Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 01:51:32 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 03:08:06, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On March 15, 2004 at 17:23:32, Steven Edwards wrote: > >>On March 15, 2004 at 16:52:40, martin fierz wrote: >>>On March 15, 2004 at 16:38:53, Steven Edwards wrote: >> >>>>Hmmn. Maybe I should offer a wager or two here to the doubters. Like, if I >>>>can't get this to work, then I'll stop complaining about the mundane nature of >>>>traditional A/B searchers; if I do get it too work, each doubter can send me a >>>>new battery for one of my Macintosh notebooks. (Approx. US$150 each.) >>> >>>i'll accept the wager, but you have to define "can't get this to work" a bit >>>more clearly for me. e.g. IIRC your list had an item "become world champion", >>>and i would accept that you had "got it to work" long before that. >>>for me, the getting it to work part has to be spelled out as some kind of rating >>>level - what do you think? what level would you specify? >> >>Well, first let's hope our board sponsor won't get upset with a little gambling. >> >>I posted the primary and secondary goals back last month but can't find the CCC >>reference. So you are welcome to read them again from the entry 2004.02.19 in >>my journal: >> >>http://www.livejournal.com/users/chessnotation/ >> >>Point #8 in the primary goal set (combined with #12) is what I claim to be >>sufficient for proof of concept, and I'll make the output public for inspection. > >Unlike some of the other posters, I'm less skeptical as to what you'll be able >to come up with using this approach if you follow it through fully, but I do >think that your targeted playing strength (1800 elo) is unreasonably low. It's >acceptable for your program to be weaker than top programs, which are on today's >hardware approaching 2700 strength, but not by such a wide difference. And in >it's day, Paradise was able to handle its domain at expert strength. > >I suggest that your rating target be 2400 elo. Really. You can do it. With >regard to a possible bet between you and Martin Fierz, 2200 on today's hardware >seems like a fair level. > >Dave I'd be ready to contribute to the "bet", but everything would have to be concrete. #8 is vague - if I wanted, Rybka could be meeting this tonight. #12 - what test suite are we talking about? WAC? In addition, you won't be helping your engine if the target is testsuite performance - good for testsuites != good for positional play. 2400 elo? Shredder & Hiarcs search 300 KNPS @ 3 GHz and play ~2800. Slow them down by a factor of 300, log (2) (300) = ~8, 8x50 ELO/speed doubling = 400 points - so ~2400 @ 1000 NPS. (Actually 50 is probably too low, but still.) I can join if the goal is 2600 ELO @<1000 NPS. That's proof of concept. In this case, I think you could find a few contributors ... Cheers, Vas
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.