Author: Rajen Gupta
Date: 12:28:11 06/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2001 at 14:24:53, José Carlos wrote: >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. well at least i'm trying a practical experiment. rajen
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.