Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:28:48 01/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2001 at 10:18:51, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>On January 02, 2001 at 20:50:07, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On January 02, 2001 at 09:26:12, José Carlos wrote:
>>
>>>On January 02, 2001 at 09:06:03, Severi Salminen wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You look really angry about this :)
>>>>> Anyway, remember your program is one of the very few that is able to play
>>>>>strong chess in slow 486's so, from 486's point of view, your program gets less
>>>>>benefit from fast hardware than others.
>>>>
>>>>I don't understand your statement. Why would a program that plays strong chess
>>>>using 486 benefit less from speedup than a program playing weak chess using
>>>>486?? Do you have some evidence or is this just a "gut comment"?
>>>
>>> It's easy. If program A and program B plays at 2600 in modern hardaware, but
>>>program A plays at 2200 in a 486, and program B plays at 2000, then program A
>>>gets less benefit from speed improvement than program B.
>>
>>
>>
>>Then it's even worse for program B. In this case, "B benefits more from faster
>>hardware" is a statement created to hide the fact that B sucks somewhere on the
>>strength/time_control curve. Generally near the origin (fast time controls).
>>
>>The "benefits more from faster hardware" is a bullshit. It's an attempt to make
>>you believe that the program in question will be the best on the hardware of
>>next year. Which never happens.
>>
>>Can you mention a single program that has ever been the best when faster
>>hardware was available? I mean which has been PROVEN to be really stronger, so
>>it was really stronger AND it was possible practically to show it (or else the
>>statement is of very little interest).
>>
>>I know of programs that have been proven to be inferior on faster hardware
>>against the best competitors (Genius), but there has never been any program that
>>has been proven to be stronger against the best competitors on faster hardware.
>>It has been said many times for various programs, but then it has never been
>>proven.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>Hi!
>
>In fact it is one case CStal competes relatively good on "todays" computers.
>
>
>Bertil
Is it better than the best competitors?
If the answer is "no", then it's just another case of "the program sucks at fast
time controls", which is different than "the program benefits more from faster
hardware (or longer time controls)".
Christophe
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.