Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:47:11 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 14:16:49, Joshua Lee wrote: >On August 30, 2001 at 08:50:52, Mark Young wrote: > >>It has been suggested here that programs have made little progress in the last >>10 years other then hardware speed. Here is the list of top programs 6 years >>ago. Does anyone really think a program of 4, 6 or 10 years ago running on >>modern but equal hardware would have a chance of beating a Junior 7, Deep Fritz, >>Chess Tiger in a match. I think someone is pulling our legs. >> >>If the suggestion that programs have not progressed much is correct, then we >>have been suckered by all programmers who offer us so called better and stronger >>version of their programs. >> > >The answer is yes, if you read the comments to the SSDF list they quote 79 >points roughly per double >Take Rebel 7's 2416 on a pentium 90 >which would be 2495 on a 200Mhz >and 2574 on the 450 >and on the 1.2Ghz Athlon it will probably be more than 79points > >2653 equal to Gambit Tiger 2.0 on a 450 >ofcourse GT2 according to their 79point theory on the 1.2 Ghz should be around >2732 which sounds silly c'mon you really think any program on a 1.2 ghz athlon >would be able to beat Capablanca at his peak ?? Wake the hell up but that is >another argument... Do you suggest that kapablanca's best rating was 2732 of today? I believe kapablanca at his peak was clearly weaker than 2732. today players know more about chess then they knew in the past and I am even not sure if kapablanca with no more knowledge about opening and about the game could be a GM. We have no way to use only results to compare rating of players of today with rating of players of the past. I also believe that 79 points per doubling is not correct and I expect old programs like Rebel7 to get less than 79 points from doubling the speed. 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.