Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 17:30:19 07/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2000 at 00:07:33, Christophe Theron wrote: >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. I am not sure what side of this I'm perceived to be on. I don't think that you can make any conclusions either way about DB, based upon the matches with Kasparov, and I'll argue with anyone who concludes anything specific, no matter which side of the argument they are on. I'll argue with Bob and I'll argue with the "DB sucks" people. I should have spoken with you before you went out to play against that thing. You told me that it was there, I think in order to give me an opportunity to take a shot at it, and I declined. Here is why I declined. I didn't know what was on the other end, and while I would have enjoyed getting to play against the thing, I figured that there would be no scientific basis in anything that happened, with the possible exception of a series of losses, which would have shown that *something* on the other end was strong. It's hard to mess up and make something that's strong. If my program had done well against the thing, it could have been because DB is bad, or because DB was configured poorly, or was designed to play weakly. There would be no way the truth, and so all the results would have provided is ammunition for future arguments. My position regarding DB is that it came to the party, ate all of the best food, drank all of the alcohol, and left. It was not much of a conversationalist, and it has made it clear that it will speak to nobody, and I'm not happy about this display of bad manners. I'm not going to dig through its garbage hoping to understand more about it from reading its shopping lists. I am not interested in speculating about the tiny bit of evidence that exists, so as far as I'm concerned the thing doesn't exist and isn't worth talking about, certainly as long as they snub our field while taking its honors. The project is not science and it's not competition, it was just a well-financed PR gimmick, and that's shit and I'm not going to let it mess up my life. People who wait 20 years for Bobby Fischer to come back are pitiful. I'm sure not going to do that here. bruce
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.