Author: Thomas Mayer
Date: 02:15:32 01/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Thorsten, >>this example is idiotic -> > it is a fair test. all cars crash from the same high, 10.000 feet. > The conditions are the same. it's only a fair test. no, it has simply nothing to do with what he does -> he tests them playing chess -> so could you do by driving with the car... doing something totally different they were not built to do is idiotic - and he did not... he let them play chess and did want to know something about their performance on his PCs in his prefered time control. >>can we at least agree that the engines play on HIS >>computer also chess ? > >let's say they try to. No, they really do... I am VERY sure that all these engines will win against 99% of chessplayers in a 5 minutes blitz on his comp. That is not really what I would call: they try to play chess... > but if you take a chess program that was developed on a 3 Ghz PC and put it > on a 450 P3 and let it blitz, you create an environment that is very > different from the purpose the program was designed for. you think so ? Clockwise you can give a 3 GHz PIV only 2 or maybe 2.2 GHz compared to the PIII/450 MHz... this is around a factor of 4... which is not much more then a ply... But you seem to beancount on that ply ?! >the cars were designed to DRIVE. not how they fly. > >so by measuring how they fly you do not measure very precise how good they >drive. In your car example yes -> in the games not, they still play chess... > you test all kind of cars how good they drive when driving backwards with > high speed. I am sure this will help us to order the cars ... They still do not drive backwards - the engines play chess... that's how simple it is... you can not escape to this pure fact. > but the todays chess programs are created to play blitz in 30" games ? > or blitz in 5 on a p3/450 ?? They are created to play chess... On any environment which fullfills the minimal conditions... which is currently a Pentium I (!) for e.g. Shredder 7.SE. > i am looking forward to see the next ICGA computerchess-championship > done in this time control. I am sure we will get interesting results :-)) > maybe this helps fritz to win :-)) Moraly Fritz was the winner of the event... In fact when the ICGA would have handled their rules correctly it would be champion... >> But of course it makes sense to test cars how well they are >> doing at a speed of say 30 miles per hour or 150 miles per hour... >> Everybody is doing that. You may understand the difference ? >exactly. you test cars WITHIN A RANGE of sensible speed. > you do not test them e.g. at a speed of 3 miles per hour, or at a speed of > 450 miles per hour. The difference is not a factor of 150... I still wonder that you have so many problems with simple math... E.g. driving with 25 miles per hour is like 100 miles per hour on the faster PC -> it's like testing the car in the city or on the highway... both is important. Besides, to get away of this stupid comparisson with cars: The range for chessprograms is far bigger - as you can e.g. read on the package of Shredder 7.SE -> minimal needed is a Pentium I with no special clockspeed mentioned - So I say we can start with a PI/60 MHz... up to the fastest thing we can get at the moment, e.g. a Quad Opteron 2.2 GHz. Even on the PI/60 MHz I am sure the programs provide a quite well analysis - at least as good as the programs which were available at the period where this kind of hardware was state of the art... And did we say those days this engines are pure nonsense ??? But you think you can say that to everyone who tests different then you ??? Instead of making more and more idiotic statement it would be better to you to apologize a bit... and when you start with it, please also apologize to Sarah... but as I already have stated in that thread - you will never learn... > My critic is that he tests 30" blitz level ! He does not test at 30" Blitz Level... He does it with 5 Minutes blitz level on his machine... besides, this is definitely a difference... To play 60 moves in 30 seconds is a real problem for a chess engine because usually the time handling is not written for such fast time controls... 5 minutes is no problem... and that does NOT depend on the machine. The engines would have the same problems with 30" seconds on a PIV 3.2 GHz as on a PI/60 MHz... But on BOTH machine time handling of 5 minutes is no problem. > and covers this behind 60 games ! he does not cover anything... >IMO he could have played 1000 games and the results would not help us more. the result helps those which want to know something about the performance on a PC like his PC... >> Besides: you might not be aware of the facts, but still MANY persons have >> PCs like this PIII/450 - > I am having 2 x 400 mhz AMD too. you don't tell me something new. ah, interesting... and now when you want to know something about the blitz performance of the engine on those machines ? What will you do ??? Playing 30" matches on your faster PC ??? Believe it or not, out there are persons that want to know something different then you want... not all humans think the same... thanks god... > As i said: i am looking forward that the next ICGA championship is been done > on 30" blitz. this has nothing to do with the ICGA championship ... by tradition they take place with a long time control... it's impossible to operate 30" matches, by the way... and it would be not attractive neither to the participants nor to the spectators... Watching 5 minutes blitz games on your own PC played automatically is attractive and funny -> also I follow quite often GMs playing blitz at ICC - that is really interesting how much they see and you would never... but those GMs have already problems in blitz against professional programs on PIII/450... huge problems... so are those GM-games also 30" blitz ? oh well, and about your usual complaints about Kasparov... what should I say about this - okay, Kasparov loves money, possible... in his position I would take it also... but to set a question mark on every game he did play - that is nonsense... I doubt that the Genius team could buy Kasparov... He was even for them to expensive to get forced to lose... But think what you want - we all live in free countrys... but again: Stop to declare everything as senseless that does not fit in your point of view... believe me, there are other point of views... you seem to me a very narrowed person, fully closed for other opinions... Greets, Thomas
This page took 0.01 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.