Author: Steven Edwards
Date: 19:23:06 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 21:05:40, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On March 16, 2004 at 06:32:55, Steven Edwards wrote: >>A few points on the 1800 Elo number in the primary goal set: >> >>1. The only test suite data we have for Paradise is just under a hundred >>positions from the first one hundred positions from WAC. I think its >>performance was somewhat under 2000 Elo because of its time limit of forty-five >>minutes per move, and that is one reason for the 1800 Elo figure in the primary >>goal set. > >45 minutes on a machine from 20 years ago is about how long, on today's >hardware? Three seconds. Besides, IIRC, Wilkins only gave it that kind of time >because it was being interpreted as it ran. Your stuff will be compiled, or at >least JIT-compiled, won't it? Nope. ChessLisp is interpretation only at this point. >>2. A second reason for the 1800 Elo figure is that I suspect that, unlike the >>case with most programs, incremental improvement is going to be strongly >>correlated with the chess skill of the improver (me). I haven't played OTB >>chess in some 20 years and I don't think I could do much better than 1800 if I >>were to try it today. > >This is a serious consideration. I guess my off-hand reply is that assuming you >get something working, it will be much easier for chess-playing friends who are >stronger than you to explain what reasoning to add, or even add it themselves. >The ability to easily integrate human knowledge is a major point of the >exercise, yes? Thanks for volunteering! Seriously, some collaboration over the net may be useful. >>4. A difficulty here is getting any kind of an OTB rating. To my knowledge, >>there haven't been any "computers allowed" USCF events in my area for a long >>time. There were a good number back in the late 1980s when I deployed my >>program Spector, but not today. My idea here is to get some local TDs to allow >>computer entry by helping to sponsor a prize fund, and this might be a budget >>breaker. (Note: this is the reason for the caveat in #18 and #19.) > >Now even I think you're dreaming! ;-) Either that, or you'll be organizing a >lot of tournaments yourself. In most cases, you could bring your program in on >a hand-held and a director will refuse it entry. You might be able to swing it >if you're an active chess player yourself -- people would be less hostile to a >program written by their friend (or at least acquaintance). Back in Spector's day, I worked with TDs by chipping in extra prize money of my own for anyone who could draw or beat my program. So there is hope.
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.