Author: Chris Carson
Date: 13:29:48 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 15:26:36, Matthew Hull wrote: >On August 20, 2002 at 13:41:13, Uri Blass wrote: > >(snip) > >>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. > >This may be true, but is it not also true (and perhaps to a greater degree) that >today's program's relative short sightedness due to lower NPS (and fewer eval >terms per eval) also means they miss more correct moves, not necessarily >mistakes that stand out if not done, just inferior. > >This is a fact that most people overlook and I think what Dr. Hyatt has been >driving at in so many words. The compensation of these advantages outweigh the >mistakes you are describing. > >Is this not a large hole in your (and Vincent's) logic which I see repeated over >and over again in these discussions about DT/DB/DB2 versus todays progs? > >Regards, A few of obeservations about NPS. 1. You can not compare NPS from one program to another. Evals and Searching are handled differently, on the same HW, you can get a very wide difference in NPS between programs. NPS is valid when comparing a specific program on different HW. 2. If you are impressed with NPS and not results, then only DB was had higher NPS. DJ and DF are about 2 to 3M NPS on fastest single procs and about 3 to 4M NPS on the 8way 1Ghz box for the upcomming match. 3. NPS may be counted differently depending on the program. DT/DB were fast, very fast, but they needed special HW/speed to get the results, the commercial programs get better results than DT and about the same as DB. Chris
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.