Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:34:50 09/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2005 at 00:28:19, Ryan B. wrote: >On September 17, 2005 at 23:49:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 17, 2005 at 23:32:46, Ryan B. wrote: >> >>>On September 17, 2005 at 21:53:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 17, 2005 at 12:49:06, Ryan B. wrote: >>>> >>>>>I thought this rediculess theory was proven wrong with the Crafty vs Rebel thing >>>>>a long time ago. It is far more complicated than just the NPS loss in move >>>>>ording, pruning, reduction checks, and extention checks that all can improve a >>>>>program while reducing the NPS. As well what is known by the eval function and >>>>>how it is used can be much more valuable than even another few ply searched but >>>>>causing a very large loss in NPS. Hiarcs on slow hardware vs GNU Chess on fast >>>>>hardware should show a good example of this. >>>> >>>> >>>>What was proven wrong? >>>> >>>>We played exactly one game with crafty vs rebel, with the time handicap. Ed >>>>later played another match with a _completely_ different result (his chess 2010 >>>>or whatever it was. >>>> >>>>I'd say that shredder is clearly better than current crafty. Anyone want to >>>>give me 1000:1 time odds and play a match? >>>> >>>>Just name the when/where... >>>> >>>>I _know_ how such a match will turn out... >>> >>>Take null move out and I know the result as well. You might get shocked.... >>>again. >> >>I've not been shocked the _first_ time yet. >> >>And I also have no idea what null-move has to do with this. Should I also take >>out search extensions? The evaluation? Endgame tables? Should I just play >>using a text editor? >> >>Again, two programs that are reasonable, if one goes way faster, it will win way >>more. And nothing is going to shock that out of me... > > >How could the Rebel vs craft game even if just one game not shock you? Also I >would like to know why a person with your experiance and enducation would say >"if one that goes way faster" knowing "way faster" can be defined in many >differant ways and you are destine to be taken out of context with such a >comment. 10x faster is a significant advantage. 100x is more significant. 1000x is more significant. What is ambiguous about that? > If you mean much faster hardware than you have a solid but not >flawless statment This has _always_ been about faster hardware. Not lobotomizing a chess engine which would make absolutely no sense in any sort of "scientific test". > If you mean much higher NPS your statment is simply wrong. Nope. Faster hardware _always_ equals faster NPS for a given program. So it isn't "simply wrong". If you want to somehow imagine that I said that taking two programs on the same computer, and the faster NPS program will win, then you are free to do so. But I certainly never said, nor implied such a thing. Feel free to dig up a context-complete quote where I did, of course, although I know such a thing can't be found. >If you mean something else please explain. I meant exactly what I said.
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.