Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:55:59 11/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2002 at 18:49:45, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. > >The question was for the relation between such entities. Of course you give an >example out of your own experience, but I wanted just know two names and then >the probably same relation than between DB2 and JUNIOR X. > >What I didn't understand during the Bahrain hype. Why these guys pretend that >their "new" programming intelligence could equalize, no, beat the velocity of >DB2. That is completely irrational in my mind. Could you explain that? Also >about the Friedel wording that DB2 was faster but did also a huge amount of >redundance with the many processors... The reason they make those hyperbolic statements is that they _know_ there is little chance they can be proven wrong. Because Deep Blue 2 is simply no longer playing chess. IE once someone stops doing something, and becomes too old to do it again, then it is easy for others to say "I am better now than he was back then" because they know there is no way to disprove that (without a time machine). > >Would you say that your experiment with GENIUS 2 reflects the similar relation >as in DB2 and JUNIOR? Because then the result would be 6-0. > I don't know, obviously. But I would expect deep blue 2 to beat any program of today. Solidly at least. Maybe not 10 - 0 as I have no way to guestimate such numbers, but I have no doubt that it would at least win handily enough that it would be clearly stronger. > >> >>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... > > >Ah, another question. Would you think that that what they did in the eval would >pay in comp vs comp or more in comp vs human? If possible please give us a few >general factors of importance in that sense of comparison. What is where >especially important. Hope that is not a repetition. I find the explanations >with side looks to the past extremely valuable. What I hope for my questions >too. > >Rolf Tueschen That I don't know. Since they specifically tuned for humans, anything would be possible vs comps. But the problem is that their search tree is so large, it will cover for some potential mistakes their eval might make. Although Hsu's test suggested that their eval was quite good against commercial programs (and mine too, of course).
This page took 0.01 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.