Author: José Carlos
Date: 09:54:04 06/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2001 at 09:10:29, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On June 04, 2001 at 08:57:09, José Carlos wrote: > >> 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. > >I agree. The latest Deep Fritz version seems to be an example of exploiting >hardware advances for strength increase without getting faster. > >> 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? > >That's one way of measuring strength increase over time. Another might be >comparing amateur and commercial engines. Has the gap increased, decreased or >remained status quo the last two or three years? Anything else than an increase >would suggest that strength improvement is mostly hardware. That is, if you >assume that commercial program authors have more time available for innovation >and testing. I don't know if the gap has gotten bigger. > >Mogens. I have to disagree here. The fact that the gap has decreased (I think this is what has happened) means IMO that the 'general level' (don't know if this is correct in english) has increased. Many strong programs are now open source, so amateurs can learn and advance quicker than proffesionals, that have to innovate on their own. So, both amateur and professional level increase, but amateur seems to be increasing faster. However, it's logical to think that the increase rate will be smaller every year, as the programs approach 'perfection' :) 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.