Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:53:52 12/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2004 at 01:33:36, Ed Trice wrote: >I hope nobody minds that I spawn a new post although this is really part of a >threat. I was getting carpal tunnel scrolling down and follwing the nested, >nested, nested replies. I will try to get everyone up to speed quickly. > >First to all those "chess only" readers, this is Gothic Chess, played on an >80-square board with two new pieces; the Archbishop (Bishop + Knight) and >Chancellor (Rook + Knight). If you are not interested in this variant, stop >reading now :) > >Ok, if you are still reading and never heard of Gothic Chess, a pitstop to the >link http://www.GothicChess.org will be worth the time. > >A discussion had ensued about my Gothic Vortex program (80-bit using 64-bit and >16-bit components) and the performance of 32-bit chess programs. > >I think I can distill the essentials of what could be viewed as a disagreement >or disbelief among the programming enthusiasts. > >First, Gothic Vortex borrows some of the Craft technology, thank you Dr. Robert >Hyatt, my new best friend :) > >Second, during the construction of the move generator, I reported a nodes/second >count of 140 million, causing some consternation. > >It should be emphasized that this figure was not from an alpha-beta search from >a fixed position, nor anything similar. I had mentioned how I had arrived at >this figure, by putting pieces on each square (from a1 to j8) then repeatedly >calling my "move_gen" routine in a for loop a fixed number of times (I think >100,000 per position) then counting the nodes spawned, then dividing by the time >taken. > >I understood this was not a representation of the full speed of the program; as >it was in the early stages, it was the only metric I had to test my 80-bit move >generation routines. > >Someone had contacted me asking me for test data. I provided what I had. > >Thirdly, I could only compare my chess variant of Gothic Chess against the only >other Gothic Chess program out there, which was from the Zillions-Of-Games >company. Granted, this is an engine that can work for games of ANY size and rule >configuration, which is a feat unto itself, but my results comparing it to >Gothic Vortex were veritable. > >Gothic Vortex is 30 times as fast as this generic engine. > >It is the only way we can compare engines, as no other chess engine operates on >80 squares. > >Gothic Vortex played a 10 game match with Zillions and won 10-0, not even a >single draw, at 3 minutes per move. Since Zillions plays the same way every time >(no opening book) we let Vortex pick openings at random (it has a book of about >6000 opening positions.) > >Now several "proposals" have been offered to compare the engine speed of Gothic >Vortex to other chess engines, but comparing 80 square boardds to 64 square >boards seem rather pointless. > >So, here is the kicker. > >I will pay anyone $10,000 that produces a Gothic Chess program that can defeat >Gothic Vortex in a match to take place in the city of Philadelphia no later than >August 1, 2004. I guess that you mean that you will pay the first programmer who produce it(otherwise the money that you pay is not bounded and in theory can be 1,000,000$ if 100 programmers do it independently). Uri
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.