Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:27:12 11/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2002 at 01:02:52, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 14, 2002 at 19:57:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 14, 2002 at 18:07:40, Uri Blass 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. >>>> >>>>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. >> >>So? My 1M nodes is not "effective nodes" either. Nor is the NPS for any "deep" >>program... So 200x is right in the ballpark. > >For Deep blue the difference was clearly bigger because all of their >problems(not using hash tables in the hardware and loss of speed from other >factors). > >Uri Not necessarily. Deep Junior doesn't hash in the last ply or two plus not in the q-search. Do you think he does that because it is less efficient? Or because it works _better_?
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.