Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 23:21:32 07/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2000 at 01:40:29, Alvaro Polo wrote:
>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
Yes and don't forget that a chess program running on 8 processors is not 8 times
faster than the same program running on one processor. Bob could explain that to
you. I think he says that Crafty running on 4 processors is approx. 3 times
faster (in average) than Crafty running on a single processor.
The ratio is even worse for 8 processors, and so on...
Christophe
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.