Author: blass uri
Date: 21:44:36 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 22:45:35, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >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, DB was the name of their program from 1993. I do not see a reason to assume that DB 96 evaluation was superior relative to the evaluation of Deep Blue in slower hardware that lost against Fritz3 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. I think that the Nolot test does not prove tactical superiority because the real test is games and I saw tactical blunders of Deep blue against Fritz3 and against Judit polgar when it let her to escape for a draw in a losing position. Hyatt told me that their hardware could not detect repetitions in the last plies but it is only an explanation for the fact that there were positions when commercial programs are superior and this explanation does not convince in the case of the blunder against Fritz3. Uri
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.