Author: Mark Young
Date: 21:53:41 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 23:52:17, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Junior 4.6 is hitting over 600 Kns on a PIII 933, 20 % will not make that much of a change, if the results are really crushing for Chesstiger. But this is not a match really Vs Junior 4.6 but against the older program and junior 4.6 is much better still 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.