Author: Chris Carson
Date: 17:05:11 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 19:14:32, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >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). > I agree with you. >>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. > Well, I can accept that you have a different opinion. >>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. > This is the core of the debate. We agree about the eval and I have no way to prove superior search for either (hey I like DB, I just like the micro's also). We have different opinions and I can accept that. >>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. > I can agree to disagree. I can respect an oposing 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. > >I would definitely like to see these "tactical errors". And Rd1 doesn't count >because it was caused by a bug. > Well, a bug counts for me, but I can respect it if you do not count it. >>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? > See: Tony's page: http://home.interact.se/~w100107/welcome.htm SSDF calibration games and over 200 associated with my list since 1997. These meet FIDE criteria see www.fide.com. >>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! See Walters post, he did an independant stat analysis on the data I collected, it included P-200 HW and the mid point was 2544. I do think a P-200 is less likley than faster HW, but there have been some impressive results and it would not be impossible from a stat point of view. I can respect that you may not accept this, I can agree to disagree. > >> 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? :) I am not inocent, I make mistakes, I admit them, I try to work it out with the person and can agree to dis-agree. This debate has lasted a long time. I hope I have not offended you and that you can respect my side of the debate even if you do not accept it. Hey I feel just as strongly. 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.