Author: emerson tan
Date: 02:59:19 10/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 17:46:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 Deep Blue doesnt look smart when it gave Kasparov the drawing line in game 2 of 1997, unfortunately Kasparov didnt know that the program can miss this (The big disadvantage of not knowing your opponent)
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.