Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is Deep Blue still considered better than Deep Junior ?

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 10:41:13 08/20/02

Go up one level in this thread


On August 20, 2002 at 13:34:10, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On August 20, 2002 at 10:14:57, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On August 19, 2002 at 11:25:17, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On August 18, 2002 at 23:33:02, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 23:24:33, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 23:05:35, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 22:41:12, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 21:55:06, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 21:21:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 16:17:34, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 11:08:37, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On August 18, 2002 at 09:06:02, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No for many reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>  a) deep blue is old and how many old programs are still considered
>>>>>>>>>>>     'good'?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Even programs that reigned the world for 10 years (genius) completely
>>>>>>>>>>>get butchered with x-0 scores nowadays.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Genius is not losing x-0 unless x is very small.
>>>>>>>>>>It is clearly weaker than the top programs of today but not so weak.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>against movei perhaps. Against DIEP it's 100% simply. 20Mhz preprocessor
>>>>>>>>>dedicated genius getting 7 ply with 1000 move book
>>>>>>>>>against 1 million move diep book getting 10-14 ply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I thought about genius on the hardware of today otherwise it is not fair to say
>>>>>>>>"Even programs that reigned the world for 10 years (genius) completely
>>>>>>>>get butchered with x-0 scores nowadays."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is software+hardware and not only the software.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I agree that software+hardware of 10 years ago are losing x-0 against
>>>>>>>>software+hardware of today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't even agree with that.  I played Crafty vs Cray Blitz, using 1992
>>>>>>>hardware (a C90) and Cray Blitz won 7-3.  That certainly is _one_ example
>>>>>>>where Vincent's statement is false...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Vincent was talking about genius.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Genius with the hardware of 1992 is losing 10-0 against the top programs of
>>>>>>today with 2002's hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How many games did Cray blitz with the 1992's hardware play in computer
>>>>>>tournaments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>at least 15.  We played in 1992, 1993 and 1994 ACM events...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I know that it did not play in WCCC of 1995 when Fritz3 became the world
>>>>>>champion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do not know about a single tournament that it played.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Now you do.  I just gave you three.  Last one was 1994 in Cape May New
>>>>>Jersey.  Won by Deep Thought.
>>>>
>>>>I understand that it played only a single game against deep thought
>>>>and a program may lose a single game and be significantly better than the
>>>>opponent.
>>>>
>>>>I believe that it was signifcantly better than deep thought inspite of the
>>>>single loss.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>
>>>I have _no_ idea what you might be basing that on.  I _know_ the difference
>>>between the two programs.  DT was better, by a significant margin.
>>
>>I do not understand how do you know.
>>
>>Cray blitz does not beat Crafty with the same number of nodes per second so if
>>cray blitz won 7-3 then I guess that Cray searched more nodes per second.
>
>Correct.  As I reported, we did 5-7M nodes per second on the last Cray we
>used.
>
>
>
>>
>>Crafty can search 2M on fast hardware so I guess that Cray of 1992 searched more
>>than it.
>
>
>yes...
>
>
>>
>>
>>In other words I understood that
>>Deep thought searched 2M nodes per second and Cray blitz of 1992 searched more
>>nodes per second(if we talk about the same cray that beated Crafty 7-3).
>
>
>Again, their nodes and my nodes were not the same, because of their ability
>to do things in the evaluation in hardware that I could not afford to do on
>the Cray.  Cray Blitz had the same advantage over Crafty, I could do things on
>the Cray (using vector hardware) that I can not do on a micro (yet)...
>
>Comparing NPS is not a particularly useful comparison if the numbers are
>fairly close.  IE today's programs have an order of magnitude variance from
>fastest to slowest on equal hardware.  Once you go outside that box, however,
>to (say) three or more orders faster, _then_ NPS becomes important in comparing
>unequal engines.
>
>
>
>>
>>I do not think that cray blitz was inferior software relative to deep thought
>>and if the cray searched more nodes per second then it should be better than
>>deep thought.
>
>
>I can't answer for the very last versions of Cray Blitz with singular
>extensions,  It _might_ have been as good as deep thought, or it might still
>have been behind them.  But my impression from watching them play, thru 1994,
>was that nobody was "close" to them...  myself included.

My impression based on looking in games of the thing that the thing did tactical
mistakes that the commercial of today do not do so my impression is different.

If we look at the games they lost points or half points against humans then they
often did mistakes that the commercial of today do not do.

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.