Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 11:49:30 03/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2002 at 13:16:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Sorry to interrupt you with the akward voice of a layman, but I wonder if in this lines of yours rsides the core of this debate. Prhaps what you call the "refined" aspect of new programs is a lot more esential than what the word suggest. Refination sound as "the same, but perhaps with some embellishments". Nevertheless, from certain level to upstairs, differences in chess are a matter of "refinements". The microscopic point of this pawn here, the evanescent issue of this bishop behind the pawns, etc. You can even say that the difference between a good expert level player and a GM is, although enormous in the terrain of results, a matter of refinements inthe analysis of move by move. Refinemens are everything wen high chess is on stake. And for the same token, perhaps the concept of "basically the same" should be ... refined. Basically all of us use our legs in the same way, but there was only one Nureyev. Maybe a matter of refinement. My very best Fernando >>>>> >>>>>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.