Author: Alessio Iacovoni
Date: 12:22:41 09/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 1998 at 14:25:31, Komputer Korner wrote: >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 > >No, for 2 reasons. >1) Kasparov understands things ( positional, exceptions to positional rules >....etc) that will take a long time to program into chess computer programs. >2) Kasparov will always be able to come up with enough opening novelties deep This bit is very interesting.. yes I agree.. the weak point of all computers is the opening part where they rely heavily on previous knowledge and theory.. "novelties" can become a tough problem.. The question is.. much like kasparov or any other chessmaster comes up with NEW variations to offset an opponent or a computer.. couldn't a computer do the same? Couldn't somebody devise a special option, for example, that would enable it to prepare a range of novelties overnight (perhaps the day before the tournament and on the lines that will be probably played by the opponent)? Just an idea... >enough that the fastest searchers won't be able to overcome them tactically. In >other words, Kasparov's opening prep will always be enormous (his last match >against Deeper Blue was a tragic exception) compared to the opening prep of the >computer which will be zero or close to it. Again, Deeper Blue's opening prep >was an exception because GM Joel Benjamin had a year to do it and on the >strength of that prep he later won the U.S. Closed Championship. >-- >Komputer Korner
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.