Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:29:13 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2000 at 11:34:44, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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 I don't remember Mchess being in the mix. Genius X and Rebel Y were the two he mentioned to me in the original 10 games. X and Y I don't remember. But we know it was in the 1996 time frame so we could guess... I won't venture whether mchess has a good or bad eval. It is all relative. Against computers it does (in general) poorly. Against humans, it seems much better.
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.