Author: martin fierz
Date: 07:49:13 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 09:59:33, martin fierz wrote: >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 or, to make this more personal: if symbolic doesn't lose a 2-game match at G/30+small increment against me on ICC, searching no more than 1000 nodes per move on average, you win. deal? 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.