Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:32:31 11/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2002 at 18:50:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 15, 2002 at 18:03:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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_. > >It is clear that at least killer moves are better everywhere. >I think that it is also clear that hash in the last plies if you do not include >the qsearch is better(otherwise I could expect programs not to do it). > >Uri Then why do you suppose Junior doesn't hash in all non-qsearch plies???
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.