Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:56:12 09/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2001 at 02:14:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 10, 2001 at 22:26:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 10, 2001 at 17:29:06, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On September 10, 2001 at 16:34:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 10, 2001 at 16:06:40, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 10, 2001 at 15:44:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 10, 2001 at 15:08:38, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>the game was Deep thought's game and not Deeper blue's game so it was not >>>>>>>200Xfaster than yours >>>>>> >>>>>>At that event, we were probably running on a Cray XMP I would guess. I will >>>>>>try to look at my old tournament booklets to see exactly what we used. If >>>>>>it was an XMP, which is likely, then we were doing maybe 80K nodes per >>>>>>second if we were lucky. >>>>> >>>>>I thought that Cray blitz could search 7M nodes per second. >>>> >>>> >>>>This was on 1995 hardware (the T932). The game vs deep thought was well prior >>>>to that hardware if I recall correctly. I am trying to dig thru a really thick >>>>file to see if I can find out what we were using for that event. But it >>>>definitely was not a T90 as we never played on a T90 in any competition. The >>>>best hardware we used was a C90 which could hit about 500K nodes per second >>>>peak. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>If it is not the case then I do not understand the reason that you believe that >>>>>cray blitz (7M nodes per second) was weaker than Deep thought. >>>> >>>>I don't compare 7M cray blitz to DT. the 7M CB was in the same time-frame >>>>as the DB/DB2 machines. And should be compared to them. >>> >>>I remember that one of your claims in order to convince people that Deep thought >>>was strong was the fact that it defeated Cray blitz when Cray blitz is better >>>than Crafty based on your games. >>> >>>If the real Cray blitz with 7M per second was never used in tournaments then >>>the fact that Deep thought beated Cray blitz is not relevant >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>Ok.. Please pay careful attention for a few minutes. >> >>DT beat Cray Blitz on the best cray hardware available at the time. The last >>time we played them we were running on a C90 at something around 1-2M nodes >>per second. The statement that you and many others have made is "programs >>of the 1980's and early 1990's are nowhere near today's programs, regardless >>of how fast they go. I simply ran Cray Blitz on a current Cray, which happens >>to be maybe 3x faster than the last machine DT beat us on. If you think a >>factor of 3 is huge to a program with a branching factor of 5+, then you are >>mistaken. And if you think that there is no way to draw conclusions based on >>this match, you are mistaken again. > >The problem is that the last time is only one game and Cray blitz has bugs at >least in part of the games. Whatever the last version was that played in an ACM event, that is the same version I used against Crafty. I haven't made changes on that program since we left the tournament that year. My next step was to start working on a new program, which turned into crafty. > >> >>If Cray Blitz was just a "fast/dumb program" then that extra speed would make >>little difference, in theory. > >I did not say that Cray blitz was only fast/dumb program but I guess that at the >time they did only 80 knodes per second they were not better than Deep thought. > >When I thought that cray blitz was better than Deep thought I thought about the >7M per second. I'm not even sure that was enough. It might have been even at that speed, but I have no data. However, by the time the T90 was out, DB1 was also available. 7M is nowhere near the speed of DB1. > > Deep Thought was very strong. Because Cray >>Blitz was also very strong. > >I agree that it was strong relative to the opponents at that time. > > Against both humans and computers. It registered >>the first win vs a chess master on record. > >It was strong relative to the opponents at that time but the comparison is with >programs of today. > >Fritz3(p90) was also strong if you use results against humans and it achieved an >IM norm on p90 when the best results of it was against the GM's when it had more >problems against weaker opponents who bought it and prepared against it. HOw about this: Cray Blitz beat the first master on record, running at the crushing speed of 1K nodes per second. Care to take on any master today with a program slowed down to _that_ speed? CB had a good bit of "quality" before it developed the "quantity"... > > >>It registered the first win of an >>"open section" tournament on record. It also won a couple of WCCC events along >>the way. It's credentials are unimpeachable. That deep thought beat it at >>every turn says something about them. > >I agree that they were better than their opponents at their time but they had to >play only against inferior hardware and inferior software than the hardware and >software of today(In their last tournament they had to play against p90 hardware >and lost 1.5 points when in previous tournaments most of their opponents had >inferior hardware than p90(Cray blitz's hardware at 1991 was better than p90 but >only sligthly better and I am not sure if the software at that time was at the >same level of the software of today). > >Uri The original cray-1 is superior to a P90. Buy a really large margin, in fact.
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.