Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:30:39 08/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 20:25:49, Pham Minh Tri wrote: >On August 30, 2001 at 11:28:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 30, 2001 at 10:20:12, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On August 30, 2001 at 09:51:42, Robert Hyatt 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. >>>> >>>> >>>>I think someone can't read. "slow and steady" is not equal to "little" >>>>I _clearly_ said that "there has been no revolutionary ideas in computer chess >>>>in a long time. progress has been slow and steady." >>>> >>>>How you make the giant leap to "little progress" is a mystery only you can >>>>answer. >>> >>>You will answer it for my Bob! Here is your Quote and the full text. >>> >>>Bob's Statement: >>>"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..." >>> >>> >> >> >> >>OK... I give up. Where did I say "there has been little progress in software >>over the past 10 years or so."?? >> >>The above seems to be exactly what I have been saying for many years. Slow >>and steady progress in the software, with more rapid progress in the hardware >>speeds. >> >>So again, please answer _the question_ and show me where I said there had been >>little software progress in the past 10 years. You haven't shown that so far. >> > >Hi Bob, >How do you think about parallel algorithms? Just in few years, many top chess >programs apply them to speed up search several times. Is it a little or big >progress? Do you consider them as a software or hardware achievement? It is both, but it is _also_ old. I did a parallel search in 1978 using a dual-CPU univac machine. This later became cray blitz. Monty Newborn also did a parallel search in the late 70's, a bit earlier than mine, using a cluster of data general novas. The problem, then, is that this simply isn't new. Parallel search could be considered a significant leap, both in software and hardware. But it isn't a phenom of the past 5 years. It dates back to the early "academic" days of computer chess.
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.