Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:20:52 09/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 1998 at 14:12:22, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: >On September 30, 1998 at 13:15:44, Komputer Korner wrote: > >>On September 30, 1998 at 05:41:29, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: >> >>>On September 30, 1998 at 05:32:13, Danniel Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On September 30, 1998 at 05:24:43, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>I still haven't found any faster chess engine than Fritz4.01. Fritz5 and >>>>>Nimzo98 come near, but can't beat Fritz4.01 in my P90. I have tested in about >>>>>700 test positions - this is no 10 - 30 positions result. >>> >>>This strenghtens my belief that there software improvements do not substantially >>>modify the strength of a chess engine (the fast ones especially), whereas >>>hardware improvements and books can. See my post "Why bother and buy new chess >>>software". >> >>Your belief is wrong. Positional evaluation and other software engine >>improvements increase at a small rate each year, but add up all the years of a >>program and the total is significant. As Bob says, his Crafty of today smashes >>his Crafty of 2 years ago on the same hardware. The same for other programs. >>Programs of 10 years ago do not stand a chance against todays programs on the >>same hardware. >> >>-- >>Komputer Korner > >Maybe I haven't expressed myself correctly... of course a program developed in >1998 is stronger than one dating back to 1990, or even closer in time. What I >meant to say is that we will reach a point, if we havent already, in which chess >programs, instilled with that chess knowlwedge that they were lacking in the >past, will not require anything else for improvement than sheer processing >speed. What programs in the bast were basically lacking was a better positional >understanding.. now they have that (see HIARCS and basically all of the other >ones.. including the so called "fast searchers" such as Crafty), plus they have >an outstanding tactical capacity. So.. HOW ELSE can they be improved by >software? What I meant was that we have probably come at a point in which >"everything has already been done" and now the baton has to pass on to hardware >improvements... >I don't know if there have been any studies of this kind but could a progam like >Hiarcs.. or any of the strong ones that everybody has at home.. beat kasparov at >long times with a pentium XX "1000" or something of the sort and 100mb of mem >for hash tables? > >Alessio Iacovoni I would tend to disagree. Until a program plays "perfect chess", programmers will find holes in its play and continue to fix them. I haven't slowed down, for example, in adding things to my evaluation, nor changing them as I watch how they behave. There is a *long* way to go before reaching this point, IMHO...
This page took 0.22 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.