Author: José Carlos
Date: 08:31:27 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 08:43:12, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >On October 25, 2002 at 08:25:48, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 25, 2002 at 08:04:37, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >> >>>On October 25, 2002 at 07:49:17, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 25, 2002 at 07:43:52, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 25, 2002 at 07:12:38, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 25, 2002 at 06:51:45, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 25, 2002 at 06:29:07, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>No >>>>>>>>I did not think only about crafty. >>>>>>>>There were other cases when programmers released versions with no improvement or >>>>>>>>at least it is not clear if there was an improvement: >>>>>>>>Gandalf,Nimzo,Mchess,Genius >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Based on eng-eng matches I guess. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-S. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that most people care only about them. >>>>>>I do not care about games against humans because it is clearly only a question >>>>>>of time until computers beat humans at all time controls. >>>>>> >>>>>>comp-comp is the interesting struggle and being better in comp-comp can also >>>>>>help to get better results against humans. >>>>>> >>>>>>Computer also can play for the same ideas that humans play so being better at >>>>>>beating them means in most cases also being better against humans. >>>>>> >>>>>>There are programs that can play for king attack and I do not think that you >>>>>>need humans to see the problems of your program against king attack if you have >>>>>>these problems. >>>>>> >>>>>>You can let your program play against sjeng. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>I disagree. Better performance in eng-eng matches is no guarantee that a >>>>>programm performs better in matches against humans. >>>>> >>>>>And it leads the whole computer chess development into the false direction, >>>>>with no new concepts. >>>> >>>>I see no reason why not. >>>>New concepts can be productive to beat chess programs. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Look at the Kramnik-Fritz match games 2 and 3. In tactical positions, with lots >>>of pieces and queens, chess engines are not bad today (and this is indeed an >>>achievement of eng-eng matches). But in the other positions, the engines have >>>not a clue, are chanceless, and this will not improve from eng-eng matches, >>>because all the engines have this flaw. >> >>I do not think that all of them. >>There are engines that do not play a3 in game 3. >> >>Other engines have different holes in their knowledge so I do not think that >>Fritz has less knowledge than them. >> >>Uri > >I do. Fritz = fast, not much knowledge. Hiarcs8 = slooow, a lot of knowledge. > >Unfortunately, I don't own Fritz, so I can not prove that. But I think it's >obvious, and nothing anybody will say will change my mind. :) > >Andreas I can change my program's output to show any nps I want. Let's say I release a version where I do "print (nps/100)" and another version where I "print (nps)". They are exactly equal in any other sense. People like you would say the slow one has more knowledge which compensates the speed, right? ;) José C.
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.