Author: Mark Young
Date: 14:05:45 04/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2002 at 14:28:13, martin fierz wrote: >>On April 12, 2002 at 03:43:16, Mark Young wrote: >> >>Sorry,Fritz 7 could be stronger,NPS means nothing between 2 programs > >NPS does not mean everything, but it does not mean nothing either. I did not say that it means nothing, I said NPS means nothing between 2 programs that are not the same. typically, >NPS is a "design choice" of the programmer - smart but slow or less smart but >faster. This is clearly wrong here, are you selling us that you can tell how smart a program is by NPS? Your understanding is limited, if this is your bias. >in DB, this tradeoff did not exist. they could make it both fast and smart. >besides, while a factor 2 in NPS may mean nothing (because it's a design issue), >and maybe even a factor 4 may mean nothing, i can't believe that a factor 50 >means nothing! that program would have to be *really* dumb. How strong was Deep Blue 1997? How strong are todays micros? If you look at the facts based on games played....It is clear your argument does not hold water. What is Clear based on the data. Todays top micros are playing better then 2700 elo chess. And playing very close if not better then DEEP BLUE of 1997. That why NPS means nothing....Based on the facts and your logic, Todays top micros must be pure Genius next to Deep Blue as Deep Blue needed 100X to 1000X the NPS that the top micros needed to play about as well. > >aloha > martin
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.