Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:42:17 08/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 05, 2005 at 14:40:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 05, 2005 at 12:04:43, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 05, 2005 at 11:40:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On August 05, 2005 at 11:03:10, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On August 05, 2005 at 07:40:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 04, 2005 at 13:38:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 04, 2005 at 07:49:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 04, 2005 at 07:15:02, Engin Üstün wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>what is about the intelligence of the program? i mean the knowledge of the >>>>>>>>program ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well the competition in that respect has been closed already, >>>>>>>as diep has more chessevaluation knowledge than any other program. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>That ought to be worth a "post of the year" award. "the competition is closed". >>>>>> :) Just like the question "can a cluster be used to play chess?" The answer >>>>>>was (at first) "No, I can proof that the latencies are too high and the speedup >>>>>>can't be > 1.0". It was later "yes, everyone else has tried and failed, but >>>>>>Diep can use a cluster now." >>>>>> >>>>>>that gets _so_ old to continually read such crap. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why is it that the program "with more chessevaluation knowledge than any other >>>>>>program" can't win a major tournament with the regularity of the inferior >>>>>>programs like Shredder and Junior? >>>>>> >>>>>>Go figure... >>>>> >>>>>Are you suggesting that Shredder has less evaluation knowledge than Crafty? >>>>> >>>>>Go away. >>>> >>>>No >>>> >>>>Bob Hyatt never said that Crafty has more knowledge. >>>>> >>>>>Shredder has *way* more than you realize. >>>>>Junior9 has way way more knowledge than older versions. >>>>> >>>>>The proof is obvious that chessknowledge works. >>>> >>>>Bob never said that chess knowledge does not work. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>By the way, has your 2000 line evaluation function "enough to get world >>>champion" already finished? >>> >>>Vincent >> >>No but I think that fruit's evaluation with better search and good book is >>enough to win the world championship. >> >>How many lines are in fruit2.1's evaluation? >> >>Fruit eval.cpp has a less than 2000 lines >>There are functions like piece_attack_king not in eval.cpp but on the other >>side there are empty lines and asserts and comments in eval.cpp so I am not sure >>if Fruit's evaluation is more than 2000 lines. >> >>Uri > >What happened to all your complaining in the 2004 world championship about >others having superior hardware (the reason you gave why Movei lost from Diep, >remember?). Fruit is single cpu. I admit that Fruit is simply better than Movei. About the game against Diep the tactical mistake that costed the game is a mistake that movei could avoid with better hardware. I am not sure what result Movei could do with better hardware against Diep but Diep could not win easily. > >Crafty is quad opteron dual core, so is diep (quad opteron dual core 1.8Ghz >sponsor: www.hotels.nl ), shredder quad opteron dual core 2.2Ghz minimum >(transtec) and probably Junior (HP) be too. > >Did you forget all your "superior hardware always wins" complaints in 2004? > >Vincent I do not say that better hardware always win but I am almost sure that Movei could score better with better hardware(for example it had good chances for a draw against Crafty and in WBEC Movei beated Crafty in the match between them) I also think that there are good chances that movei could avoid the loss against isichess with better hardware and the mistake that costed it the game could be prevented with searching one ply deeper. Uri
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.