Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:32:04 01/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2003 at 16:51:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 11, 2003 at 18:33:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 11, 2003 at 14:38:33, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On January 11, 2003 at 09:39:04, K. Burcham wrote: >>> >>>In 1997 i won easily in blitz from all programs. They knew nothing. >>>Bad evaluation. Very passive play. Small search depths. >> >>That's a crock. I can easily resurrect a 1997 version of Crafty, and can >>find some 1997 hardware. In 1997 Crafty was whacking GM players with ease >>at 5 0 type blitz games. > >play that version for money 5 3 against them at 1997 hardware of yours. >which was a pentiumpro 200Mhz (single cpu). Sorry. In 1997 I was using a quad pentium pro. And I played GMs in a round-robin tournament at some semi-fast time control and did better than any GM playing. But I am talking about _you_. You say you can beat it easily. I had a P6/200 in 1995. Ferret ran on a 700+mhz alpha at the Paris WMCCC event. Which I think was 1997. I'm ready whenever you want to put your skills where your mouth is... > >You'll lose money. First, blitz is 5 0. But I'll play any GM at 5 3 on ICC using my quad P6/200 or something else from 1997. And I won't be losing any match. I played _way_ too many of them. I can easily post a bunch of 1997 statistics against various GM players on ICC if you want. I have every game Crafty ever played. > >Of course hand operate it. Human are way better on chessboards than at a 2d >generated small board on a computer. I don't mind hand-operating. I did it for _years_ with Cray Blitz. And no GM ever won more than one out of five games playing with a _real_ chess clock. With me moving the pieces and typing in the moves. Playing with 5 minutes on the clock. > >>Whenever you want to show your chess skill let me know and I can set up a >>demo on ICC for you. I'd have to think about 1997 hardware, but I ran on >>a 500mhz alpha in 1996, > >you ran on a pro200 at the internet. In 1997 I ran on a quad p6/200. I had a P6/200 in 1995 late. I ran on a P6/200 in Jakarta in 1996. I ran on a 500mhz alpha in the Paris WMCCC event where Bruce had a 733mhz Kryo-tech machine. > >>so that should give some indication of what the >>hardware should be. I have a couple of 750mhz machines which are probably >>in the right speed-range for 97. > >the thing back then got like 6 to 7 ply in blitz. with dubious pruning 8. >some mercilous a look like attacks already killed it. You censored everyone >who did this or put them at a S list back then (if not invented later). Sorry. I didn't censor anyone that beat it. I fixed the problem. You can easily discover when the anti-mercilous stuff was done. But I'll even play you without it turned on if you want... I notice that you first open your mouth, then start trying to backtrack to get out of a deep hole, and then start making excuses... typical... > >the 97 crafty sucked ass in endgame everywhere. Whenever you want to show me how easily you can beat it, just shut up and step up. You certainly aren't going to talk it off the board. > >I face now in blitz things that go 10 ply deep. > >A player of today facing that now will need a game or 20 to adjust to the fact >that the thing is missing all kind of simple passer endgames. *any* material >equal rook endgame wins against it. After finding that out. > >then the day after that he will beat it silly. > >I probably have a person to show you too. Some team member of mine. Is it possible for you to stick to the subject at hand? You said "I can kill any 1997 program on 1997 hardware." I challenged you on that statement, which is a crock of crap. I have the hardware handy. I have the 1997 versions handy. All we need is _you_... > >>>Cars on the other hand advanced hardly from 1997 to 2002. The advances of cars >>>from 1997 - 2002 is in no way comparable to the advances in all respects of >>>computerchess 1997 to 2002. >>> >>>We talk about the weakest chains getting stronger by nearly 500 rating points >>>*at least*. >> >> >>500? ? ? ? ? > >Sure your endgame in 97 was *very* weak. If something is real weak at a program >you seem to forget how much things improved by some tuning there and especially >a bigger search depth. > >the weakest chain in blitz is tactical the same depth a GM gets in a normal >game. So at blitz he won't get through tactical barrier. the 97 thing was insane >weak tactical. 7 plies in blitz. I wasn't doing 7 plies in blitz. In 1996, in Jakarta, I did 13-14 plies. So I have _no_ idea what you are talking about. 13-14 plies at 2 minutes a move does not translate into 7 plies in blitz. but if it is so easy to beat it, just step up and demonstrate. lip-flapping won't cut it. > >The easy test for you to start with is to play your current 4 thread 2.8Ghz Xeon >versus a single cpu Pro200Mhz which you had in 1997. No. _you_ said "I can easily beat 1997 programs." I say you are full of crap. Now's your chance to prove that you can do what you say you can do. I intend to prove you are as full of crap as a Christmas turkey. > >No you didn't have a 500Mhz alpha at the internet in 1997. Not at all. Oh yes I did. When getting ready for Paris. We ran it for at _least_ a month on ICC. Jason got the machine shipped to him for testing. Try again. meanwhile I was running on my quad p6/200 in 1997 myself, but couldn't use that in Paris as single-cpu was all that was allowed back then. I can post a scanned image of the Invoice from ALR showing when the machine was delivered to me if you want.. 1997. > >See how crafty 10/11 plies smacks crafty 7 plies. > >It is not even *near* to the tactical barrier that 7 plies. I want you to show you _you_ can "smack crafty". That _was_ your claim. > >that will already be like 500 rating points. proving my point clearly. It won't prove a thing. _you_ are going to have to prove the point by playing the match. Not waving your hands, changing the subject, side-stepping the issue, making outlandish statements, etc. Just pick a time on ICC and let's see what you are made of. As if I didn't already know, of course... > >>>Let's take openingsbook. the 1997 openingsbook of deep blue was a random book >>>with 4000 hand tuned moves. >>> >>>4000 hand tuned moves is very little. >>> >>>When compared to todays openings books that means it will get out of book on >>>average with -1.0 down in score, if not more. >>> >> >> >> >>that is a crock. I have a big opening book, and _I_ won't get out of book >>"on average with -1.0 if not more"... >> >> >> >>>So junior - deepblue i estimate at around 20-0. >> >>Just like you estimate what can be done with functional languages? With >>NUMA hardware? With SMP locks? >> >>:) >> >> >> >>> >>>12 points from book. 1 point from middlegame. 5 points from attacking the king >>>and mating deep blue (and it not showing any positional problem until it is too >>>late. then when it smells it, it sees probably more than junior there despite >>>junior searching deeper; singular extensions have that habit) and 4 points in >>>endgame. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Vincent >>> >> >>If you could win games with your mouth, you might have a serious chance. >>But the mouth doesn't play the game, unfortunately... >> >> >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>I do not understand the comparision anyway. We do not compare a 1910 car with a >>>>2002 car either. >>>> >>>>You compare deep blue. no nullmove, no good eval (for 1997 standards sufficient >>>>though) with the formula 1 cars that we build today. >>>> >>>> >>>>Best Regards, >>>>Vincent >>>> >>>> >>>>Vincent, lets use your example since you want to compare Deep Blue to the >>>>automobile, and the formula 1 cars. >>>>Lets go to the salt flats with a 1997 car, (more realistic time reference), that >>>>is capable of a top speed of 2000 miles an hour. Also take a car from 2003, and >>>>this top speed is 200 miles per hour. the 2003 car has more knowledge about the >>>>goals wanted by the humans, get to the finish line first. the 2003 car is more >>>>stable, rides better, better interface, looks better, etc. >>>>i think i will put my money on the speed for now. >>>> >>>>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.