Author: Alvaro Polo
Date: 22:40:29 07/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2000 at 01:34:41, Alvaro Polo wrote: >On July 25, 2000 at 00:07:33, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On July 24, 2000 at 16:30:39, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On July 24, 2000 at 15:59:31, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>The SSDF Rating List 1997-02-05 >>>>53540 games played by 162 computers >>>> Rating +- Games Won Oppo >>>> ------ --- ----- --- ---- >>>> 1 Rebel 8.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2462 27 736 67% 2336 >>>> 2 MChess Pro 6.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2435 27 683 62% 2350 >>>> 3 Hiarcs 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2427 67 121 60% 2359 >>>> 4 Genius 5.0 Pentium 90 MHz 2420 30 558 59% 2352 >>>> >>>> >>>>Avg Rating for the top 4 programs = 2436. >>>> >>>>If DB had a 90% (+36 =4 -0) score against these programs, >>>>then the DB rating in comp vs comp games would have been 2824. >>>>It's TPR against Kasparov was 2862 (human vs comp). >>> >>>+36 =4 -0 score is 95% score and not 90% score. >>> >>>I did not read a claim that Deeper blue did +36 =4 -0 against these programs. >>> >>>I remember a claim that Deep blue Junior That is weaker than Deep blue did 38:2 >>>score against programs but I do not know exactly the name of the programs and it >>>is better for Hsu not to tell the names of the programs because it is better to >>>say nothing when you have no proof. >>> >>>I know that Deep blue Junior lost 3:0 against Rebel and drew 1.5-1.5 against >>>Rebel-tiger. >> >> >> >> >>You should not give only part of the information. If you quote a match result, >>you should give as much information as possible. >> >>The games took place in the hall near the tournament hall were the 1999 WCCC >>took place, in Paderborn, in June 1999. >> >>There were several PCs connected to Deep Blue Junior thru an Internet >>connection. Deep Blue Junior was in free access and I'm very surprised that I >>have been the only one to try to play with my program against the monster. >> >>I could not bring the 600MHz Kryotech computer I was using for the regular >>tournament. It was only 20 to 30 meters away from the tournament hall, but the >>Kryotech computer is rather heavy, and anyway there was no power supply >>(actually that's what I thought - later I discovered a power supply nearby and >>used it). >> >>So I brought my Pentium 150MHz laptop and decided to try some games. I thought I >>was going to be totally destroyed anyway, so it was just for fun. >> >>Deep Blue Junior was always using 1 second per move. >> >>I set up Chess Tiger 11.9 (Paderborn version) to play the game in 15 minutes. >>Permanent brain was turned OFF. The reason to use this setup is that I wanted to >>see what could happen if Chess Tiger was using a top level hardware of year >>2000. I thought that such hardware would probably be 15 times faster than my >>P150 notebook. And that DBJr was not using permanent brain. >> >>Why did I do that? At that time I had heard rumours that Hsu was going to >>release a PC card with one of the DB chips on it. I wanted to know if it was >>possibly going to make the top PC programs look ridiculous. >> >>Chess Tiger was using 8Mb hash tables. >> >>Here are the two games played on the P150 Notebook: >> >> >>[Event "during the WCCC99"] >>[Site "Paderborn, Germany, via Internet"] >>[Date "1999.06.17"] >>[Round "?"] >>[White "Chess Tiger 11.9"] >>[Black "Deep Blue Junior"] >>[Result "*"] >> >>1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. d4 Nxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Nc3 c5 7. d5 exd5 >>8. Nxd5 Be7 9. Nxf6+ Bxf6 10. Qxd8+ Bxd8 11. Be3 Be7 12. Bd3 Nc6 13. O-O Nb4 >>14. Be4 f5 15. Bb1 Bf6 16. Re1 Kf7 17. Bc1 Re8 18. Rxe8 Kxe8 19. a3 Nc6 >>20. Bc2 Na5 21. Be3 Bxb2 22. Re1 Kf7 23. Bxc5 Nxc4 24. Bd3 Nxa3 25. Re2 Bc1 >>26. Nd4 b6 27. Bd6 a5 28. Ra2 Be6 29. Nxe6 Kxe6 30. Bxa3 Bxa3 31. Rxa3 Rc8 >>32. Kf1 g6 33. Ke2 Rc6 34. Kd2 Rd6 35. Rb3 h6 36. Kc3 * >>(the game was stopped here due to an operator mistake. >>DB Jr does not allow any takeback. But the position looks like a win >>for Chess Tiger, whose score was at that time over +2.00) >>(time control was 1s/move for DB Jr, and 15mn/game for Chess Tiger. >>Chess Tiger ran on a P150 notebook in a W95 Dos box, with 8Mb hash tables) >> >>In this game Tiger was out of book after move 5 (Nf3). >> >> >> >> >>[Event "during the WCCC99"] >>[Site "Paderborn, Germany, via Internet"] >>[Date "1999.06.17"] >>[Round "?"] >>[White "Chess Tiger 11.9"] >>[Black "Deep Blue Junior"] >>[Result "0-1"] >> >>1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nd5 Nf6 5. Nxb4 Nxb4 6. c3 Nc6 7. d4 exd4 >>8. e5 Qe7 9. cxd4 d6 10. Bb5 dxe5 11. Bxc6+ bxc6 12. dxe5 Ba6 13. Qa4 Bb5 >>14. Qh4 Qe6 15. h3 O-O 16. Be3 Nd5 17. Bc5 Rfb8 18. Qe4 Nf6 19. Qe3 Nd5 >>20. Qe4 Nf6 21. Qc2 Rd8 22. Be3 Bd3 23. Qc3 Ne4 24. Nd4 Nxc3 25. Nxe6 fxe6 >>26. bxc3 Rab8 27. Bc1 Bc4 28. a3 Rb3 29. h4 Rxc3 30. Rh3 Rc2 31. Re3 Rd4 >>32. g3 c5 33. a4 Bd5 34. a5 c4 35. Ba3 Rdd2 36. Rb1 h5 37. Bc5 Rxf2 >>38. Rc3 Rfe2+ 39. Kd1 Rcd2+ 40. Kc1 Ra2 41. Rb8+ Kh7 42. Rb2 Rexb2 >>43. Ra3 Rc2+ 44. Kd1 Rd2+ 45. Ke1 Re2+ 46. Kd1 Rad2+ 47. Kc1 Rc2+ >>48. Kd1 Red2+ 49. Ke1 Rh2 50. Kd1 Rcd2+ 51. Kc1 Rdg2 52. Bf2 Rxf2 >>53. Rd3 cxd3 54. Kd1 Rf1 0-1 >>(time control was 1s/move for DB Jr, and 15mn/game for Chess Tiger. >>Chess Tiger ran on a P150 notebook in a W95 Dos box, with 8Mb hash tables) >> >>In this game Tiger was out of book after move 3 (Nc3). >> >>OK, this time Tiger gets its spanking. >> >> >> >>The third game was played the next day, after Ed came with his PII-333MHz >>Notebook (he is obviously richer than me :). I borrowed the PII-333 Notebook and >>played the third game: >> >> >>[Event "during the WCCC99"] >>[Site "Paderborn, Germany, via Internet"] >>[Date "1999.06.18"] >>[Round "?"] >>[White "Chess Tiger 11.9"] >>[Black "Deep Blue Junior"] >>[Result "*"] >> >>1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. d4 Nxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Nc3 c5 7. d5 exd5 >>8. Nxd5 Nxd5 9. cxd5 Be7 10. Bb5+ Nd7 11. O-O O-O 12. Bf4 Qb6 13. Qd3 a6 >>14. Bc4 Qxb2 15. Qe4 Bf6 16. Rab1 Qa3 17. d6 Rb8 18. Bc1 Qa5 19. Bd3 g6 >>20. Bh6 Bg7 21. Bxg7 Kxg7 22. Qe7 Qxa2 23. Ne5 Qd5 24. Nxd7 Bxd7 25. Be4 Qe6 >>26. Qxe6 fxe6 27. Rxb7 Rxb7 28. Bxb7 Bb5 29. Ra1 Rb8 30. d7 Bxd7 >>31. Bxa6 Ra8 32. Rd1 Ba4 33. Rd6 Bb3 34. Rb6 Bd5 35. f3 c4 36. Kf2 c3 >>37. Ke3 Ra7 38. Kd3 Rc7 39. Kc2 Kf6 40. Rb4 g5 41. Bd3 h6 42. h4 Rc5 >>43. Rg4 Ke7 44. hxg5 hxg5 45. Ra4 Kf6 46. Ra3 Ke5 47. Ra4 Rc7 48. Rg4 Kf6 >>49. Ra4 Rc5 50. Ra3 Ke5 51. Ra4 Rc8 52. Rg4 Kf6 53. Ra4 * >>(here the game was stopped because the notebook's battery was exhausted >>and the notebook turned itself off automatically. It