Author: José Carlos
Date: 09:41:14 06/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2001 at 09:35:41, Rajen Gupta wrote: >On June 04, 2001 at 08:57:09, José Carlos wrote: > >>On June 04, 2001 at 08:28:43, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>1/2/(5) years? Yes, if we remove benefit from better hardware, what is left?? >>>Any real improvement is playing level of top engines. 5 points from Nalimov >>>may be?! >>> >>>Jouni >> >> I think you cannot remove benefit from better hardware, because most >>programmer adapt to new hardware to get better programs. For example, a lot of >>programs have become SMP. This has happend because multiprocessor machines have >>become cheaper, so it is a hardware improvement that leads to software >>improvement. >> Besides that, you can chose your favourite program and compare versions. Let's >>say Fritz. Compare strength of versions 4.01, 5.32, 6, Deep Fritz. I think you >>can answer your own question, can't you? >> >> José C. > >i'm not sure: see my previous post. get the chessbase engines to play each other >from an individual copy of the same opening book-you'll be surprised at the lack >of any difference in engine strength.i'm planning to play the 2 tigers vs j5, >f5.32 and f6 light, all from individual copies of the same opening book(tiger >book).also going to play f5.16 vs f4 vs h6)if there is no significant difference >in playing strength between them (i have a suspicion that it might be the case) >then i'll probably stop buying newer programmes. > >inmo 95% of the so-called increse in strength is purely the result of better >opening books, book learning functions, access to endgametables and tuning >against the immediate predecessor programmes. I'm sorry but I'm not gonna argue about that, since IMO the opening books, learning functions, endgame tables etc... _are part of the engine_. So the discussion does not make sense for me. Just one suggestion: why don't you also disabe hash tables, null move, pondering and alfa-beta to test the 'engine'? These are parts of the engine, _exactly the same_ as opening books, learning functions, etc... I'm really very surprised about this discussion about the opening book not being part of the engine. I suggest to let the programmers define _what is the engine_ and what are peripherals. Or do you discuss with your car's mechanic _what is part of the engine of the car_ and what is not? >i doubt one would get a better analysis of a data base from the newer programmes > >rajen Just try it. Don't doubt, test. José C.
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.