Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:58:05 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 13:41:13, Uri Blass wrote: >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 That is a poor way of analyzing, however. How many times do the commercials of today make horrible moves? Just because program X won't make the same mistake as program Y does _not_ mean X is better. It means X is different. Y can still be better.
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.