Author: Mark Young
Date: 10:21:49 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 13:16:07, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 30, 2001 at 12:29:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 30, 2001 at 12:03:59, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>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."??? >>>>-------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>Im glad this is not what you mean in your statements...as software is much >>>stronger today then even a few years ago...disregarding hardware. I still >>>disagree with slow and steady, as I think we can show fast progress on the >>>software side. >> >>I am not sure where the "fast" progress has been. IE I don't see any totally >>new search algorithm (including parallel search which has been around for well >>over 20 years already), any new anything really. The programs of today fit >>in the mold of chess 4.x, with a few enhancements thrown in here and there. >>Even the forward-pruning stuff was around in the days of Greenblatt. >> >>There are things we can do today that we could not do 10 years ago, because >>back then they would have been too costly and would have slowed the engine to >>the point it would be tactically weak. But the ideas were known 10 years ago >>already, we just couldn't do them (actually, in Cray Blitz we did a lot of them >>as the hardware allowed us to get away with things that a non-vector machine >>would not.) >> >> >> >>>If by below you think software only counts for less then 30 elo a >>>year. In 10 years that only comes to 0 to 299 elo over 10 years. I think we can >>>show over 30 elo a year on the software side. If I played Fritz 2 a ten year >>>old program I know already the current programs will best Fritz by well over 300 >>>elo points. The results are just ugly we you play old vs new, but when you play >>>the very old programs well.... >> >> >>Play the old program vs the new program using old hardware. I'll bet you won't >>see 300 elo difference. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the older programs >>actually would come out on top, as they were so optimized to a specific >>processor speed. >> >>And notice that when I say "at least more than 50% of the strength increases >>come from hardware" that doesn't mean that just faster hardware is all that is >>needed. Sometimes the faster hardware makes it possible for us to do something >>in software that we could not afford on slower machines. Without the faster >>hardware the software feature would not be possible. And I still attribute >>that gain to hardware since without it it would be impossible to do. > >I understood that mark young is not going to use >tournament time control on the fast hardware. > >If fast time control on the fast hardware is eqvivalent to >slow time control on old hardware then in order to save time >it is better to use fast time control on the new hardware. > >The only possible problem that I see is that I guess that the old >programs are not optimized for the new hardware not because >of the time control and I guess that the new programs earn more >speed from the difference between 386 or 486 and the pIII1000. > >I am not talking about the algorithm but about the way that some >functions are implemented in assembler. >I also guess that the new programs are not optimized for the old >hardware and I think about the assembler commands. > >it seems that giving all the programs new hardware >is unfair for the old programs when the opposite >is unfair for the new programs. I am using Junior 4.6 a 32 bit windows program it will do just fine and be fair for both programs on a PIII chip. And junior 4.6 is stronger then any program of 10 years ago. > >Uri
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.