Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 07:38:59 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 09:25:14, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 08:28:38, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>On February 16, 2003 at 08:19:08, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 16, 2003 at 07:23:29, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>On February 16, 2003 at 07:10:34, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>The gap between the best programs and part of the free programs programs is more >>>>>than 500 elo on equal hardware. >>>> >>>>Can you point to the data source that supports this claim. > 500 seems a bigger >>>>gap that indicated by SDF and ICC. >>> >>>There are a lot of rating list >>>The gap between the best free programs and another part of the free programs is >>>also more than 500 elo. >>> >>> >>>Look at the following list >>> >>>http://www.digichess.gr/infiniteloop/ratings/rapid_rating_il2r.txt >>> >>>Crafty17.9 2672 >>>Movei0.07a 2052 >>> >>> >>>Movei0.07a(my old program) is not extremely weak and it is >>>more closer to the top than to the bottom that is >>>LaMoSca 0.10 1183 >>> >>>I said that the gap between the best programs and part of te free programs is >>>more than 500 elo. >>>I did not talk about the best free programs. >> >>I did not understand your sentence. Clearly if the one you describe are bey >>definition those >500 worse then the statement is obviously true. I had in mind >>Riffian, Crafty, Ferret etc >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hardware that is 100 times faster will not be enough to compensate for that >>>>>difference. >>>>> >>>>>We do not know what was the level of the software of deeper blue because it >>>>>never played games on equal hardware. >>>> >>>>Why should it have to play on equal hardware? It was designed to a different >>>>paradigm. >>> >>>If people use the speed of it as a reason to convince people that it was better >>>than we need some information about it's level on equal hardware. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I also doubt the claim that the hardware was 100 times faster and we have no >>>>>proof for the number of nodes that it searched(200M nodes could be a >>>>>psychological war against kasparov when the real number was only 20M). >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>I wish IBM (or someone) would fund Hsu's next chip. Then we would finally be >>>>able to answer these questions Of course, some would then deny the facts if >>>>they did not fit their expectations ;-) >>> >>>No >>> >>>It can only prove in the best case for Hsu that Hsu is capable to do >>>a chip that is better than the top programs of today. >>> >>>I did not claim that he is unable to do it. >>> >>>It is not going to prove that DB97 is better than the top programs of today. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>Moot as alawys. It was interesting listening to Fed. on chess.fm. He praised >>Junior, but did not have it in the same class as DB 1997... Of course he may not >>be impartial, but then again neither are the current set of commentators. >> >>My interest as stated before is more whether we actually need something as good >>as DB to stand toe to toe with the elite GMs, or whether a good software package >>(Hiarcs, Fritz, Junior....) on a fast PC is sufficient. >> >>If Hiarcs, Fritz and Junior really are as good as DB97 (in their different ways) >>then the answer is yes anyway.... :-) > > >As Bob's little brother I want to participate in the race. Here is my verdict >from a science point of view: > >If you take the best DBnm you could make in 10 years, right, then this DB could >STILL NOT stand toe to toe with our then best GM. [Here I must exclude all show >event results. Because otherwise I must announce my own becoming World Champion >in a match against Kasparov for the incredibly high sum of 230 million US $$ >offered of course prior to the MATCH.] > > >:) > > >Rolf Tueschen > >[Designed World Champion in Show Match of Chess] About 10 years ago computers showed signs of being able to beat GMs at fast chess. Ten years later, we have to invent conspiracy-like theories to explain why, despite the results, they still cannot beat the elite. In a further ten years you still believe computers will not be good enough, even a new DB type machine..... I wonder why? Before the match, I seem to recall you arguing for making it fairer for the human, which seemed to equate to taking away the machine's advantages so the human stood a better a chance of winning. When do you think computers will be better (on average)? When we have 32 man endgame tables, or something less? I too have been surprised by the results of Hiarcs, Fritz, Junior, Rebel, ChessMaster etc...., but without concrete proof am unwilling to simply attribute it to human greed for further sponsorship and prize money. Naive...perhaps. Frank
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.