Author: Slater Wold
Date: 17:28:57 08/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2001 at 19:41:41, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On August 31, 2001 at 19:31:12, Slater Wold wrote: > >>** Weird. It takes DT-2 at least 6 hours to find this, while Deep Shredder >>finds the _EXACT_ same varation in a little over 8 minutes. However, like Bruce >>says, there sure isn't a big score. Deep Shredder thinks it's the best move, >>but only based on it loses the least. While actually it's winning. ** > >I liked your post, but I'll respond to this one small section. Thanks. :) > >I think that one of the reasons the Nolot test is interesting is that we can >compare our programs with DT circa 1994. When I started fiddiling with computer chess 2-3 years ago, I thought they were amazing. A year ago when I found "traces" of these chess playing computers from the 80's and early 90's and I was astouned. A computer, in 1994, playing chess on a level that every programmer at this board is striving to acheive. Granted, we are trying to acheive it on a more, affordable hardware. However, it seems strikingly clear that 90% of the computer chess advances have come from HW and NOT better code. This is _SIMPLY_ proved by seeing DT-2 vs Shredder, Ferret, Crafty, Tiger, or Fritz on today's top HW. > >Based upon the results I have seen, produced by both my program and others, I >think we are getting close to DT. We're certainly in the same ballpark with >regard to heavy king tactics. Yes, I agree here 100%. Tactics I think we have come full circle. Unfortunatly, it's positional awareness that I think most engines lack. > >bruce
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.