Author: Don Dailey
Date: 13:26:24 01/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 1999 at 10:53:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 31, 1999 at 04:40:11, Kim Hvarre wrote: > >>On January 30, 1999 at 18:15:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 30, 1999 at 11:38:49, Kim Hvarre wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>No microcode in DB-2 at all... but it was certainly done with a 'silicon >>>compiler' so in a sense, there is some sort of 'program', but not in the form >>>you might think about normally... >> >>Isn't we around technicalities here;) >>The basics I think is the same - microcode or "chipcoding". >> >> >>> >>>I have done that with crafty. But notice I said _match_ and not single >>>game? That makes a difference. Also matters _where_ the game is played. >>>IE was it just for fun, like many of the old Cray Blitz games were played? >>>or was it a _serious_ game with something at stake to make the GM play? >> >>Hmm., was Kasparov playing at a serious level. Don't think so. But as You know >>if You regularly play chess at money- or ELO-basis, it's always a matter that >>means something - not to mention if there's a risk of getting published in front >>of the world. >> >> >>>You simply don't understand. The DB team was every bit as good as any other >>>'team' in existance... and DB is the result of that team + time + money. Maybe >>>Ed or others _could_ have done something (none that I know of are hardware >>>designers which means it would be _very_ doubtful they'd have a chance). But >>>at best, _they_ would have come up with 'deep blue'. Doubtful it would have >>>been something "more"... >> >>Let's stop here. You - of all - knows there's differences between "teams" >>(Crafty = +2300, e.g. Rebel = +2400) and the claim that the _DB-team_ is the >>very superior, that the world at the time could establish is indeed rather >>naive. >> >>regards/kim > > >your statement above is _wrong_. You are making one assumption that is way >wrong. You said 'crafty =+2300, rebel=+2400' but you forgot one important >qualifier: 'on equal hardware'. *I* don't use 'equal hardware' and I'd be >willing to let you fire up a test match with crafty on my box to show you what >I mean. Or I can run it on our 16 processor SGI machine. That's the point >here. DB's 'hardware' isn't equal. And they spent a lot of time to make it >not equal, yet everyone overlooks that work and resorts to the lame idea of >'if the micros had their hardware....' That's not exactly fair, is it, when >they spent so much time to build that speed advantage, and suddenly to compare >with them we have to strip them of that advantage? > >So they are as good _or better_ and their work on hardware has put them several >levels out in front of everyone... The poll question was extremely ambiguious. They said something like, "if you could run it on equal hardware ..." I made the conservative assumption that you scale up the micro program, with no changes except adding memory and speed to equal Deep Blue's nodes per second. I say this comparison is conservative because you have pointed out that Deep Blue does so much more (because of the hardware) in the evaluation function. In other words, comparing nodes per second is pretty unfair to the MICRO programs if you are EQUALIZING hardware. If Deep Blue does 1000X more nodes per second than Rebel for instance and ALSO does 100X more work for each evaluation call, then to equalize you have to give Rebel a pentium that is 100 thousand times faster! Bob, I once posted that you cannot compare these things and that any comparison is unfair and you blasted me for it. Now you are saying exactly the same thing and blasting someone else for taking your old point of view. You are not being fair to THEM. Your current new point of view is in harmony with the way I feel about it. The only fair way to compare is to put them side by side and start playing chess. - Don
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.