Author: Joshua Lee
Date: 07:56:53 05/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
>>As you can tell it is hard to compare available programs to ones that aren't >>available. Also the Depth of search is different. This goes back to if Crafty >>Shredder Ferret ETC searched 100Mnodes a sec will the depth be the same. >>The answer is no, so my question is >>1 at what Depth are various programs playing at GM strength >>2 at which depth are they comparable to the Deep Blues ...... >>3 What Programs are best with Positional Play and is their play as good as deep >>blue or better, if not what ply depth is needed. > >Interesting questions. There have been discussed here at length, but not >lately. It will be interesting to see the posts. I have my own opinion and >researched data. :) > >If you take a look at the last Monty Newborn book on the Deep Blue(96) vs Kasp. >match, you will find some analysis on this. Levy and Newborn also wrote >an earlier book with additional information. :) > >I have done some research (published here) in this area using nodes and depth >based on LCTII results, different programs, SSDF and HvC ratings compared. I >have published these before, much debate followed. Usually resulting in name >calling about how stupid such comparisons are. I do not think research is >stupid, but some people do. I quit posting when the discussion stops and the >name calling begins. :) > >I asked about test positions for Deep Blue to compare nodes, depth, HvC ratings >data, but no test position can be found for Deep Blue for comparison, just the >published 100M NPS and 200M NPS (DBII) average and the 12-14 ply from game logs. > More name calling on this subject, so I quit posting, maybe different this time >and this group can just talk about this. Some smart people on both sides of the >arguments. :) > >Best Regards, >Chris Carson I think we can even agree on this. I have two different monty newborn books the 1996 Kasparov Vs deep blue and one entitled "Computer Chess" from 1975. Both books have alot of information in them the former having a comparison of the hardware used however i still had to ask about this hardware in the forum and it turns out the Control Data 6600 was the one of the fastest if not the fastest of that time as was the IBM 370/155. Unfortunately it is hard to compare that speed with todays hardware , it's thoroughput may be faster but i don't have all the data, but more importantly there hasn't been a comparison vs Software now. I think of that era KAISSA, CHESS 4.*, CHAOS, and OSTRICH. Then BEBE, BELLE,Chiptest, HITECH, NUCHESS, Cray Blitz, and the Deep's. I am sure if these can be compared then we would have a better idea of answering my first question. Lastly one anoying thing the book doesn't compare this and on page238 says "In 1993 at the twenty-third ACM International Computer Chess Championship, a panel discussion was held, and it was generally concluded that a fourteen ply search by DEEP THOUGHT or an equivalent program would be enough to defeat kasparov, A thirteen ply search might, be sufficient while a twelve ply search was probably not enough" Gee that's great if we know what the definition of an "Equivalent program" is. There was a Book i had wanted years ago by david levy which you mentioned that may detail this. maybe some more people can shed light on the entire subject. thankyou
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.