Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 23:08:00 12/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2003 at 22:09:51, Mike Byrne wrote: >On December 29, 2003 at 19:23:28, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On December 29, 2003 at 19:08:12, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>On December 29, 2003 at 17:28:46, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On December 29, 2003 at 15:47:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>I'm not exactly sure what your point is, we are not talking about humans. >>>> >>>>I guess you are implying that Crafty is 1800 and Shredder is 2830 and so Crafty >>>>is without a chance. >>>> >>>>That is utter nonsense of course. >>>> >>>>In REALITY Crafty with a big hardware advantage is maybe 50 points weaker than >>>>Shredder, so in your human analogy that would be like Kramnik winning in front >>>>of Kasparov. >>>> >>>>If you play only 11 rounds it could happen. >>> >>>OK, lets do a little math. >>> >>>We know crafty on 2G P4 is about 20-30 elo stronger than Junior on a 266 >>>celeron. >>> >>>now, I think that: >>> >>>Using Junior's tournament book: 50 elo for Junior >>>2x hardware advantage rather than 10x: 80 elo for Junior >>>4xP4 vs 266 celery: 80 elo for Junior >>> >>>Suddenly its game over for Crafty. >>> >>>So the question is: which of those statements do you disagree with? >> >>I'm assuming Bob can scale Crafty's hardware advantage to keep up, ie. that he >>could get a 16 or 32 node machine to use against the quads. >> >>The only worry is if there is diminishing returns or some pratical problems in >>using so many CPUs. >>I do not believe in all that nonsense about tactical barriers, so I think it >>will mainly be the technical challenge of it. >> >>About the book I don't believe in 50 elo. >>If Bob uses his normal tailor made book full of ICC learning I think it can hold >>its own, it may even be better than a book full of abstract theory the engine >>doesn't understand. >> >>-S. >> >>>anthony > >I don't what a good book is worth (elo points) -- but some people get very upset >when I play engines without their books - the argument they used is the engine >should be used the way it is sold -- I have no argument with that line of >reasoning if that is their purpose. My own personal prefernce is use the same >(unify)book for my tournaments - becuase I want to know which engine really >plays better regardless of book. (that's all, personal preference, ymmv) >Of course in Chess Computer Chanpionship tournaments, each author should be able >to provide his own book -- as that is part of the preparation and the work of >each author. > >For years, it was my opinion that MChess had the best prepared book for >tournaments. I don't know who that was, but he was very good. Maybe it was >Marty himself, I am not sure. The book was made by me when the program was called M-Chess Pro. Previously it was made by Marty himself. Sandro >But you really do need someone to work on a book, >esp ically in a short tournament and it has to be updated after every >tournament.
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.