Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:00:33 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 18:13:40, paul bedrey wrote: >On December 13, 1999 at 16:59:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 13, 1999 at 16:23:43, John Warfield wrote: >> >>>On December 13, 1999 at 15:09:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 13, 1999 at 14:58:30, walter irvin wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 20:40:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 17:24:52, John Warfield wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could you please tell me what your 2450 projection is for, on what machine? >>>>>>>Also I am curious what you would rate the best computer programs on these >>>>>>>platforms 1. Amd 600 2. Amd 300 3 MMX 200 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I think the best of today's programs, on the best of today's hardware, is >>>>>>playing at a 2450 (roughly) level (FIDE rating). I don't think cutting the >>>>>>hardware speed by a factor of 2, nor doubling the hardware speed, would make >>>>>>any significant change... The problem is that the programs are good tactically, >>>>>>but have significant positional holes that speed won't help. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think programs will continue to improve, but only as those 'holes' are >>>>>>covered up solidly... >>>>> >>>>>For what it's worth I think you are 100% correct. Depending on the program the speed of the processor plays the most important part in the current ratings increase. This is to be expected since computers rely on tactics. I would expect >program A on a faster computer to beat the same version on a slower machine. > >I once had the bright idea of creating a book of my favorite anti-computer >opening(Stonewall Attack) in a very respected commercial program. Once out of >book I was appalled at the program's move selection. It was obvious the program >did not understand the continuation of the attack. This leads to a question. >Would a program benefit from an understanding of specific opening(such as king >or queenside attack, or key stratigic squares for specific pieces) OR would this >slow the program down too much? I know this is hypothetical but as one of the >leading chess programmers your opinion is worth more than mine. The answer is "yes" but the solution is very complex. IE I recognize some stonewall-specific things inside my eval in order to not get rolled up too easily. And crafty knows other things about opening theory, such as not blocking the c-pawn in queen-pawn openings, and so forth. But, for example, playing the KID as black, black knows that the bishop on C8 is very crucial to the success of the king-side attack. However, programs (at least mine and the ones I see play the KID as black from time-to-time) don't grasp this, and just blow the position to useless shreds...
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.