Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 13:57:53 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 15:38:10, Ed Schröder wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 14:48:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 20, 2000 at 14:37:45, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On July 20, 2000 at 14:27:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 20, 2000 at 13:26:34, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>>On July 20, 2000 at 10:33:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>[snip] >>>>> >>>>>>>That is an extrapolation based on simple fact. For 10 years, deep thought >>>>>>>accomplished that at ACM and WCCC events. DB is about 100 times faster than >>>>>>>Deep Thought. Since deep thought played its last game about 5 years ago, I >>>>>>>don't think you will find that machines have gotten 100 times faster over the >>>>>>>past five years. >>>>> >>>>>Specint 2000 results: >>>>> >>>>>P3-700 = 310 >>>>>8x P3-700 = 2480 >>>>> >>>>>10 years ago: >>>>> >>>>>486-33 = 5 (released may of 1990) >>>>> >>>>>5 years ago: >>>>> >>>>>P-90 = 25 >>>>> >>>>>8x-700 is 2480/5= 496 times as fast as the 486-33 of 10 years ago. >>>>>8x-700 is 2480/25= 99 times as fast as the P90 of 5 years ago. >>>>> >>>>>>>The math is pretty simple. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, did you actually do the math? >>>> >>>>Yes I did. 5 years ago today I was running on a P5/133. The 486 has >>>>nothing to do with anything. >>>> >>>>You take the best PC in 1995, and compute the ratio of speed to the best PC >>>>at present (1ghz). Then see if _that_ is anywhere near a factor of 100. Hint: >>>>it isn't close. >>> >>>You have no data of chip test, DT, DTII, 96 DB or 97 DB against P-133's >>>or P6-200. Deep Junior runs on a 8x-700 machine not a 1GHZ single >>>pocessor. You quote data from 10 years ago, 10 years ago was 386/486. >>> >>>The only data you have that is close to what you claim is the 1995 >>>WCCC and DT (DB prototype) lost to Fritz on a P90. I do not care what >>>HW you had, there is no data on the P-133 or P6-200 for you to make any >>>claims. >>> >>>I am still waiting for you to admit Ed is right! You are only digging >>>a Deeper Blue Hole to drown in. :) >>> >>>Best Regards, >>>Chris Carson >> >> >>What on earth are you rambling about? I am not quoting _any_ single result >>of DT vs a particular clock speed. >> >>Let's do this again: please read carefully: >> >>from 1988 thru 1995 DT blew everyone away. During that period, it lost two >>games to microcomputers. Out of a total of 50 computer chess games played at >>ACM and WCCC events. >> >>Follow me so far? So thru 1995 DT _dominated_ computer chess like it has >>never been dominated before. >> >>Point 2: After 1995, two new versions of the hardware were built, the last one >>being over 100X faster than the DT hardware used in 1995. Follow me so far? >> >>So since 1995, DB increased in speed by 100X, over the program that was >>dominating computer chess prior to and including 1995. Still with me? >> >>Now, how much has the speed of the microprocessor increased since the year >>1995? I say nowhere near 100x. Still there? >> >>So we have a new program, DB2, that is 100x faster than the program that was >>dominating computer chess in 1995. What has happened in the PC hardware world >>to close that gap? Still there? >> >>DB 1995 to present: speed increase 100X >> >>PC 1995 to present: speed increase < 100X >> >>IE the gap has _widened_ between DB and the rest of us. It has not _closed_ >>any... >> >>Now if you have trouble following that, then I don't know what else I can say >>to make it any clearer. DB dominated everyone thru 1995 and has widened the >>speed differential between it and other programs, as of today. The simple >>conclusion is that the skill level gap has widened as well... >> >>Questions now??? > >Yeah..... let's talk about chess! DT losing in Hong Kong 1995 and never >trying to get the world champion champion title when they had the chance >to proof that Hong Kong was a mistake. Perhaps it was no mistake? > >What about DT not seeing a simple tactics on tournament time control (!!) >every chess program sees within 10 seconds? Can you please post this position? Thanks. > >What about the DB-GK position Uri posted recently DB being dead wrong >not seeing a giant material loss? > I missed this one, too. I'll go look for it. --Peter
This page took 0.02 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.