Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:15:02 01/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2003 at 00:52:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... :) No this is different. Dividing the time of the computer by 2 is not the same as running on hardware that is twice slower. If you divide the time of the computer by 2 the opponent has less time to ponder on crafty's time and this is a real problem for humans. 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.