Author: Jason Williamson
Date: 17:53:03 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 19:11:03, Ed Schröder wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 16:57:53, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>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 > >The 2 positions in question... > >[Event "WCC"] >[Site "13.0-0?? and 16.c4???????????"] >[Date "1995.12.13"] >[Round "?"] >[White "Deep Thought II"] >[Black "Fritz3"] >[Result "0-1"] >[WhiteElo "?"] >[BlackElo "?"] >[ECO "B33"] > >1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 >a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5 f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. Qh5 f4 13. O-O Rg8 >14. Kh1 Rg6 15. Qd1 Rc8 16. c4 Qh4 17. g3 Qh3 18. Qd2 f3 19. Rg1 Rh6 20. >Qxh6 Qxh6 21. cxb5 Bxd5 22. exd5 Nb4 23. Bf5 Rc5 24. bxa6 Nxa6 25. Nc2 >Qd2 26. Ne1 Rxd5 27. Nxf3 Qxf2 28. Be4 Ra5 29. Rg2 Qe3 30. Re1 Qh6 31. >Bc6+ Kd8 32. a3 f5 33. Rc2 Rc5 34. Rxc5 Nxc5 35. Rf1 Be7 36. a4 f4 37. >gxf4 Qxf4 38. Rg1 Nxa4 39. b4 Qxb4 0-1 > >16.c4?? losing a pawn and more. Rebel needs 9 plies and 0:17 to see >16.c4 drop to -1.39 where 16.g3 would hold the position. > > >[Event "DB-GK the rematch"] >[Site "am Rd1; bm Rf5+"] >[Date "2000.05.31"] >[Round "?"] >[White "DEEP BLUE"] >[Black "Garry Kasparov"] >[Result "0-1"] >[WhiteElo "?"] >[BlackElo "?"] >[FEN "4r3/8/2p2PPk/1p1r4/pP2p1R1/P1B5/2P2K2/8 b - - 0 1"] > >DB played Rd1?? which caused a giant immediate material loss where Rf5+ >is the obvious defence. The most convincing argument is the score DB gave >for Rd1?? way too positive (perhaps Uri remembers) and the very negative >(and correct) scores some of the micro's gave when they did an analysis. > >Ed Here's a test, start up windows, with a lot of stuff going so its swapping like mad, now put Rebel into the startup thing so it starts at the same time, there by haveing Rebel being swapped around in memory like a baseball card at a trade show, and see how well Rebel plays. I suspect something simular happed to Deep Thought in that Fritz game.
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.