Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:03:29 11/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2002 at 10:41:55, Uri Blass wrote: >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 So? The point is that it is not clear that hashing way out there is better _anyway_.
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.