Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 12:45:45 09/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2002 at 10:36:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 20, 2002 at 08:12:17, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On September 19, 2002 at 23:10:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 19, 2002 at 21:55:44, Rick Terry wrote: >>> >>>>On September 19, 2002 at 17:34:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 19, 2002 at 14:34:48, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 19, 2002 at 14:17:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 19, 2002 at 14:05:58, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On September 19, 2002 at 14:03:25, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If Hiarcs 8 can at least use the new AMD 2.6 Ghz or the upcoming 3.0 Ghz Intel >>>>>>>>by January, it might have a chance to win. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>http://www.chessevents.nl/bareev_match.shtml >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Note that this is 40 moves in 2 hours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The computer is going to have its "hands" full with this GM. Or any >>>>>>>GM. At that time control. >>>>>> >>>>>>At 40/2 on AMD 2.6 or PIV 3.0, the advantage is to the comp. The GM may win, >>>>>>but Hiarcs 8.0 is the favorite in this match. >>>>>> >>>>>>This is great news, my best to both the GM and Hiarcs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I totally disagree. The longer the time control, the better the human will >>>>>do. Based on watching these games about 30 years now. IE at correspondence, >>>>>a good IM will tear the chips out of most any program going... At blitz, the >>>>>comp is nearly unbeatable... _nearly_ being the operative word of course. >>>>> >>>>>Hiarcs might be the favorite for you, but my instinct says "human". At game/30 >>>>>the comp would definitely be favored. At game/60 it gets tougher. At a non- >>>>>sudden-death time control, the human isn't going to get into time trouble and >>>>>get blitzed... >>>> >>>> >>>> Well Century 4 seemed to handle Van Wely quite easily, Hiarcs is much stronger >>>>then Rebel on faster hardware. >>> >>> >>>I don't think it "handled him quite easily"... >>> >>>but we will see before long,.... >> >>Feb, 2002 Rebel Century 4 on an AMD 1900+ plays an even match against GM Van >>Wely (Fide 2697, top 10 GM at the time) at 40/2. Score for Rebel is +2, 0, >>-2(no draws, all wins for both players were with the white pieces). >> >>It was an even match and on slower HW. I would agree the in this match the GM >>and computer are about even (but I like the comps chances if on 3Ghz machine, >>with programmer operating and latest s/w). >> >>I agree with one of your later posts that most GM's can play the comps close, >>but the advantage is now with the comps against most GM's at 40/2. Perhaps 40/3 >>would be better for the human GM's. A top 10 GM is about even on 2Ghz at 40/2, >>this will be a good match, in 18 months it will need to be a Top 5 GM at 40/2. > > >I think you are _greatly_ over-estimating the mhz contribution. In comp vs >comp, we pretty well know what additional nps will do. But the same does not >appear to carry over to comp vs gm. As has been seen on ICC many times. I >don't remember the details now, but several of us ran some tests on ICC a >few years ago, showing that doubling the cpu speed had no real effect on >overall score against GM players. I ran the test with Scrappy, running it on >a laptop at 1/4 the speed of the normal machine I was using at the time, and >there was very little difference in overall results against the same players >(roman, udav, yasser, christiansen, etc... > >I won't say there was _no_ difference, but there was no 100+ rating change >either, not even close... ----------------------------- Hi Bob, Is it possible that because you were playing "blitz" time controls that this was the reason for not seeing any or little difference in the results compared to a program playing at 40/2hr? Terry
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.