Author: Mark Young
Date: 08:43:10 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 11:33:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 30, 2001 at 10:51:23, Mark Young wrote: > >>On August 30, 2001 at 10:29:35, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>On August 30, 2001 at 10:20:12, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>You will answer it for my Bob! Here is your Quote and the full text. >>> >>>Nothing in the quoted text supports your own "little progress" interpretation. >>>There is "small number of "revolutionary" ideas", "slow, methodical progress" >>>and "incremental changes". All of which underlines slow and steady quite well >>>according to my understanding of the English language. But what do I know, I'm a >>>foreigner. >> >>I will Quote again for the foreigners: >> >>"Part of the progress has been due >>to incremental changes to chess engines/evaluations/etc, part has been due to >>the hardware speed advances. Probably more of the latter than the former, if >>the truth is known..." >> >>Bob states clearly from the above that he thinks "if the truth is known" Micro >>Chess computer advancement is more due to hardware speed or faster computers. >>Less to due with better chess programs. > > >You keep quoting the same text, and you keep avoiding the question that I >(and now others) have asked. Here it is again: > >-------------------------------------------------- >where did I say "little software progress has been >made over the past 10 years."??? >-------------------------------------------------- > >I believe that if you claim that each year the programs are 60 Elo stronger, >that more than 30 of that Elo comes from hardware improvements. However, I >have said, quite clearly, that the engines _have_ improved in steady increments. > >How that becomes "little software progress" is something my dictionary won't >reveal. > > > > >> >>Well we can test this theory, Since we can run the old programs on modern >>hardware and play them against the best programs of today. Then we will see just >>how much or less hardware has to do with micro computer chess advancement. >> >> > > >No. How about new programs on _old_ hardware? That is a fairer test. Old >programs made compromises that were necessary because of the speed of the >hardware they had. Those programs on faster hardware won't be as well-tuned >for the faster hardware as new programs designed for such speeds. > >And don't just play comp vs comp. You need humans. Comp vs comp exaggerates >the Elo difference between two engines. Playing on ICC would be a better >test... > >> >> >> >>> >>>Mogens.
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.