Author: blass uri
Date: 01:02:10 10/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 1999 at 02:47:06, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 30, 1999 at 20:26:02, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>On September 30, 1999 at 14:35:25, Charles Unruh wrote: >> >>> >>> In the past i thought faster hardware would benefit slow searchers like >>>Chessmaster more than fast searchers like Fritz. Now i'm more inclined to >>>believe that it makes more sense that faster hardware benefits fast searchers >>>more. For the reason that positional ideas are for the most parts moves made >>>from practical experience/knowledge, that we can't always quite calculate. >>>However, faster hardware gives programs the ability in many instances to >>>actually be able to calculate the result. So although i think Chessmaster is a >>>truly awesome engine especially against programs running up to 233Mhz I expct >>>that on a P450Mhz it will come in 3rd or 4th. >> >>This isn't a simple question. >>My basic take on the issue is that programs that sacrifice some speed (in terms >>of NPS) in return for a better evaluation will do better as hardware speed >>increases and/or time controls get longer. The basic premise behind this >>argument is that an extra ply of search depth becomes less important at greater >>depths, so at greater depths the evaluation function becomes a more important >>factor. > >And the basic problem with this take is that the premise, at least by today's >best guess, simply wrong. > >ref: Crafty Goes Deep, DarkThought Goes Deep (both in ICCA Journal) > >Dave The probability to change your mind proves nothing. The question is about games and not about probability to change your mind. I believe that opening should be more important at long time control and ply depth becomes less important. I saw 3 games between Junior and Hiarcs when the position was a clear draw out of book so I do not expect results of 40:0 even if one program is 1000 times faster(the theory of 70 elo per doubling the speed suggests 700 elo difference). I expect that the result is going to be clear out of book in more games at longer time controls. The result of the ssdf do not support my conjecture. I do not understand it. Maybe my conjecture is right but the statistical error gives the illusion that it is not right. another possibility is that the autoplayer is more against the slower hardware amd cause more mistakes of the slower hardware. Uri
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.