Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 01:40:38 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 04:27:28, stuart taylor wrote: >On January 11, 2001 at 04:09:07, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 11, 2001 at 02:33:18, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On January 10, 2001 at 17:50:40, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On January 10, 2001 at 07:26:35, stuart taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>The question is all in the heading. I mean with hardware of about 450 mhz. >>>>>upwards (till 1.2 ghz?). >>>>> This question is an ofshoot of Uri's comment that Rebel does better with more >>>>>time. >>>>> If you want to analyse a move for 2 hours, which program would have seen most >>>>>(of what is important and relevant, and consequently play the strongest move) in >>>>>those 2 hours. Or longer? >>>> >>>>Not only do we not know the answer to that question, we'll never even come close >>>>to knowing. >>> >>>Never? That's a long time. You're forgetting about Moore's Law, which can >>>effectively convert hours into minutes. Also, someone with access to a large LAN >>>could do the test. Besides, if the programs compared are competitive at normal >>>time controls, probably the one with the lowest average EBF is strongest at the >>>much slower time controls. Naturally, a test is the only way to know for sure, >>>since a lower EBF can have it's drawbacks. >> >>Yes, really, never. >> >>I have a large LAN I can use for such things. Even so, the project is >>ridiculously out of scope. I am just finishing a contest that ran 1000 2 hour >>games and it took me 6 months to finish it. With absurdly dedicated effort, >>working around the clock, I could have completed it in one month. That would be >>just about what would be needed to get an accurate figure for a single >>engine/engine pair. AT G/60!!! Now, stretch it out to 2 hours per move. >> >>Now, supposing we got 1000 computers properly configured (it would take months >>of testing to be sure that we had done so). Now, perhaps in a few years we can >>complete that contest. However, by that time the winner would be hopelessly >>outclassed by the new programs that had appeared in the intervening time. >>Hence, the answer would still be completely unanswered. >> >>Faster computers won't help to answer it either. The question is still "At 2 >>hours per move, which is strongest program?" So having a Petahertz computer >>won't help a lick. > >I mean 2 hours per move at the speed of present day computers. The answer to that question won't be worth knowing 5 years from now. Does anyone really care how well Crafty 11 does on a P90? I didn't think so.
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.