Author: Slater Wold
Date: 11:45:18 03/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2002 at 14:25:32, Uri Blass wrote: >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 First lesson in life: Opinions can _NEVER_ be wrong. Get that, and you'll live a lot longer. ;) >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.