Author: Ryan B.
Date: 22:07:07 09/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2005 at 00:34:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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". > Good to know we are on the same page here. "IF" NPS was all that matterd lobotomizing a chess engine would help its play. I think we should all know this is not the case. > >> 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. > I did not know we where talking about the same program vs itself on differant hardware. > >>If you mean something else please explain. > > >I meant exactly what I said. And it was worth clerifying, I felt what I read was unclear. People will take you out of context if you let them.
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.