Author: Chris Carson
Date: 10:51:50 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 13:03:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: [snip] >I said (a) deep thought dominated computer chess for over 10 years. From 1988 >through 1995. (b) deep thought last played in 1995 and at that time it was >blowing all micros away, having (I believe) a total of two losses during that >10+ year period. So at it's last public match, at the 1995 ACM event, it was >far better than anything else around. DB is over 100 times faster than DT >was. So DB (if it played today) would be at the same level above today's >programs as deep thought was in 1995. Or even further ahead since we know >DB picked up well over 100X the speed of DT in 1995, and computers have not >increased anywhere near 100x since 1995. > DT did not win that championship. Fritz did on a P-90. Show me the data that supports DT was 90% better in 1995 than the micros. You can not, you are quoting data from 1990 against 386 and 486 machines. 8x700 is 100 times faster than P90 and almost 500 times faster than 486-33. See: http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?120614 [snip] > >Nope. Read again. I compared deep thought to programs available in >1995. There was no comparison then. DB has gained more speed since >1995 than the micros have gained over that same period. The p90 wasn't a >5 year ago machine. I was using a P5/133's and P6/200s in early 1996. DT played against Fritz on a P90. P5/133 was released June 1995, no P6/200 was released Nov 1995 (see www.intel.com). No data at all on DT against P5/133 or P6/200. Again, DT lost in 1995 to Fritz on a P90. Get your facts straight. DT had great results against 386-33 and 486-33. Show me actual game results that prove DT beat P90 90% of the time. Data against 386 machines is not valid. > [snip] > >I admit mistakes _when_ I make them. In this case I did not. If you >read my analysis carefully, you can see why I said what I did. I _know_ >how DT did against the micros from 1988 through 1995. I know how much >better DB is than DT, and I am only counting raw speed here, not the >qualitative differences that were obviously made in the evaluation. > I am waiting, but not holding my breath, I have never seen it. I did not say your opinion was not valid, but you will not admit that other people may have valid opinions. 97 DB has an expected score of 25% better than DJ6 on a 8x700 is valid. 90% can not be justified using any data from the last 5 years, you are using victories against 386/486 machines and the 8x-700 is 450 to 900 times as fast as those 1990 machines. >I'd say that a program that lost exactly two games to micros over a 17 year >period (1988 through 1995) was pretty dominant, wouldn't you agree? And >since DB _gained_ ground speed-wise over the remaining 5 years, to bring us >to today, I doubt that gap was magically closed. > >All based on past history, which is a pretty good indicator, IMHO. > Ok, now it is 17 years. That would be a 386-16 with a spec200 of 1 so the 8x-700 is 2480 times as fast. Your agrument is loosing more water the father back in time you go. We are in the year 2000, not 1983. Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.