Author: Mark Young
Date: 18:35:26 06/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2004 at 18:18:16, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 05, 2004 at 17:46:05, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 05, 2004 at 10:13:53, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On June 05, 2004 at 09:54:55, Marc wrote: >>> >>>>Maybe a bit off topic here ... >>>> >>>>Of course it is nice to watch a much too strong engine to wipe you of the board, >>>>over and over again. But eventually this gets a bit boring. >>>>So I wonder, has anybody programmed an engine which is not really strong, but >>>>fun to play against? (about ELO 1700-1900) >>>> >>>>Crippling a strong engine is somewhat dissatisfying, for some reason. >>> >>>The problem is not in the engines but in the hardware that you have. >>>It is too fast. >>> >>>It is only the hardware that make the impression that engines are better than >>>1900. >>> >>>You should ask for hardware that is 10000 times slower than the hardware that >>>you have. >>> >>>The real smart people are not the programmers but the people who build hardware >>>that is faster every year and I have no idea how they do it. >>> >>>The fact that it seems to me that most of the progress in the last 30 years were >>>done thanks to better hardware and not thanks to better software suggest that >>>we(the programmers) are relatively stupid. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>"The fact that it seems to me that most of the progress in the last 30 years >>were done thanks to better hardware and not thanks to better software suggest >>that >>we(the programmers) are relatively stupid." >> >> >>Wow! Now you tell me. I could have saved much money on chess programs. >> >>You need to tell this to the newer versions of Fritz, Shredder, and Junior etc. >>They have yet to here this decree made by you. And for some unknown reason. The >>newer programs seem to do much better then the older generation of programs, on >>the same hardware. Be it computer vs. computer, computer vs. human, or test >>positions. >> >>All kidding aside. I wonder if other programmers here agree with this. As only a >>tester and not a programmer I disagree strongly. Much progress has been made in >>both areas. I think the data strongly backs it up... > >I agree that much progress has been made in both areas but I feel that the >progress in hardware in the last 30 years is bigger. > >The question is how to compare it and the problem is that programs of 1974 do >not run on hardware of today when programs of today do not run on old hardware. > >I see the main job of programming as better algorithms and not translating >programs so they can work on a new hardware so we need to have some estimate for >the speed difference between the hardware of today and the hardware of 1974 and >play a match between best of 2004 and best of 1974 when best of 1974 get more >time in order to compare. > >I think that it is not easy to have these matches and maybe the solution is to >have seperate match for times of 10 years > >Based on my memory: >Genius3 was the best of 1994 >P90 was the hardware of 1994 when it beated kasparov. > >If we want to check the last 10 years then the question is if Shredder8 on p90 >can beat Genius3 on the fastest single processor(I think that it should be >hardware advantage of 30:1 for Genius3) > >Uri This topic has been explored before on CCC. To show this was not correct. I took modern programs and played them against programs only a few years older, on the same hardware. It showed just in the past 5 or so years, that hardware could only account for about 1/2 the strength increase of todays programs. That would mean the other 1/2 must be something else. It seems it could only be better programs accounting for the other 1/2. It is clear if we project these findings back 30 years. It is clear your conclusion can not be correct.
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.