Author: martin fierz
Date: 18:58:25 04/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2002 at 21:39:00, Joe McCarro wrote: >On April 12, 2002 at 20:44:38, martin fierz wrote: > >>On April 12, 2002 at 17:05:45, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>my understanding is quite all right, thank you :-) >>NPS is very much a function of how smart a program is. of course, if you write a >>program in basic, and get low NPS, this does not mean that your program is >>smart! i never said that. if you compare well-optimized engines (take some of >>the top commercials, fritz, junior, shredder, hiarcs, whatever), THEN NPS is a >>measure of how much work the program does on every node. in my checkers program, >>for example, i can turn on or off several features like enhanced transposition >>cutoffs, evaluation-based forward pruning and arbitrary parts of my move >>ordering. i can also add or remove parts of the evaluation function. everything >>i turn off makes my program faster in NPS, but it plays worse. the difference >>between smart and dumb is a factor 2 in NPS for my program. >>this is the design choice i was talking about, and it is the reason why people >>here always say "NPS means nothing". if you are talking about this kind of >>difference in NPS, it *does* mean nothing. talking about a factor 50, without >>the penalty of being dumb in return is another matter entirely. >> >> >>>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. >> >>facts based on what? like rebel-van wely 2-2 or huebner-fritz 3-3? i don't think >>that these results are "very close" to defeating kasparov by 3.5-2.5! look at >>what kasparov does to these 2 guys: >>searching the big2000 database for kasparov - van wely gives me 4 games at >>standard time control - 4-0 for kasparov. in a match against huebner in '85 >>kasparov won 4.5-1.5. in matches at STC, where humans prepare and learn, i have >>yet to see "better than 2700"... i know no other serious results than the 2 >>above. > > >What about Gulko?? you should not compare apples and oranges! gulko had to play at the much faster G/60 time control which favors the computer. additionally, the match was against 4 different programs, so he did not have the chance to repeat an opening (or at least try...) against the same opponent. cheers martin
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.