Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 01:04:15 03/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2002 at 18:31:32, James T. Walker wrote: >Why? Because Chris himself told me this. Who knows more about CSTal than >Chris? Certainly not you. chris himself :-)) first: i don't think chris knows more about cstal than i do :-)) second: of course he began a complete rewrite. at was at the time when version 2.5 was there. i have no idea what purpl made out of it. what i wanted to say with WHY was: there is no need for a rewrite. the old and rusty algorithms from 1996 or 1997 are good enough for fritz7. the difference between NPS between fritz7 and cstal1 (dos) is between 17-20 times. >>33.000 NPS is enough for fritz. >>Because Fritz is artificial stupidity. >And CSTal is artificial snail. It is interesting and fun to play and sometimes >plays brilliantly but against other computers like Fritz it gets out searched >and loses more often than not. how do you know that ? >I still think the first game loss was due to a >poor book. In the second game it had a better opening and played to a draw. >Two games tell you nothing. who tells you that i do only have 2 games ? >Don't know. I haven't tested it lately. Used to be 100+ ELO. Now maybe a >little less, maybe a little more. When I ran it on ICC it was constantly >100-200 below top commercial programs. This was on a K6-2-350 and later a >K6-3-450. maybe the other programs made a step backwards because they had to cope with king attacks and new paradigm. maybe the other programs made no real progress. ever tried fritz5.32 versus fritz7 ? >CSTal may have been ahead of it's time but it's not going to catch up with >modern programs by just adding faster hardware. As Chris said, it needs a >re-write. thats wrong. my 2 autoplayers say different.
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.