Author: Amir Ban
Date: 08:02:53 11/13/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1997 at 10:44:20, Chris Whittington wrote: > >On November 13, 1997 at 10:14:35, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On November 13, 1997 at 07:13:03, Chris Whittington wrote: >> >> >>>This is not directed specifically at Amir ....... >>> >> >>Thanks for not directing anything specifically at me. >> >> >>>I think the whole lot of you are avoiding the crucial issue from the >>>games at WMCCC. >>> >>>The fast searchers, even with 767 alphas, were expected to sweep the >>>board. Manifestly they didn't. >>> >>>Some other fast searchers, running on PC's also under-performed >>>according to expectations. >>> >>>Several programs (ranging from very slow, to quite fast, but none of >>>them brute monsters) were not even spoken about before the WMCCC as >>>being of any interest, performed way above expectations. >>> >> >>You need both speed and knowledge, unfortunately for some, but >>fortunately for the field. Computer chess is interesting because it's so >>damn hard. >> >>The IBM concept of playing 3-4 silly moves per game but still winning on >>the strength of a gadzillion NPS was properly laid to rest in Hong-Kong >>and in the 1st DB-GK match. >> >>On the other hand, playing against someone who outsearches you on every >>move is a most unpleasant experience that is not good for your health. >> >>I thought there were some programs in Paris who played good chess >>(Gandalf comes to mind), but just didn't have the horsepower to do >>better. > >This is the old Hyatt chestnut of knowledge-speed trade-off. Knowledge >is worth 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 plies or whatever. > There's no trade-off involved. You simply must be competitive in both. Amir
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.