Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 04:51:24 06/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2002 at 06:09:53, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 14, 2002 at 04:24:23, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>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 TheKing had slightly outdated hardware, and bang, it sinks to 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 you are right then this means that the pro's are not very good and have not >a big advantage relative to the amatuers. It *is* very good to outsearch the competition nearly a ply, other things equal. I don't know why you do not appreciate that. You think it's easy to get there? >I do not know about evidence that crafty is better than the proffesionals if >you give it 2 times faster hardware(I remember rating list when the difference >between crafty and Fritz7 in blitz was clearly more than 100 elo on equal >hardware so even if you assume that doubling the hardware gives 100 elo at >blitz it is not enough for Crafty to be at the same level as the other >amateurs. Now you are still doing it! I explained why you calculation is worthless. Going from 70 to 100 doesn't make it less worthless. I would expect Crafty at 2x speed and Fritz to be pretty close, and at 4x speed Crafty would win. >I think that there is a big gap between different amatuers and I do not see a >reason to assume that all the top 20 amatuers are almost at the same level. Well, I can't remember to have said this. Just that any of them can whack Tiger, if set on faster hardware. >What are the results that support this theory?(I would like to see some rating >list when every program appears twice in 2 different hardwares to prove your >theory) What theory? Ok, at FICS I have seen slow Crafties with a 2150 rating and fast Crafties with a 2450 or even higher rating. Remember that FICS ratings are less "inflated" than ICC. If you make Crafty slow enough, it's rating COLLAPSES. Best regards, Bas.
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.