Author: Slater Wold
Date: 09:30:15 03/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2002 at 12:13:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 13, 2002 at 11:41:42, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 13, 2002 at 10:16:56, Slater Wold wrote: >> >>>On March 13, 2002 at 07:26:08, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>On March 13, 2002 at 04:09:54, Jerry Doby wrote: >>>> >>>>>It's hard to believe that anything can be that much strongeer then fritz7 on a >>>>>fast platform. Is deepblue 100 elo or above deepfritz on an xp 2000 >>>> >>>>OK, I will bite and get a debate going most likely. First take a look at: >>>>http://home.interact.se/~w100107/manmachine.htm >>>> >>>>Tony's page has the results for both Top programs today and Deep Blue. >>>> >>>>Here is a brief comparison: >>>> >>>>Deep Blue 97 2862 6 games >>>>Chess Tiger 2788 11 games >>>>Deep Junior 2702 9 games >>>>Rebel Cen 2697 4 games >>>>Deep Fritz 2678 12 games >>>> >>>>None of the Commercial programs are on fastest HW today. Deep Blue only played >>>>6 games against one opponent that did not get to prepare (Rebel opponent played >>>>100 games against Rebel before the match). My guess is that Deep Blue rating >>>>would drop by 100 to 200 points if put to a serious test. The Commercial >>>>programs would be 100 points stronger on fastest HW. So they are about the same >>>>or slight favorite to the commercials. I think Rebel, Tiger on fastest single >>>>processors and Deep F/J on fastest mps would beat DB 97 in a match. >>>> >>>>My conclusion is that 5 years after the match, the commercial programs rule. I >>>>think that the gap was closed a couple of years ago. >>> >>>The thinking here just blows my mind. I cannot even begin to *imagine* why >>>people would say something so silly. >>> >>>You're talking about a chess program, that used the _same_ exact search >>>techniques that are used in 80% of the top engines today. While 5 years worth >>>of research probably makes todays top commercial engines more "refined", but >>>when it comes down to it, they are basically the same. >>> >>>With that said, now imagine your search is 100x faster. That has _GOT_ to be >>>worth some ELO. 200M nps vs Fritz 7's 1M nps (on today's top HW) is hardly >>>comparable. >>> >>>Just use the rule of HW speed. 2x the mhz is usually worth about 50 ELO. It >>>wouldn't take much to get 250 ELO out of the speed of DB. >> >>You forget that programs got 200 elo only by software in the last years. >>The best commercial program in 1997 is 200 elo weaker than the best program of >>today in the same hardware. >> >>If you remember that there may be diminishing return at higher depthes then it >>is not clear that the best programs of 1997 with 200M nodes per second are >>better than the program of today with the hardware of today. >> >> >>Another point is that I guess that deeper blue used some ideas that >>are probably not good. >> >>Nobody use singular extensions in the way that deeper blue used them. >>Ferret use them but not in the way that deeper blue used them. >> >>Crafty18.12 used the deep blue extension. >>Crafty18.13 does not use it. > >This is incorrect. No published version of crafty has ever used singular >extensions. I think he was talking about the check extensions you used in 18.12. And then removed in 18.13 >I don't see what "using SE in the way DB used them" has _anything_ to do with >this discussion. Singular extensions are singular extensions. They did a >better implementation that what is being used by Bruce. Their implementation is >also _far_ more complex in terms of coding. It certainly doesn't mean their >SE implementation is "defective" and this reasoning escapes me totally... > > > >> >>Why? >> >>If the ideas of deeper blue were good then >>I expect at least part of the other programmers to learn from the ideas >>and to use them. > >And who knows what "other programmers" are doing? I've tried them. They >worked well in Cray Blitz. They don't (so far) work so well in Crafty. Others >are using various implementations of them (Ferret, Diep, WchessX, Genius, who >knows who else). > > > > > >> >>Uri > > >I don't consider it very scientific to say "I haven't seen this work so it >must not be very good..." It _might_ be that the implementations have been >poor while the idea was very good. Or vice-versa.
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.