Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 09:54:26 02/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2003 at 06:03:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 10:38:59, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>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, > >Don't confuse my proposals for tournament chess! A possible participation of >comps is my main interest, not to make it easier for humans. Backroud is the >FIDE Law. But you are free to dream as much as you want. > > >>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? > >When comps have lost their substantial weaknesses. > >Rolf Tueschen Relative or absolute - to their substantial advantages, assuming you are not still proposing that all their advantages be removed? Frank > > > >> >>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.