disk). which i don't know of whether it's true. i only know WAC of these test suites, and it is really easy (most decent programs solve nearly everything in sight (290/300 or more) in 1-3 seconds on modern computers). achieving a certain rating in real OTB tournaments is near impossible, but getting your thing to play on ICC / FICS is real easy. i would suggest a 2000-2100 average blitz rating as a sensible level for our bet. (ICC rating is inflated by 200 points at least). however, since you want to search 1000 nodes for a 3-minute think, you'd have to limit yourself to much less for blitz - i'd say something like 5 nodes/sec maximum - this should be more than most humans can achieve. cheers martin
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.