Author: Mark Young
Date: 01:05:38 12/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1998 at 00:36:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 10, 1998 at 23:26:26, Mark Young wrote: > >>On December 10, 1998 at 20:55:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 1998 at 08:44:32, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: >>> >>>>On December 09, 1998 at 08:35:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 09, 1998 at 06:36:02, Mark Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Many of use have played over the games of Deep Blue Vs GM Kasparov , and Rebel >>>>>>10 Vs GM Anand. >>>>>> >>>>>>My question is what do you think would be the stronger chess program, and by how >>>>>>much: >>>>>> >>>>>>Deep Blue, or Rebel 10 (K6 450Mhz) * 1000 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>this question makes no sense. In the two longer games Rebel had no real chance, >>>>>while deep blue won the match it played. You aren't going to see a rebel*1000 >>>>>in the next hundred years, probably. Because technology is nowhere near even >>>>>thinking about machines with picosecond cycle types. The technology to produce >>>>>such technology doesn't exist yet... >>>>> >>>>>The next problem is that a special-purpose piece of hardware will *always* be >>>>>orders of magnitude faster than general-purpose hardware, so that if we wait for >>>>>a 1000x faster rebel, we get a 10000x faster deep blue in the process... >>>> >>>>I believe he's just asking (if it were possible) and both where run at the ame >>>>exact settings which one would be stronger. >>> >>> >>>then you have to define "same exact settings". IE would it be fair to play >>>Hiarcs vs Rebel, where both ran at the exact same NPS? Hiarcs would probably >>>win easily... but it would have a 5x hardware advantage to equalize NPS >>>because of it's slower eval speed. >>> >>>So this question is *very* difficult to answer. If you mean equal NPS? Then >>>the program with the better eval would win. That would be deep blue. If >>>you mean an "equal handicapping" then I don't know how to do that at all... >> >>This is a good point. I used 1000 times faster for Rebel because I always hear >>that the Deeper Blue hardware was about 1000 times faster then the current >>micros. I don't know if this is true, or how people came to this conclusion. If >>Deeper Blue's evaluation is doing 10 times of the work of current micro chess >>program and people are just getting the speed difference from the NPS count. >>Then the Deeper Blue hardware could be 10,000 times or more faster then current >>micro computers hardware. I just don't know. >> > >If you followed my comments about DB, you've seen me use the 10,000X number >frequently. 250M nodes per second vs 250K for the typical micro, is a factor >of 1,000. Factor in the "free computing" available in a hardwired special- >purpose piece of hardware and 10X is probably reasonable based on numbers they >have reported when discussing how complex their eval is (Murray or Hsu mentioned >over 8,000 modifiable "weights" at one of their talks that someone reported on >here...) > > > > > >>I asked this question because I want to know if the Deeper Blue was a much >>better program then the current micro chess programs, or they were about the >>same if we could speed say Rebel 10 up to the rate of a deeper blue. > > >this is an old question, Yes it is, but I wanted to see what peoples opinion on this was at this time. Peoples opinion on this seems to change all the time. Mostly when a program like Rebel 10 has a some success against a strong grandmaster like Anand. I was shocked that some would think Rebel 10 would be stronger. Did not Don Daily think Rebel 10 would be equal with just a 10x speed increase. I find this very interesting. Even if the question itself is old. with most of its basis in "fiction." IE too many >think that such a "program" is *only* about speed. I can't count the number >of times I heard that same thing about Cray Blitz. Yes it was fast. But >when you run it on a micro today (pure fortran version) it is at *least* 10x >slower than the slowest micro program I know of. IE it is *not* "fast and >dumb". > >Neither is DB... based on the 12 games I personally watched over 2 years... > > >> >>I could ask if we put Deeper Blue software on a K6-450Mhz would it be better >>then the best micros running on the same hardware. But I don't know how fair >>this would be to Deeper blue. I have heard you say that Crafty is made to run on >>a fast pentium so you assume it will be. It may not be fair to slow down Deeper >>Blue and try to compare. Would this be a correct assumption for Deeper Blue. > > >not only that but it would be hard to do... since they are both hardware and >software in a "symbiosis" of sorts. If you made them rewrite what they have >so it would run on a PC, it may well get rolled over. But they would probably >search only 1K nodes per second also...
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.