Author: blass uri
Date: 16:55:29 07/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2000 at 19:18:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 22, 2000 at 18:53:39, blass uri wrote: > >>On July 22, 2000 at 17:38:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 22, 2000 at 10:20:58, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>On July 22, 2000 at 07:46:00, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 20, 2000 at 21:50:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 20, 2000 at 15:47:53, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 20, 2000 at 14:50:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 20, 2000 at 14:26:16, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 20, 2000 at 13:03:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>2 years ago a single DB chip played several matches with top commercial >>>>>>>>>>programs. This DB chip was running at 1/10th of its normal speed, and yet >>>>>>>>>>it won 36 out of 40 games. This has been reported several times here on CCC, >>>>>>>>>>by several that have heard Hsu and Campbell give talks about the DB hardware. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If it could win 90% of the games running at 1/10th the normal speed for one >>>>>>>>>>chip, what does 480 chips at full speed get (hint: 4,800 times faster). Would >>>>>>>>>>you think it might have a pretty easy time with today's programs? quads or >>>>>>>>>>8-way boxes as you want? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Games against P90 machines. What were the program versions? what were >>>>>>>>>the settings? Who was the operator? Which book was used? Where are >>>>>>>>>the games for inspection? Did the DB team get permission to perform >>>>>>>>>this tournament and permission to report results? Were you there? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I was there. The program authors were there. That was a requirement for the >>>>>>>>ACM events. We all sat across the board from each other. Marty. Ed. Richard. >>>>>>>>Hsu. Myself. anybody else you would care to name... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nah.... you are talking on late 80th's Rebel running on a 5 Mhz 6502 >>>>>>>processor with 32 Kb Ram Rebel doing just 500 NPS. Your point again? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I like the math game... >>>>>> >>>>>>so lets see.. you were doing 500NPS in 1988? And today you are doing maybe >>>>>>500K? A factor of 1,000? >>>>>> >>>>>>They were doing 300K in 1988. They hit 1B in 1997. 1,000,000,000 divided by >>>>>>300,000 is how many times faster? 3,333 X faster you say? >>>>>> >>>>>>Now do you get my point? They have widened the NPS gap by a factor of 3.5 >>>>>>since 1988. >>>>>> >>>>>>_that_ is my point. The gap has continually _widened_. _not_ _narrowed_... >>>>> >>>>>Wrong math. >>>>> >>>>>From the IBM site (1988) >>>>> >>>>> "Deep Thought 0.01 becomes >>>>> Deep Thought 0.02 and >>>>> improves to 720,000 chess >>>>> positions per second. The new >>>>> program includes two >>>>> customized VLSI chess >>>>> processors. >>>>> >>>>>So 720,000 and not 300,000 >>>>> >>>>>Your second mistake is the 1B. Where did you read that? You know very >>>>>well 200M is claimed, no quoting needed. >>>>> >>>>>So 200M / 720K = not even 300 times faster. >>>>> >>>>>As you say Rebel improved with a factor of 1000 (3½ times more than DB) >>>>>nota bene the exact opposite you claim. >>>>> >>>>>Not that such math impresses me (as if computer chess is about hardware >>>>>only) but I do you like you the fact you have an argument less. >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>> >>>>Ed, >>>> >>>>Besides the impressive speed up that you point out, I would also >>>>point out that Rebel improved at least as much from the SW side. >>>> >>>>You get a lot out of the HW you target for. :) >>>> >>>>Best Regards, >>>>Chris Carson >>> >>> >>>And the DT/DB program didn't improve? Have you read the JICCA paper on their >>>search extensions? It is probably the _standard_ reference for search extensions >>>and null-move testing. What says that their software didn't improve? a desire >>>to paint them in the worst possible light??? >> >>I have no evidence that their software was improved. >>They are not commercial so we cannot test it. >>Their papers prove nothing and the only proof is in games. >> >>The fact that they did bad result in 1995 and did not play public games after it >>to prove that they were unlucky is an evidence that their software did not >>improve. >> > > > >You keep saying "they did a bad result in 1995" when all they did was lose >one game. Based on that criteria, _everybody_ sucks with two straws. I can >look at the last 10 years of WMCCC (or WCCC) events and find a tournament >where any program you chose lost at least one game, and probably more. Does >that mean they did "bad"? > >It is interesting that the measuring stick for "good/bad" is way different >for DB and the rest of the programs. Everybody else can lose 1-2 games in >a single tournament and be happy. Shredder lost in the last WMCCC event >yet it won the tournament. I assume that was a "bad" result? No? Then >DB lost one game in 1995 and that was a bad result? Yes? DB lost one game and drew another game. It is a bad result because people expected it to win because of their big hardware advnatage. If you got 90% in the past then less than 90% is a bad result so everything less than 4.5 out of 5 for Deep blue was a bad result. Shredder did a good result in WCCC because people did not expect it to win(Junior and Fritz and Ferret had hardware advantage and shredder had no history of winning). > >I guess I don't get it then... I'd love to win 100% of the games. That is >not realistic. Which means I guess I am destined to have bad results all >the time. > > > >>If they could get more than 90% against Fritz3(p90) they had no reason to avoid >>proving it to the world before the match with kasparov. >> >>Uri > >Sure they did. They were working like mad to get the thing ready. Hsu's book >is eye-opening on how close they cut things. They were even considering the >possibility that they would have to postpone the first match, because the IC >FAB shop screwed up badly on the first few batches of chips and none worked. >They didn't have time to do _anything_ but get ready for Kasparov, and they >_barely_ made it. Same for 1997... same sort of fab problems with the new >chip, time-consuming test procedures for each and every chip and the DB team >did _all_ the testing, etc... If this is the case then when did they have time to get more than 90% against Fritz3? I think that they could do better by postponing the match and playing a match against Fritz3(p90) first. Uri
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.