Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 23:22:16 09/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2002 at 16:56:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 20, 2002 at 15:45:45, Terry Ripple wrote: > >>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 > > >I don't know. I do know that at one point, I had a quad P6/200, and my quad >xeon 400, and I swapped them during testing, and during one marathon with Roman, >playing 5 12 games, I asked "can you tell the difference between crafty at 2pm >today and crafty now? and he said "not that I can tell." One was well over 2x >faster than the other. > >I also ran them "side by side" and there was little difference against the >GM players, although there was a noticable difference against other comps... > >Not very scientific, however. But it makes sense to me. Yes they get better >as they get faster, but if the games are not tactical, deeper searching doesn't >improve positional play nearly as much as it improves tactics. ---------------------- Well, this makes sense! The games that were played during this test, did you ever check what percentage were "tactical" vrs. "positional"? 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.