Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 03:35:42 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 06:32:05, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On January 30, 2003 at 04:44:11, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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. > >The computer after searching a lot of nodes could get the right moves >even without understanding of the position, and by usging different programs >you could see different outputs base on the starting position. > >The position is very tactical so it may be interesting to look at the lines that >are already posted and see if other programs such as Shredder 7 and Deep Fritz 7 >could still draw even if you have to let your computer calculate up to 20 >minutes per move depending on your hardware. The purpose for this test would be >to determine if the game could still end up in a draw. Of course it would NOT be >the same as getting Kasparov to play the other side vs the program, since the >game was already agreed to be a Draw. Another point is that computer don't get >tire and after several hours of Analysis between programs of similar strength, >you can still make a good judgement of what the possible outcome should have >been. > >Pichard. > >> >>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.