Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:26:48 11/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2001 at 11:48:14, Victor Fernandez wrote:
>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 .
As I am the programmer of Tiger I think I can answer you.
I spend all my time improving the intelligence of Tiger's evaluation and search
algorithms, and I think in this regard my program has progressed a lot in the
last years.
As have almost all the other commercial and amateur chess programs.
You have obviously absolutely no idea about the progress of chess programs.
Actually you seem to know almost nothing about chess programs.
Your comparison between the performance of WChess and Tiger and the conclusions
you draw from this are simply irrelevant.
You either do not know what you are talking about, or you just want to troll.
Get real.
Christophe
>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 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.