Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:52:18 01/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2003 at 21:05:55, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >On January 23, 2003 at 14:21:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 23, 2003 at 10:55:10, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 23, 2003 at 10:32:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On January 23, 2003 at 04:30:50, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 23, 2003 at 04:19:47, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 23, 2003 at 00:18:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 23, 2003 at 00:04:18, Chris Kantack wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I have seen the rules and other "tidbits" of the upcoming Kasparov vs. Deep >>>>>>>>Junior match. There's even a site where you can bet on the outcome. But what >>>>>>>>of the hardware? 2, 4, 6, 8 processors or more???? Processor speed?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Any official info yet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>>Chris Kantack >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The only viable choices from the Intel world are a dual xeon 2.8, or a quad >>>>>>>xeon 2.0... I don't think anything else comes close. There might be some >>>>>>>quad 2.8's in the hands of a select few, but they will probably be hard to >>>>>>>get access to. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>It would be great if Amir gets his hands on a Quad 2.8, but a Quad 2.0 would do >>>>>>just fine. Why they have not posted any information on the hardware to be used >>>>>>will be simply a surprise :) >>>>>> >>>>>>Pichard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It's interesting to see that people are so focused on the hardware used in these >>>>>matches. Of course hardware is important, but I guess that most people (after >>>>>some thought ;) that the actual hardware used in a comp-human match is a bit >>>>>less important as opposed to a comp-comp match. >>>> >>>>absolutely correct. The influence of going 2x faster against a human is >>>>minimal. If >>>>it is all about search, the human will lose no matter what. But it isn't, yet, >>>>all about >>>>search, if all you do is search deeply to find lost positions. :) >>> >>>If you find lost positions by search then you can avoid the losing blunder. >>> >>>I do not think that we have data to say that the influence of being twice faster >>>is minimal. >> >>I have _lots_ of data. I have run on ICC for years now, at in blitz games, >>switching to >>2x faster hardware doesn't have an appreciable effect on playing humans... >> >> >>> >>>games on ICC when Crafty is twice slower do not prove much because humans lose >>>most of the games in any case. >> >>Not really. There are a few gms that get a significant number of draws to go >>along with >>their losses, and they even win a game here and there. Going from 4x400 to >>4x550 to 4x700 >>and even 2x2800 does not make that much of a difference. I have even changed >>from 4x550 to >>2x2800 and then later asked them if they could tell any difference. The answer >>was "no". > > >If it's real that the change 4x550 to 2x2800 don't change the quality of moves, >i'd suggest you to play with the 2x2800 and divide the thinking time of crafty >by 2 or 3, this would give you some more wins ! ;) > > I'm not saying more time doesn't mean better "quality". I am saying that against humans, the "quality" is not the issue. If you don't understand something that they do, then all the depth in the world is not going to help you make the right move. It will play tactically better of course, but not necessarily positionally. I've only noticed this against GM players. And I _have_ done as you have suggested many times... :) > > >> >>> >>>The question is not about the influence of being twice faster against weaker >>>opponents who lose most of the games but the influence of being twice faster >>>against equal opponents. >>> >>>Uri
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.