Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:08:14 07/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2002 at 15:57:14, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 12, 2002 at 15:51:24, Anson T J wrote: > >> >>>Did you do some research on the sense of the changed moves? What does it mean >>>"changing a move". Do you think that changing a move is a sign for strength? >> >>I understand what you mean, but if an Engine finds exactly the same moves on >>faster hardware as it does on the slower hardware, then it can't be considered >>to be stronger as it would play exactly the same. > >Do you think so? >Ok, let's try a little thought experiment. With the faster the prog will change >in the end. Now, I ask you to explain why _now_ you would assume that the prog >was stronger. Why? Hint: What, if the deeper look caused more confusion or let's >define it as the impression of more clearness. The delusion, I meant. Let a good chess engine have 1/10 of a second to find a move. Now let the same engine think for an hour. Time is important because more time is the same thing as more speed. We can turn it around. Take a 1 MHz computer and run an algorithm on it. Now, run the same algorithm on a 1 GHz computer. Now, run the same algorithm on a petaflop computer. Things that used to be completely intractible are now suddenly feasible. I can use multi-precision mathematics to invert a 500x500 Hilbert matrix. When I took numerical analysis in the 1980's, I was told that this was *impossible* to perform. And back then, it was.
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.