Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:25:48 07/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2002 at 16:08:14, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. If you leave maths and come back to chess, oops, the difficulties, deeper search depth or not, do never stop IMO. Ed always was thinking the same. He never believed in the doubling enthusiasm, and for good reasons. Rolf Tueschen
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.