Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:00:28 10/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2002 at 19:45:39, Will Singleton wrote:
Will the issue is very simple.
Play at todays hardware software from 1997 against software from 2002.
You will within 10 games already realize what is the problem after
facing 10-0 scores for the 2002 software.
- tournament books have grown
- knowledge has grown
- programs are 1000 times better debugged now than in 1997,
partly because of better programming, partly because of
better testing, partly because of having more options to test
partly because of more mature software
- endgame has improved hundreds of points at most programs
- programs are making better use of hashtables in 2002 than they
were in 1997 in combination with nullmove. *all of them*.
R=3 for most with nullmove and more probes and more efficient
probes than in 97 too. BIGGER hashtables too!
It's like comparing a jetfighter to a toy!
>On October 19, 2002 at 19:16:04, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On October 19, 2002 at 17:59:05, Jesper Antonsson wrote:
>>
>>I am under the clear belief that Fritz eval is much
>>better than that of deep blue. Of course it's not a fair
>>compare. Fritz is made in 2002. Deep blue in 1996-1997.
>>
>>It is comparing an airplane from 1910 with an airplane 2010.
>>
>
>I think you have gone a bit overboard here. First, we have almost zero data
>with which to make a decision. Second, I don't see any reason to suspect that
>evaluation of computer chess programs has changed in the last 5-6 years. The
>rules of chess have not changed. So what evidence do you have that the passage
>of time would affect one's ability to program an eval?
>
>imvho, your airplane comparison also shows a lack of understanding of airplanes
>and their systems. :)
>
>Will
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.