Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 12:31:29 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 13:25:12, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. Because it is good science :) and i said question it, not 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. How scientific of you... Bob said... (i have great respect for Bob too, but i don't agree with anything he says based on that or anyone else for that matter) >You are producing hor air nothing else. How should 6 years mean much if speed is >a killer? Maybe it is maybe it is not, that's why i suggested a DB2 v DJ match on equal hardware, which would be the only way to find out. (never gonna happen, but hopefully you get my point) We are NOT talking about DB2 vs DJ, we are talking about comp vs >human. Did you forget it? See above 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.