Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 08:34:44 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2000 at 08:09:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >As I said... he _believes_ it is the best, because of the test games he played >vs micros to test this feeling. But in writing, it is logical to be >conservative so that you don't have to retract something once someone proves >your statement was "too much"... I was thinking about this the other day... If MChess Pro runs at ~2,500 NPS on a P5/133, then it was almost certainly running at < 5k NPS when Hsu ran his "micro experiment." So if Hsu was running his chip at 100k NPS, he was outsearching MChess by a factor of 20. It's not a huge surprise that DB won. The reason I like MChess is because its evaluation function is obviously extremely sophisticated, and it's proven itself over and over and over, over the course of ~2 (?) decades. I think it's pretty presumptuous to say that function X is better than MChess's function, unless possibly function X was written by Mark Uniakle or Johann de Koening. (Whose functions are also sophisticated and well-proven.) -Tom
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.