Author: ALI MIRAFZALI
Date: 14:02:09 09/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2005 at 10:29:08, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Uri It is not that he claimed anything about GNU in particular;but was only talking about the 1000:1 factor. Please note the difference
This page took 0.02 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.