Author: K. Burcham
Date: 09:41:15 02/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2002 at 11:46:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 25, 2002 at 11:35:02, K. Burcham wrote: > >> >> >>I agree, but it seems the problem with playing on the Deep Blue level is >>kns. If we are getting 2000kns today, with the dual machines, then we will >>have to wait on hardware upgrades. Hyatt said that Deep Blue was getting >>200,000,000 nodes a second--we are only getting 2,000,000 nodes a second. >>Hardware will have to reach closer to this level to test todays search methods >>in comparison to Deep Blue's search methods. If this is true what Hyatt is >>saying, and I have no reason not to believe this, then I have learned my 3100 >>mhz and 1000 megs ram, is very limited in being able to compare todays programs >>to the six game Deep Blue match with Kasparov. The more time I spend testing >>positions in this match, the more I dissagree with Uri. I feel if Uri had >>spent the time and money that I have in testing this match, then I dont think he >>would take such a stand comparing todays programs with Deep Blue. >> >>I have started over again with the six game Deep Blue match. I am using the >>following: >> >>Fritz7 1500mhz 512ram >>Chess Tiger 14 1000mhz 384ram >>Deep Shredder6 3100mhz 1000ram >> >>Starting with game one, I will run all three programs until a Deep Blue move >>is not played by any program. I will then give all three programs 24 hours to >>find the Deep Blue move. If none of the programs will play the Deep Blue move >>after 24 hours, I will move to the next move. This move will be noted. > >This is going to be a tough thing to evaluate. IE (a) is the DB move better? >(b) is the DB move worse? (c) Is the alternative suggested by one of the above >just as good? > >It is like trying to pick a particularly bad move by RC4 in the van Wely >match, and asking "which computer won't play this move?" That is totally >pointless, unless, in addition, you confirm that the computer _will_ play all >the preceeding moves so that it would actually reach that position and then >improve on what Rebel played. It might be that there are better moves to be >played earlier in the game. It might be that Rebel's play up until the "lemon" >move was flawless. > >Proving any of that is a serious undertaking... No Robert that is not my intent. I do understand what you are saying though. All I want to do is collect the data from each move. Analyze the data, and draw a logical conclusion from the analysis. I will not conclude "bad move" or "good move". I only want to try this again with three programs instead of two. kburcham > > > > >> >>I wanted to use Century 4.0, but I have not learned all of the interface >>necessary to cut and paste, clipboard, save as, etc. with the windows-dos. >> >>I feel game one will go very fast, because I think most moves can be found in >>this game. It seems some settings were changed between game one and game two, >>because finding moves after game one became more difficult. >> >>Anyone have any advice on how to improve this project, please let me know. >>I will record: 1. moves not found 2. moves found after 30+ minute search >>3. which program found which moves. 4. Total time of analysis after each game. >>kburcham
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.