Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:27:33 05/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2001 at 14:52:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 02, 2001 at 13:48:04, Chris Carson wrote: > >>I would like to hear from the CCC group how much K will >>gain from having the program for 3 months. In my view, >>an advantage yes, but maybe not as much as I thought at >>first. >> >>1. K may not have the HW for the match. > >That is irrelevant. That only means that the program will be a bit >stronger tactically. But it does _not_ affect the knowledge at all. >If it doesn't understand that a pair of isolated passers are stronger >than a pair of connected passers in a king and pawn ending, then no >amount of hardware is going to teach the program that, and he will >find out such shortcomings quite easily. No It is clear that if the hardware is good enough then search is going to teach the program to avoid the mistake. The question is simply if the hardware in the match is going to help. In part of the cases it can help. Programs without the knowledge that you give in pawn endgame may find the right move in some positions by search when they need a long search. I believe that I can compose a test position when programs without the right knowledge are going to need 8 processors to find the right move at tournament time control and you cannot be sure that my test position is not going to appear in kramnik's game. <snipped> >>2. To get a real feel for Fritz 7 he will need the HW and >> play 40/2 games. > > >Not at all. Any GM I know can play blitz games and determine program >weaknesses. This was exactly the mistake of adams against deep Junior in dortmund. He played the same opening against junior before the match and won at blitz but unfortunately Junior played better at tournament time control and adams could get only a draw. Uri
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.