Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 16:14:32 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 14:07:00, Chris Carson wrote: >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). I don't think there is any data showing that, against humans, NPS is all _that_ important. Once you get to some critical level that facilitates a minimum acceptable search depth, anything above that may not help so much. I think unless you do something quite different in the search logic (as apparently DB did), those extra nodes aren't doing much for you (relatively). >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. :) Again TPR != STRENGTH! How many times must I say it? Also, comparing the DB TPR to any other TPR is meaningless for several reasons which I won't reiterate. >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. Comparing DT '95 or before to DB2 '97 is pretty pointless - it's approximately the same as trying to compare Rebel 3 on an Apple IIe with one of the plug-in cards to Rebel Century on a PIII-GHz machine. IIRC, the DB team admitted that even DB '96 had a somewhat weaker evaluation than the top Micros of the time, but it was probably still better than the Micros even of today because of its search - Have you seen DTs results on the Nolot test? I'd be willing to bet that any micro of today can't come even close to matching them even when searching twice as many nodes. >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. This is all pointless speculation. Until we see some games, nobody is ever going to agree. >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. I would definitely like to see these "tactical errors". And Rd1 doesn't count because it was caused by a bug. >9. Todays micros have played hundreds of games against FIDE rated players > and the results are published for everyone to study. Hundreds of games at tournament time control? Can you point me towards these games? >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. I would really like to see a program on a P-200 beat a GM at 40/2 in a match. And again TPR != STRENGTH! > 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. And you haven't been doing the same? :)
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.