Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:25:32 03/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2002 at 12:44:25, Slater Wold wrote: >On March 13, 2002 at 12:39:21, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 13, 2002 at 11:56:59, Slater Wold 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. >>>> >>>>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. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>W R O N G. >>> >>>DB used *certain* extensions ONLY because it had the overhead to do so. You >>>have a *LOT* of things to play with when you're getting 200M nps, versus 1M nps. >>> Crafty getting 200M nps with DB extensions MIGHT have worked better. Getting >>>1.2M nps on Hyatt's machine, it did not. Apples to oranges. >>> >>>Programs have gotten 200 ELO stronger in the last 5 years huh? Get real. The >>>_ONLY_ thing that has changed is HW, and ALL the top programmers will tell you >>>that. Computer chess advancements are 20% software, 80% hardware. >> >>please look at >>http://www.geocities.com/chessfun_1999/rating.html >> >>Fritz7 is almost 200 elo better >>than Fritz4 and more than 200 elo better than Fritz5. >> >>Fritz7 is about 250 elo better than Junior4.6 and Junior4.6 was the world >>champion in 1997 some months after the match of kasparov-deeper blue. >> >>I believe that computer chess advancement in the last 5 years are >>50% software and 50% hardware. >> >>Uri > >Well, I won't argue over 30%. But that list is *no* good. For several reasons: > >1.) DB was _never_ intended to play other computers. EVER. I know This is the reason that they never released it so kasparov could not train against it when it is not the same with the commercial programs. I can agree that deeper blue was better than the top programs of today against humans because it was not known. > >2.) This is on *CURRENT* HW. Ever try to use Shredder 6 on a Pentium Pro 200? I believe that one of the advantage of the new programs is that they earn more from time relative to old programs thanks to the fact that programmers found better search techniques so I expect the gap to be bigger with faster hardware or long time control. > >3.) There is a HUGE thread below this one, about Fritz 5.32 being *much* better >than Fritz 7. This opinion seems to be wrong Fritz5.32 is also not from the time of deeper blue and I think it is from 1999 2 years after deep blue. The right comparison is between Fritz or Genius of 1997 and Fritz7. Uri
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.