Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:30:17 11/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
Uri, I hope that you will agree if we make a deeper analysis of the whole complex, are you game? Thanks, and don't take anything of that too personal. It isn't. The truth is that I am reflecting such questions since long, and from a science view I see questions over questions but few answers. November 15, 2002 at 01:33:16, Uri Blass wrote: >The reason that I say that I believe that the programs of today are better is >some analysis of the games with the logfiles. Ok, that's a good idea. However - > >The claim that the programs of today are better is not a claim that is only a >claim of some programmers. Who said that? Not programmers but PR spin doctors. Totally different world. > >There are logfiles of the games and in a few cases it is possible to compare >times that deeper blue needs to see something with time that Deep Fritz need to >see the same thing. You are a bit talking around in approximate terms. What logfiles and where. Why only in a few cases. That sounds synthetic. Usually you gave much better evidence. > >My comparison suggested that Deeper blue was only sligthly faster than Deep >Fritz6(p800) (less than twice faster). If someone else would say so whould you believe it? Give us the data. > >Based on this I guess that in tactics deeper blue was only something like Deep >Fritz on 1200Mhz and I am talking about Deep Fritz6. This is unbelievable! Usually you are among those who want to see facts and you here pretend and pretend without facts at all. "Based on this"? Based on what?? And on that what you don't elaborate you base your guesses? > >I did not do comparison of most of the logfiles with deep fritz analysis so I >may change my mind if I get more data. But of course you won't show only a single piece of data! Because that would disturb the debate. > >My impression is also that in positional play they were not better than the >programs of today. Aha, fine! With the queen on c5, yes, I see, then FRITZ is almost 4 times better than DB2!! Wow, when I saw that I was quite impressed. Positionally I think FRITZ is another factor 5 stronger! But perhaps that comes down to factor 3. But at least we (!) can say that today's commercials are stronger than DB2. (etc.) But let me now continue with my RESEARCH!!! > >They may have more quantity of knowledge in their evaluation but quantity is not >quality. > >Uri Yes, and hot air is not research. If the data you have is secret then perhaps we could discuss the methods? When you make the statement "DB2 was only less than 2x faster", how do you prove that? Could you explain exactly what that means? Do you take isolated moves out of context and compare them? How do you know what the time for a move exactly means? In context of a game. Excuse me but that are the questions to begin with. If we have more data (than zero at the moment) I can add the next questions. Rolf Tueschen
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.