Author: Chris Carson
Date: 11:07:00 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 13:21:00, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>I have repeatedly given references to "the IEEE paper" by Hsu, and so forth.
>Several have continually said "that is wrong". "did you read the paper?"
>Kerrigan even took it a level further along with Carson, saying "200m is
>the only number..." Ed said "256 processors, not 480". Carson said "no 1B
>nodes per second anywhere."
>
>I didn't post a piece of the IEEE article as I believe it is better if those
>that are interested do the research, when given a pointer to the right place.
>Obviously many are too lazy and wait for someone to post that which they could
>have found easily had they looked.
>
>But since Andrew dropped the relevant paragraph here early this morning, I
>have seen _nothing_ since. Where did everybody go? I knew the numbers I was
>quoting were right. Because _I_ had read that (and other articles by Hsu and
>group). I notice that several like to say "You never admit when you are wrong."
>
>Can I say "pot, kettle"? As I haven't seen anyone say "hey, you were right and
>I should have read it before sticking my foot so far into my mouth..."
>
>But of course, they are never wrong...
>
>Which makes me wonder why Andrew would forge something that he claims
>appeared in IEEE, when we _know_, based on the fearless duo, that this could
>not possibly be the truth. Because their opinions are always stronger than
>facts...
>
>This place is amusing at times... I think...
>
>At least everyone now knows more about DB, and just how fast it actually was.
>If you have more questions, I'll do my best to provide facts, and leave the
>others to provide opinions...
Dr Hyatt here are the facts that interest me.
1. There is an IEEE article and I accept 200M NPS average. I always
did.
2. I had not seen this article before. So what? I asked for
proof and was convinced when I saw it.
3. You did not bring this article to this forum during this
discussion. I got it from Albert Silver. I also thanked him.
4. So 97 DB has 480 chips and 200M NPS. So what. It needed it, todays
programs get almost the same results with 2.5M NPS due to better
evals and search techniques (DJ on 8x-700 for example).
5. Todays programs are still just 1 or two clock doublings from
beating the 97 DB performance (TPR). It will also require an
equal amount of sw improvements, but I have faith in our programmers.
FIDE may save 97 DB here if rated players can not play against comp.
next year (at least the games may not be rated by FIDE). It would
be funny if FIDE saved DB. :)
6. DT beat old programs on 6502/386/486 and won the 1989 WCCC. Good
for it. Has no relevance since programs today have better results
against the same programs (see SSDF list). Lost the 1995 WCCC
to Fritz3 running on a P-90. I was not impressed.
6. NPS vs NPS means nothing. You always say this, but then this is
your big point in the DB vs micro debate.
7. You have not proven any 90% superiority over 8x-700 by 97 DB. There
is a statistical basis for a 25% 97 DB superiority. That will diminish
quickly over the next 18 months. Ed was right with 25% in my opinion.
8. 97 DB made tactical errors, no shame here, just facts. Todays micros
make errors, but they are still evolving and in 18 months that number
will be fewer (still there, just harder to find). Amir has the
positions if you want them.
9. Todays micros have played hundreds of games against FIDE rated players
and the results are published for everyone to study.
10. Using games since 97 at 40/2 the programs of today have a TPR of
2544 (as I predicted in Feb 200 when I started this and you had a
fit and said no way). 2 programs recently scored above 2600 and
one above 2700. The programs of today are GM level on P-200s
and above (FIDE says 2500 is GM level). Guess you lost that one.
11. There are lot more, but this is enough for now.
I have slowed my posts due to several people in this forum wanting
the discussion to end. I have made my points about the strength of
the top programs (crafty not included as one) on what is now average
to fastest HW. I do not see how the IEEE article changed that.
I would be shocked if you ever allowed anyone to get the last word
in, or ever admit a mistake. I still have not seen that. If I have,
then my apologies. :)
Go ahead, let her rip into my post, it is
childish to post a "I win cause they stopped posting". I for one
an bored with your same old 480 chips and 1B NPS top proves
something. Not to me, but I am flattered that you will die tring
to change my mind or mock me in your posts. I guess you consider
me your academic nemisis. You certainly follow me around a lot
and disagree every chance you get.
I did not check this for spelling or grammer, so give me a break! :)
Best Regards,
Chris Carson
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.