Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 19:45:35 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 20:05:11, Chris Carson wrote: >On July 27, 2000 at 19:14:32, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On July 27, 2000 at 14:07:00, Chris Carson wrote: >>>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. I think I messed up in what I said. Instead of: "the DB team admitted that even DB '96 had a somewhat weaker evaluation than the top Micros of the time", it should have been DT I mentioned. DB was of course better, and DB2 much better still. And I do think the Nolot test can prove something...If you'd like, I can look up their exact results (I think it's the original email from Hsu to Pierre Nolot about the test.) DT was a tactical monster, and much of this power came from their search. >>>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. Thanks, I'll have a look at this. >>>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. If some random GM plays a program 1 game on a P-200, there is a significant chance that he'll lose. But I think in a match the computer would have no chance. >>> 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. Don't worry about offending me - it's very hard to do, especially online. :) I definitely respect your side of the argument, but I am simply of the opinion that DB '97 had better search/evaluation/speed than even the best micros of today. If I have any facts supporting that, I will try to present them. But I will also be willing to change my mind if some good evidence is available that suggests I'm wrong. Regards, Jeremiah
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.