Author: José Carlos
Date: 11:24:53 06/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2001 at 14:03:45, Rajen Gupta wrote: >On June 04, 2001 at 12:41:14, José Carlos wrote: > >>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. > >i dont quite know what you mean by all these things. the engine is purely the >software that can calculate the chessmoves and the opening books is an opening >database that a chessengine refers to when playing the first few moves of the >game. any chessengine can use any database and i'm playing one engine vs another >using the same opening database(which incidentally is separate from the engine. > >this will purely test the engine improvement and i doub that there is anything >significant to tlak about > >rajen Ok, if you don't want to understand, it's your choice. 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.