Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 19:18:46 08/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2001 at 22:12:59, Uri Blass wrote: >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. In this case, you can create your own Deep Blue by simply wiring together 480 copies of Ferret on a Gigabit network (with a bit of custom communications software). Then you would have this: A machine that solves Nolot positions as fast as Deep Blue. Don't know if it would say anything about how well it would play chess (but I bet it would be a pretty good opponent). ;-)
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.