Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 01:24:23 06/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2002 at 19:57:43, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 13, 2002 at 17:49:26, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>On June 13, 2002 at 17:12:06, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>On June 13, 2002 at 16:01:37, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Of course there are a lot. Differences between stronger engines are very small, >>>>see Leiden 2002. TheKing had slightly outdated hardware, and bang, it sinks to >>>>the middle of the field. And numbers 1 and 2 in Leiden ran at significantly >>>>faster hardware than the rest, coincidence? Give a strong amateur 2x time >>>>advantage and the pro's will lose the last bit of advantage they have. Not many >>>>amateurs can beat TigerPalm? Are you kidding? How about 30? Heck, in Leiden >>>>Comet rolled 3 pro's up in a ball while NOT being on faster hardware: GT and >>>>TheKing and Shredder :-) >>>> >>>>Best regards, >>>>Bas. >>> >>>Uri is usually very careful with his wording ;). He said that there are few >>>programs that can play on a 486 computer and beat Chess Tiger on the Palm. >>> >>>Afaik there aren't 30 amateurs who could do that, or do you disagree? >>> >>>Kind regards, >>>Peter >> >>Well, let's say 20, and then I can list em for you :-) >> >>Yace, Crafty, Ferret, Callisto, Nightmare, SpiderChess, Monsoon, Bringer, >>Nejmet, Tao, Insomniac, Comet, Patzer, Xinix, IsiChess, Anmon, GLC, Quark, >>Queen, Amy, Amyan, Pharaon, Pepito. I am sure I forgot a few. >> >>Best regards, >>Bas. >I think that you overestimate the amateurs. >I do not expect Nejmet on 486 to beat palm tiger. >486 is about 3-5 times faster than the palm if I remember correctly but I am >not sure if I remember correctly the speed difference. >I guess that tiger is about 5 times better than Nejmet and it means that if you >give Nejmet hardware that is 5 times faster than Tiger the results may be >equal. We have had similar discussions about strength/hardware. I say top programs are nowhere against a 4x faster stronger amateur. You say this is only worth 100-140 ssdf ELO, not enough to compensate. I don't believe the 50-70 is a law of nature that you can use to predict outcomes at totally different time controls. At blitz it is probably more than 70, ditto for slow hardware. And even if we agreed on the 70 extra ELO for 2x speed it remains to be seen if THUS 4x speed means 140 ELO. In other words, I think your calculations are as good as worthless. The pro's are *very* good, almost good enough to compensate for a factor 2. But believe me, there it stops. Best regards, Bas. >If we assume that being twice faster gives 50-70 elo(it seems to be the case >based on the ssdf list) then it means that being 5 times faster may give maybe >150 elo. >I guess that Crafty is 100 elo weaker than tiger when Nejmet is at least 50 elo >weaker than Crafty and it makes the guess that tiger is at least 5 times better >than Nejmet a good guess. So I don't buy the above. >I was not impressed by Nejmet because a stupid version of Movei(no hash,no >pondering,no null move,no book,only piece square table evaluation and some >problems) played only one game against Nejmet when Nejmet lost. The version of >Nejmet was Nejmet3.05. Movei was lucky and Nejmet fell into a trap that Movei >did not plan but my impression about Nejmet was not good based on that single >game. >Nejmet outsearched Movei to win a pawn and did not understand that it's knight >was trapped(Movei also does not understand it but Movei does not claim to be a >top program or to beat palmtiger on 486 and I expect top programs to see that >the knight has no good squares to go after capturing the pawn and to avoid >capturing the pawn for positional reasons because all the squares that the >knight can goto after capturing the pawn are controlled by Movei).
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.