Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:34:51 12/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 1999 at 08:53:09, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>On December 26, 1999 at 22:26:39, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On December 26, 1999 at 18:18:44, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>When Sargon V for PC appeared, it was too late to become a darling. A first
>>>version for Mac had been a complete failure and in the meantime the mess was
>>>fixed and the PC version was in the shells, programs like Mchess, Rex and Zarkov
>>> were those whom asked and received the attention. As I.M. Larry Kaufman said in
>>>his review - Computer Chess Reports 1991-1992, Vol 2, N°3- “Sargon might have
>>>been worth recommending if it had come out three years ago...” , although at
>>>the same time he recognized that in his test with his problem set Sargon,
>>>running in a 486-33, got 2326 USCF.
>>>All this maybe seems old history, a chapter for nostalgics, but you well can get
>>>a surprise if you put Sargon V to run in a decent current Pentium computer.
>>>Suddenly you realize how good the last programs by Kathe and Dan Spracklen were
>>>and how far from obsolescence the best of beginnings of 90’s programs in
>>>general were and are if run with modern stuff. And then you have a material
>>>demonstration of how much the progress has been based in better equipment and
>>>not so much in software after all. Not that progress was not made in source
>>>codes, not that new techniques did not appear, but -and this is a very great
>>>BUT- sometimes is truly difficult to see the difference between a good current
>>>commercial program and Sargon. If you still have it, test it and see how he
>>>handles the endings. Etc. Maybe one of the many pals here that likes to pit
>>>programs each against other could pit this aparent piece of museum agains, say,
>>>Rebel or Genius.
>>>
>>>Fernando
>>
>>
>>Fernando, you should try Sargon more seriously. It sounds like you only play
>>yourself against these programs, so you get a very vague idea of how good they
>>are relatively to each other.
>>
>>Sargon loses badly to all the good commercial programs. The faster the computer,
>>the worse Sargon does.
>>
>>This being said, the Spracklens were amongst the heroes of my youth, they have
>>done an incredibly good job at that time.
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>Hi:
>You are right and you are wrong; right that I only play personally against
>programs; wrong in saying or implying than that is not serious enough. Of course
>I know sargon have no chances againts top programs, but what I say is that if
>YOU play a game against it, differences tend to blurr.
This is totally obvious.
> In other words, to be
>defeated by a 2500 or to be defeated by a 2350 is not a very different
>experience after all. In the area of human Vs comps, what I want to say that
>good stuff like sargon running in fast computers are still very competitive If
>-another IF- you are not a master, but at most an expert. Remember that an
>expert is just around 2100 at most and sargon probably is 2350 in pentium,
>so....
So we'd better stop programming chess engines I guess.
Next week you try Battle Chess and tell us how badly he crushed you and how good
it is on fast hardware?
Christophe
>Waiting for Tiger
>Fernando
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.