Author: Uri Blass
Date: 20:52:17 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 13:21:49, Mark Young wrote: >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. Amir Ban is right and I know that the world champion Junior4.5 was faster than Junior4.6 because Junior4.5 was 32 bit when Junior4.6 was 16 bit thanks to chessbase. If you want to be fair you need to give Junior4.6 faster hardware or maybe to ask Amir to send you the 32 bit version that won WMCCC(Junior4.5) There is a small difference in the evaluation between Junior4.5 and Junior4.6 but the most important difference is the speed of the program and Junior4.5 is faster. I remember that Junior4.5 was 20% faster at the time that Junior4.6 was available. I am not sure what is the situation today with the new hardware. 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.