Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:29:08 09/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2005 at 10:04:32, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >Hyatt has claimed many times that a Nodes Per Second Factor of one thousand >times would not be overcome by the program with the less Nodes per second.In >this Experiment it was shown conclusively that this is false .Although I played >4 games ,I do not think the result would have been different if I had played a >hundred more.Time Control 40 MOVES IN 2 HOURS followed by sudden death in 1 >hour.Hardware: GNU CHESS 4.11 a program from 1996 ran a celeron 1.8 Gig machine >;Chess Tiger on Palm ran on the Palm Tungten E.NODES PER SECOND:ON THE >AVERAGE:CHESSTIGER ON PALM 500 per second ,GNU CHESS 4.11 500000 per second on >the celeron 1.8 Gig.1000X DIFFERENCE.Hyatt and some other people have always >argued about the supremecy of DeepBlue based on its speed.I think these days >these arguments are false;and Speed does not mean as much as it used to.Deep >blue would be crushed by todays program's.A lot of STRENGTH is EVALUATION >FUNCTION.Take a look at these games: >Match ended in 2-2 draw. > >[Event "?"] >[Site "?"] >[Date "2005.09.17"] >[Round ""] >[White "CHESS 4.11, GNU"] >[Black "Tiger on Palm, Chess"] >[Result "0-1"] > >1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 >6.Bd3 Bd6 7.O-O O-O 8.c4 c6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Nc3 Nxc3 >11.bxc3 Qc7 12.Qc2 h6 13.Qb3 Be6 14.Ba3 Bxa3 15.Qxa3 Nc6 >16.Rae1 Rac8 17.Re3 Bg4 18.h3 Bxf3 19.Rxf3 Rfe8 20.Qb3 Rcd8 >21.Rb1 Rd7 22.g3 Qd6 23.Qb5 Kf8 24.Rf4 Rc7 25.Qb3 Ne7 >26.Re1 Rec8 27.Rf3 Rxc3 28.Qxb7 Qc7 29.Qb4 a5 30.Qa4 Nc6 >31.Rfe3 Rb8 32.Bf1 Rxe3 33.Rxe3 Ne7 34.Rb3 Rxb3 35.axb3 f6 >36.b4 axb4 37.Qxb4 Ke8 38.Qc5 Qxc5 39.dxc5 Kd7 40.Bb5+ Nc6 >41.f4 Kc7 42.f5 Nd4 43.Bd3 Kc6 44.Kf2 Kxc5 45.g4 Nb3 >46.Ke3 d4+ 47.Ke4 Nd2+ 48.Kf4 Kb4 49.h4 Kc3 50.Bb5 Nc4 >51.Ba4 d3 52.Kf3 Nb2 53.Bb5 d2 54.Be2 Kd4 55.Kf4 d1=Q >56.Bxd1 Nxd1 57.Kf3 Ne3 58.Kf4 Kd3 59.Kf3 h5 60.gxh5 Nxf5 >61.Kf4 Nd4 62.Kg3 Ke2 63.Kf4 f5 64.Kg5 Kf3 65.h6 gxh6+ >66.Kxh6 Kg4 67.Kg6 f4 68.Kh6 f3 69.Kg6 f2 70.Kf6 f1=Q+ >71.Ke7 Nf5+ 72.Ke8 Qb5+ 73.Kd8 Qb7 74.h5 Kxh5 75.Ke8 Qe7+ > 0-1 looking at the game it seems that gnuchess lost because of tactical blunder. 38.Qc5 is losing a pawn so it is not only bad evaluation of gnuchess but also weak search algorithm of it. Note that testing gnuchess against tiger proves nothing even if you have enough games and I remember no claim of Hyatt about gnuchess. I think that it may be more interesting to test Crafty against FruitWCCC when Crafty gets 1000:1 time advantage Fruit WCCC is very strong and my opinion is that it has a chance to win a long match at 2 hours/40 moves against Crafty with 10:1 speed advantage for Crafty(in WCCC it performed clearly better than Crafty inspite of big hardware advantage for Crafty that was at least 5:1) but I believe that 1000:1 is too much even for fruit. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.