Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:46:15 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 15:31:54, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 17, 2002 at 15:01:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 17, 2002 at 14:23:19, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 17, 2002 at 11:58:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 17, 2002 at 11:17:43, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 17, 2002 at 10:23:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 17, 2002 at 03:34:44, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 16, 2002 at 18:52:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You are simply relying on _one_ game. What about 10 years of total domination >>>>>>>>in computer chess? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>10 years of domination ending 7 years ago means absolutely nothing now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>GCP >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Only to those that don't "think". >>>>>> >>>>>>They dominated for ten years with hardware 100X slower than what they unveiled >>>>>>in 1997. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you take any reasonable program of today and make it 100x faster, do you not >>>>>>think it will >>>>>>totally dominate the other programs??? >>>>> >>>>>If I take Fritz3(p90) and give it hardware that is 100 times faster then I >>>>>expect it to be weaker than Fritz7 of today inspite of a small hardware >>>>>advantage. >>>>> >>>>>The progress that was made in hardware+software from 1995 is more than being 100 >>>>>times faster except fast time control. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>If you put fritz3 on hardware 100 times _faster_ than fritz 7, I'll take fritz3 >>>>in a match. >>>> >>>>This is _easy_ to test... Start off 10x faster to see how bad 100x is going to >>>>end up. 10x >>>>will be murder >>> >>>I say 100 times faster than p90(the hardware that Fritz3 used to beat deep blue >>>prototype) >>> >>>If you put Fritz3 on 9000Mhz against Fritz7 on 2000Mhz when Fritz7 has bigger >>>hash tables I expect Fritz7 to win at least at long time control. >>> >>>Uri >> >>That isn't the point. Thru 1994 deep thought dominated everybody, easily. In >>1995 they >>lost one game to fritz. In 1997 deep thought suddenly became 100x faster and a >>lot "smarter" >>with the new DB2 chips. > >This is what Hsu claims but we have no evidence that it is the case. >First he had to admit that the 200M nodes that IBM claimed in the matches were >wrong and there were only 126M nodes so it is less than 100 times faster than 2M >nodes per second of Deep blue prototype and it make me suspect that there were >more lies. I don't suspect _any_ lies. I suspect different numbers based on different qualifications of how they were arrived at. IE we _know_ they can't "count" nodes. The hardware doesn't do that. I hope we get a chance to ask him about his actual NPS, his actual parallel search efficiency compared to a single processor / single chess processor test, etc... > >Vincent claims that the effective number of nodes was smaller than 126M nodes >and 126M was not the number of nodes. Vincent claims his program is the best in the world, either tactically or positionally. Do you believe that? I don't. > >I do not claim to know. > >About being smarter I am also not sure about it. >No doubt that deeper blue had more evaluation then deep blue prototype but >the evaluation was not tested enough and there were bugs. Based on what? That is a declaration, rather than opinion. Which means you must have some actual facts to base that on??? > >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.