Author: Uri Blass
Date: 19:12:59 08/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2001 at 22:07:17, Uri Blass wrote: >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. >> >>> >>>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. > >I believe that chess programs are clearly better positionally than Deep thought. >programmers of top programs worked a lot in imporovement of their evaluation >function when Hsu had smaller experience in this task and we could not compete >against good opponents like programs of today can compete in comp-comp games > >The experience against humans was also smaller than the experience of today >because playing on the internet was not common like today so they could not >test their program enough against GM's. > >The games of Deep thought also prove that Deep thought was weaker in tactics >then the top programs of today. > >The fact that they are in similiar level in the nolot test proves nothing >because the singular extensions helped Deep thought in the nolot test >more than it helped it in games. > >I find that Ferret is faster than Deep thought in most of the Nolot positions >that were solved(5 out of 8). > > >It is faster in 1,2,7,10,11 >3,6,9 were never solved when I do not count 8 because hsu has doubts about it. > >Uri I see that my math is wrong and after not counting 8 it is 5 out of 7. 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.