Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 18:04:14 01/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2001 at 17:06:58, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>On January 03, 2001 at 10:18:51, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>>>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.
>
>
>nonsense. there is a normal reason the programs on fast hardware do
>not beat next year, because in 1 year the others make also much progress.
>they buy the program that would be strong on fast hardware, and
>next year the slow program has not much chance.
>
>saying chess programs would increase strength linear, is a myth !
>it's not true.
>not for fritz (strong in first seconds, weaker the deeper)
So Fritz should very clearly not be #1 on the SSDF. But it is...
>not for hiarcs (the more time the better) , not for shredder,
>nor mchess nor cstal (the faster or more time control the better)
>and and and and.
>
>these programs all do not increase strength in linear graphs,
>your problem is: that you don't feel or measure or find out
>why and when chess programs play strong.
>with ssdf you only measure a fracture of what you could measure
>if you would study main-lines and search-depth and would watch the
>games all and all live.
>
>take e.g. gandalf.
>this program develops into a monster on 1000 Mhz hardware on 40/120.
>if you play faster than 3' per move , or on a slower machine,
>others are stronger.
So let me tell you: the version of 1992 of Chess Tiger is a monster on 20GHz
computers. It developps into a monster. Try to prove that it's not true.
If you manage to prove it's wrong, then my excuse is ready: it's a program of
1992, current programs have benefitted from several additional years of work,
it's not fair. But at that time, on the right computer, it would have crushed
any computer opponent.
>but i cannot guaranty you, that in the time ssdf-tests with 1000 Mhz
>machines, gandalf432 will be the leader, because 1 or 2 years
>later, this is 10 or 20 years in computerchess.
>the relation between developments between cars and computers
>is nearly 1:5.
>4 years in computer-time is nearly 20 years in car-devlopment.
>
>gandalf is as good as example as hiarcs or cstal is.
>but when the time comes, you test all programs on THAT hardware,
>the others have made big progress too.
OK, so prove it by comparing programs that have been released almost at the same
time, then.
>the progress in gandalf/hiarcs/cstal came from intelligence in those
>programs.
>it takes time until other programs get this intelligence too.
>but when the time has come, there is no advantage anymore.
>
>>>It has been said many times for various programs, but then it has never been
>>>proven.
>
>>> Christophe
>
>but this sentence is not true.
>you cannot prove it. because when YOU find out, or the ssdf, thats so late
>that you have forgotten how strong something was months ago.
>
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>In fact it is one case CStal competes relatively good on "todays" computers.
>>
>>
>>Bertil
>
>hiarcs, gandalf, old mchess versions.
Hiarcs does better on fast time controls.
Old MChess versions have a terrible branching factor and get crushed on really
fast computers. Genius has the same problem.
Gandalf and Shredder are the current candidate to the "benefit more from faster
hardware" bullshit, and it will be as usual proven that it is wrong.
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.