Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:16:14 03/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2002 at 12:30:15, Slater Wold wrote: >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 It wasn't an "extension", it was a different "limit" on how extensions could be applied... > >>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.