Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:07:40 11/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2002 at 17:20:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 14, 2002 at 12:57:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On November 14, 2002 at 11:26:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 14, 2002 at 03:33:48, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On November 13, 2002 at 16:52:35, David Hanley wrote: >>>> >>>>>>If you play the current best program on current hardware against that >>>>>>combination, it's also going to blow it over. >>>>> >>>>>Against the kasparov, etc? Well, well see. But i expect that it won't >convince either camp. >>>> >>>>No. DB of then against the top of now. I suspect DB would get spanked. >>>> >>>>DB of then against the programs of then is another matter. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>>I'll change the metaphor a bit, but if by "spanked" you mean that DB's >>>fist would get beat to a bloody pulp by the faces of today's micros" then >>>I might agree. >>> >>>But _only_ in that metaphorical context. >> >>If it's only about metaphors, I think that computer chess is also a topic for >>me. I have the concrete question if you could give us a comparison from the old >>days. How would you compare the difference in strength between the actual >>commercials and DB2 in giving the names of ancient programs? Could we say, CRAY >>BLITZ against FRITZ 2 or what would you prefer? >> >>Rolf Tueschen >>I > >I am not sure what you are asking. I don't personally have a lot of experience >with older >commercials. The only experiment I ever ran caused a lot of ruckus in r.g.c >(prior to the >days of r.g.c.c) when I ran several games between a single-cpu Cray Blitz vs >Chess Genius >2 on the fastest PC of that day, which I think was a 486/66 or something >similar. It ended >like the DB single chip vs the micros ended, except that I _did_ post the games, >without >posting the name of the opponent. But someone (Chris Whittington I think) >figured it out >because it was a king safety debacle for the micro. > >All I can say about DB2 vs the micros is that it is about 200x faster. That's >more than enough. >Null-move or not. IE I wouldn't want to play a match Crafty vs >Crafty/no-null/200x faster, >myself, and that would not be a completely fair test since I know that DB did >some things in >their eval that I am not doing at present... 1.Deeper blue was not 200 times faster than Crafty of today. Hsu said in reply to the question about the number of nodes that the 200M nodes were 200M total nodes and not effective nodes. We can safely guess that the number of effective nodes was clearly less than 200M nodes. null move is only one way of doing forward pruning and there are other effective ways of pruning. 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.