Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:14:32 08/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2001 at 20:28:57, Slater Wold wrote: >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. I don't think that is a valid comparison. Deep Thought and Deep Blue are chess CPU machines. There is no more progress in that area right now, because nobody wants to spend the money. The new chess systems run on general purpose hardware. It's like comparing sailboats to airplanes. They both carry cargo, but are not at all alike, really. >>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. That's because it is the hardest to define. If we could accurately describe (numerically) the positional value of a chessboard, then we could code it just as easily and chess programs would be as good or better than any human is positionally. I think that is where the hole is. When you look at positional descriptions, they are very vague as to what the value of some positional component is.
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.