> ...because humans don't play against engines very frequently, there can be some small divergences between scores on the FIDE Elo ladder and the CCRL ladder…

This is precisely the problem. There are very few games between FIDE-rated players and CCRL-rated “players” under tournament conditions. The question of what FIDE rating a given CCRL rating would be equivalent to has been analysed extensively before and “small divergences” would be quite the understatement: https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=59332

In general ratings obtained purely by computer vs computer play are known to exaggerate the differences between computers compared to their performance against humans. This was known and discussed as far back as the 80s.

Ultimately the only way to discover the true strength of “Pentium Pro-fish” is for it to play a large number of games against FIDE-rated humans under strict tournament conditions.

> But if you happen to know a 2700+ Super GM who wants to try and defeat a 2026 chess engine playing on 1996 hardware, I'd be happy to accept the challenge!

Hikaru Nakamura? Has a history of playing chess computers in various odds matches and it could be interesting “content” for his entertainment brand. But really any of them might be interested if the financial terms were satisfactory.

A common rough rule of thumb used throughout the 2010s (because it no longer holds) in computer chess was that a 2x speedup gives about 50 Elo. This mostly holds in that region but at low levels it is more like 100-200 points.

Someone built Stockfish for the Pentium (586), 486 and 386 a while ago: https://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=63857

I am half remembering a post from more than a decade ago but a process similar to Fishtest was supposedly used for Rybka. But in general I agree.

https://wikipedia.gptzero.me/

The vast majority of software (past or present) is not distributed and therefore difficult to access. So I find when people talk about “software” in this context they often mean commercial “boxed product” software or software that otherwise has an end-user that is the general public rather than “all software”. That is simply the only neighbourhood of the software universe that most people are familiar with. Yet even if we were to restrict ourselves to that category of software there is a complete lack of convincing comprehensive comparisons. And even if there were it might only be an indication of a trend confined to that category of software.

Most commentators suggest the trend concerning software quality continues and may even accelerate in the future. So instead of trying to compare the present with an inaccessible past, why not compare the present with an eventual future? Design objective metrics and/or recruit esteemed judges for subjective assessments, then assess today's software and repeat this assessment a number of years later and compare the metrics.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49874375

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49827531

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49796730

Points: 63

# Comments: 53

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49771829

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49765798

Points: 62

# Comments: 5

This is nice to see. One of my few gripes with NNUE engines is their huge size compared with the old “HCE” engines I was accustomed to (which were usually hundreds of KiB or low single digit MiBs in size). I will trade off size for superior playing strength but at a certain point it becomes hard to keep justifying a 2x increase in size for what seems like ever diminishing practical returns. I am still searching for a strong NNUE engine that is ~10MiB or less. I have found Marvin, which is small at 1.8 MiB, but it is nowhere near as strong as Stockfish.

I do and I have for a number of years.

Most people prefer to watch human chess but there are also those who watch computer chess with the same level of enthusiasm:

https://tcec-chess.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCEC

Machine assisted versus machine delegated authorship?

The true difference between digital and “analogue” lies in the nature of the representation and interpretation of information, that is whether they are descriptions (symbolic) or analogies. The shape of the groove on a phonograph record is an analogy of a sound wave signal. The pits in a compact disc represent numerals which give a description of the amplitude of a signal at a given point in time.

There have been a few attempts at this already and I have something like this myself for websites I design. Ultimately they fail to gain widespread traction since everyone has very different ideas on what of the various Web standards should be included at each version level. Someone else’s standard will likely not include that one feature you cannot go without so you simply do not follow it.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49544369

Points: 1

# Comments: 0