has not been possible >>to resume the game because we needed some time to charge the battery and the >>tournament hall was about to close. >>It is not clear what the outcome of the game could be, but it looked like >>DB Jr was unable to improve its position) >>(time control was 1s/move for DB Jr, and 10mn/game for Chess Tiger. >>Chess Tiger ran on a PII-333 notebook in a W95 Dos box, with 8Mb hash tables) >> >> >>So the result of the match is 1.5-1.5 after adjudication, but I agree it could >>have been 2-1 in favor of DB Jr. >> >>I must add that there have been at least 2 (or was it 3?) other games played >>with the P150 Notebook, but I did not save the games because each time I did an >>operator mistake very early (just after the end of the opening). >> >>You have to understand that DB Jr did not allow any takeback. So in case of a >>mouse slip, which happens too often, it was impossible to continue. I was very >>anxious during this small match, and that is the reason behind all these >>mistakes. >> >>I was anxious because I did not expect to win ANY game. But as you see, Tiger >>simply won the first game... >> >>So now let's see what happened. On his hardware, Tiger was computing only 25,000 >>positions per second. At 15mn/game time control, that means it was computing >>375,000 positions per search in average. >> >>Isn't Deep Blue supposed to compute way faster? I don't remember the numbers. >>Was it 1M nodes per second per chip, or 2M nodes per second? >> >>If it's only 1M nodes per second and it could only use 3/4 of a second for its >>search (the rest being taken by "downloading stuffs into the chip" as Bob said), >>then it's still 750,000 positions per search, twice the number of positions that >>Tiger could compute during its search on P150. >> >> >>So my conclusion is that I have seen nothing special in this match. I have seen >>2 chess programs fighting, the one computing more nodes taking the advantage, >>but certainly not crushing its opponent as some people would like us to believe. >> >>The funny thing is that before playing the match I thought I would be crushed. >>You see, I have been the victim of the propaganda myself... >> >> >>Now if you ask me about the chances of Chess Tiger against Deeper Blue and its >>200 processors at tournament time controls, I simply say that I think that Chess >>Tiger has absolutely no chance. >> >>But against a single chip, I would say that a program like Chess Tiger running >>on current top hardware has its chances. >> >>Remember that in similar circumstances (fast games played in the same hall) >>Rebel won against Deep Blue Junior by 3-0. >> >>And you know what? Given that Deep Blue does no forward pruning, this is NO >>SURPRISE. >> >> > >This is really interesting. Tiger at 375,000 nps against DBJ at 750,000 nps and >obtaining 1.5-1-5 or possibly 1-2 suggests that DBJ was really DBJ and not some >crippled version running under 2200 Elo. It also suggests that the full 480 >processor DB, at 200M nps, if CT has a comp-comp rating of nearly 2650, would be >over 3200 Elo comp-comp (8 doublings of speed at 70 Elo each doubling) > >Alvaro > Sorry, this calculation is wrong. I misread and confused 375,000 positions per search with nodes per second. If would be 560 Elo above the 375,000 pos per search CT, not the SSDF tested Chess Tiger. Alvaro >> >> Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.