Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:46:00 01/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2006 at 00:10:37, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 13, 2006 at 23:32:04, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 13, 2006 at 23:08:25, Uri Blass wrote: > >>>>Incorrect. I think it may have won more than once, but here is one of its >>>>winning lists: >>>>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2640/ssdf/2000/ssdf0001.htm >>> >>>Ok I apologize and I was wrong here but it leaded it only for a short time and >>>by a small difference. >>> >>>Rybka is leading rating lists by bigger difference. >> >>Rybka is in second place: >>http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/cegtrating4040all.html >> >>In case you want to object because of SMP, I would argue that SMP is an advance >>just like better search or better eval. It is not the fault of SMK that Rybka >>and Fruit can't do it yet. > >I think that this shredder smp has not enough games and probably rybka is going >to lead when it get more games. > >smp is not something new in computer chess and it is more interesting for me to >see progress in single processor machines. They have 4 Core CPUs that will be released shortly. A 4-way box with 4 cores per CPU will have 16 CPUs. There is no way for a non-SMP program to compete with that. Absolutely for sure, SMP is the wave of the future. Daniel Shawul managed a fairly efficient SMP program in a short period of time. So it is possible to do it. >>>I agree but my point is not about future fruit but about comparing the progress >>>today and in the past. >>> >>>Today it is clear that there is a bigger progress. >> >>It's not clear to me. I think that the biggest jump ever was pre-deep blue to >>deep blue. > >I think that deep blue is not interesting because it was hardware that was >designed to play chess. That is incredibly interesting to me. The very thought of a CPU with an instruction "Nxb3+" is a weird and happy thought for me. >Hydra is also uninteresting for me for the same reason. That is also why Hydra is interesting to me. >SMP is already used by some top programs like Shredder or Junior for many years >so I do not see implementing it as a progress in computer chess but only as a >progress of the specific program when better rating than the top program on >single processor is a progress in computer chess. For SMK to continue to lead the SSDF for a long time shows significant progress in his program. Whether the progress comes in other programs or in SMK's program, it is equally interesting to me.
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.