Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 12:14:28 10/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 1999 at 12:03:50, Shep wrote: >On October 14, 1999 at 11:12:39, Joshua Lee wrote: > >>I know that even if you had a 2Ghz machine it wouldn't solve Nolot pos 1 in >>under 3 Min. Why not? I happen to have just run this the other night, and the correct move _and_ correct line were chosen at about 13 minutes, ply 11. Score was about -1, but went to -0.5 at ply 12, +0.00 at ply 13, and failed high again at ply 14 in 268 minutes, but I didn't let it complete the search. This is from a modified Crafty 16.19, which is _NOT_ tuned for the Nolot positions, on a PII-300. >> In fact 10 complete in under 3 min you would have to have a 35Ghz >>Machine. so the only solution seeing how this isn't going to happen for hmm >>maybe 9 years you would think Moore's Law. So how can you make programs faster >>annd more intellegent? I think DB might be able to solve them all in tournament time (except perhaps #6, #9, and maybe #3, and #8 because it may be incorrect - #9 may not be completely correct, either, and #3 may just be a case of evaluation between two similar-scoring moves). >I don't think a program has to solve all Nolot positions (or any other test >suite) within tournament time control to have GM strength. I agree. >I bet several GM's would not solve all of them (provided they didn't know them >already which they do...) either. >[Remember the notorious Qe3 which both Kasparov and Deeper Blue missed, yet most >PC programs find it.] I don't think Kasparov and DB missed the move, I just think they didn't see that it draws. Neither does _any_ micro program (i.e., searching from the final position of the game, they don't return a draw score). If you have data to disprove me, please post it. >In fact, if a program found just 3 or 4 of them in 10 minutes, it would probably >be at par with many GM's (unless it was tuned for the suite). Most programs can find at least a couple of them (#11, maybe #10, some may find #3, but probably for 'positional' reasons. #1 and #5 are possible, but a bit more difficult, and would probably take longer.) in reasonable time. Maybe even in 10 minutes. Jeremiah
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.