Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 11:18:57 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
"DT beat old programs on 6502/386/486" -- yes, and it also beat Cray Blitz. I believe Bob reported his experiments with CB against micro programs 2 or 3 years ago, too. Maybe somebody can buy Bob some Cray time, so he can play CB against DJ/Fritz/Rebel/you-name-it :-) ? I believe that if CB would win this match, this would end this and future DB debates once and forever. Eugene On July 27, 2000 at 14:07:00, Chris Carson wrote: >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.