Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:34:13 07/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2000 at 02:21:32, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 Hsu quotes a flat 30% figure, which seems reasonable considering how he did the two-level parallel search (he has 32 SP nodes, each node has a bunch of chess processor chips.) 30% is pessimistic but realistic. my 3x is also pessimistic in games, but realistic for test suites which is how most would test it.
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.