Author: Slater Wold
Date: 12:02:37 03/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2002 at 14:49:30, Fernando Villegas wrote: >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 Good point. But I was, for the most part, speaking on the most basic aspect of the search. The heart. Look at the changes from Rebel Century 3 to Rebel Century 4. There's not a *whole* lot of changes. Just the simple optimazation here and there. And while they *do* add up, over 5 years, you're only talking 2 or 3 versions. The "refinements" made from Windows 95 has given us Windows ME. Not a *whole* lot of changes. Just refinements. Any chess master will tell you, going from 2300 to 2500 is a lot more than a few refinements. That's a world of difference. >>>>>> >>>>>>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.