Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:48:09 09/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2001 at 10:23:32, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 11, 2001 at 09:56:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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? > > >I believe that palm tiger has also good chances to do it if >the opponent plays regular game and not anticomputer chess. >I also believe that humans got better >and a master today is stronger than a master at that time. > > 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. > >I know that Fritz3 could see more than 80Knodes per second on >pentium90 but I assume that the right comparison in nodes >is with Crafty and Crafty in p90 can see less than 80 Knodes >per second but I guess that it is only 2 or 3 times slower. > >Uri Crafty did about 35K on a P5/133mhz machine. The 133 was significantly faster than a P90.
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.