Author: Victor Fernandez
Date: 08:48:14 11/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2001 at 11:21:11, Steve Maughan wrote: >There is no doubt that Tiger is better than WChess (using equal hardware) so I >don't think your question is appropriate. I don't really think you even believe >that WChess on a P90 would beat Kramnik by a ratio of 2:1 in a series of 100 >tournament games i.e. has a rating of 2895. A better question would be why did >WChess in 1994 get such a high performance rating? The answer probably lies >with the GM who most likely underestimated the strength or had an off day. My question is appropriate. The programmers develop their work cuting code, so that its program runs quicker, and this way to be able to conquer to other programs, but they don't look for a better evaluation algorithm . I don't know if Tiger is better that WChess (usign equal hardware), neither it interests me , but if I know that 7 years ago it achieved a better performance against GM's with an inferior hardware, and I don't believe that the GM underestimates its strength (they were played a lot of money). >>My question is , when they will stop to cut code the programmers >>(with honorable exceptions) and to begin to develop programs a >>bit intelligent, or we will have to wait to have at home hardware >>with 256 processors and 10 TB RAM to be able to see to play chess ?. > >Maybe you could do better? I am not a programmer, alone I buy programs and I believe that every time they play worse . Regards, Victor.
This page took 0.01 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.