Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 17:33:46 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 20:03:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 05, 1999 at 13:30:52, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On December 05, 1999 at 12:49:48, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On November 30, 1999 at 01:32:41, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On November 29, 1999 at 09:10:26, Albert Silver wrote: >>>> >>>>>Guadeloupe isn't exactly a hotbed for strong chess players. I'm not sure how >>>>>much he can learn from such games. >>>>> >>>>> Albert Silver >>>> >>>>I must concur, but am also compelled to comment that Christophe's war chest of >>>>386s isn't exactly a hotbed of speed either. :) >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>> >>>That's exactly the point. Using a 386sx-20MHz again and again against players >>>that understand where the weaknesses of the program are is a terrible test, >>>believe me. >>> >>>For years, they wanted to play against Chess Tiger because it was fun to beat >>>"the" computer. >>> >>>Tiger had no learning, and usually the same player tried to play the same >>>unsound king attack over and over until he won. Usually it took several trials >>>because the human player would do a tactical mistake. I did not prevent them >>>from doing so. >>> >>>I have learned a lot with this. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I understand, and this brings to mind Ed's comment sometime ago in which he >>explained how hard it was nowadays to see where and when Rebel was improving or >>not, simply due to the depth and strength of the program. Naturally, it is much >>easier to see what it is doing wrong at 6-7 plies than 11-12, nevertheless the >>difference between a 2000 rated player and an GM rated 2500 is not merely one of >>depth of calculation. Naturally, the GM is calculating far deeper, but there is >>more involved. Suppose your program is getting 6-7 plies in a long game on your >>386 and as such you have really maximized the knowledge and performance >>according to what you have available. All the same, there are probably certain >>things that simply cannot be done on a 386 that could be implemented on a more >>powerful computer, because that more powerful computer has an edge that goes >>beyond merely doing the same thing the 386 does but faster. This is why it is >>impossible to properly compare programs like DB or Cray Blitz with other PC >>programs. That is why comments like "if Hiarcs ran on a Cray it would be >>stronger than Cray Blitz" have no meaning, as the program is inseparable from >>the hardware. I think that as hardware develops, new things are possible in >>programs that weren't possible in the past, but at the same time these newer >>generation programs won't be retro-compatible, because what they do is only >>possible with this new hardware. > >I'm seeing a big piece of crap here already refuted by De Groot >many tens of years ago. > >He investigated the difference between what we would call now >2200 players and international masters, >however at standards of these times it woudl be a comparision >between IMs and GMs > >One of the questions of the investigation was: >Do GMs see deeper? > >Answer: NO > >Do GMs calculate more lines? > >Answer: NO > >Please read some older JICCA's as well. >to get JICCA: herik@cs.unimaas.nl and herik@cs.rulimburg.nl > >One of those email adresses is valid i forgot which one. > > >> Albert Silver De Groot said this in 1965, but I've also read in more recent books that GMs _do_ calculate deeper than lesser players *when the position requires it*. So the issue is not completely clear-cut. Dave
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.