Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 01:44:11 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 04:37:45, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On January 30, 2003 at 03:16:48, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>In this critical position where Kasparov mentioned that the mistake was probably >>21.b4? We should pit different programs of similar strength such as: >>Shredder 7 vs Deep Junior, Deep Frit7 vs Deep Junior and altenate white and >>black for each program. Allow each program to finish the game by using a time >>control of 6 Minutes per move. Also Take the position from move 25....f4 26.h3 >>and do the same. It is preferable to do this test only if you have a computer >>equal = or greater > than 2.0 Ghz and preferably a Dual either an AMD MP or a >>Dual Intel Xeon. Please provide your result ASAP. >> >>[D]2b2rk1/rp5p/3p1qpQ/2nPpp2/p1P5/R7/PPBN1PPP/4R1K1 w - - avoid 21.b4? > >I find such tests pretty useless, to be honest. If the computers don't >understand how to play a certain position, what exactly do you want to conclude >from the results of this computer-experiment? > >It's like playing a comp-comp tournament after the moves "d4 d5" and drawing >conclusions about how well they play the queenspawn-gambit. ;) [how however that >is called exactly] Another difficulty with the experiment is with the hardware. Nobody is going to have the souped-up mother-ship that Deep Junior 8 is running on. So the time control would have to be very long to emulate the same conditions. Naturally, if "some program or other" does better, people would use that to demonstrate the superiority of "some program or other" but it would demonstrate nothing of the sort. Even at that, I'd like to see it done.
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.