Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:25:12 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 12:53:13, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 09:16:54, Rolf Tueschen 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. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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 am a science dickhead. Again: the 100x are not being used to PROVE that DB2 >>was stronger. They are used to doubt the claim that DJ is stronger. Excuse me, >>Uri, let's not confuse the question. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >A real scientist would also look at the time gap between DB2 and DJ and >understand that the argument goes both ways, the fact that DJ is 6 years ahead >of DB2 in terms of development could bring one to doubt that such an old machine >is stronger than DJ... > >Science is also about questioning ones own convictions, if one fail to do that >then one is a fanatic. If I have a good argument then why should I doubt it. If you have a counter-argument then go ahead, I'm waiting. But in the meantime I prefer one Bob to 100x Jonas, that's all. And Bob said that 100x in speed is a killer. Period. You are producing hor air nothing else. How should 6 years mean much if speed is a killer? We are NOT talking about DB2 vs DJ, we are talking about comp vs human. Did you forget it? Rolf Tueschen > >If we where to compare DB2 and DJ, then we should do it on equal terms and give >DJ the same hardware or more realistic, take the DB2 97 engine and put it on >same hardware as DJ ran on in the Kasparov match and then have a match, well i >know who my money would be on. > >BTW i thought you did not use bad language?? > >Jonas
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.