Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:41:55 11/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2002 at 10:27:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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_? Deep Junior use different algorithm I know that they did not hash and did not use killer moves in the hardware because they had not time and not because it worked better. 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.