Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:18:55 09/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2005 at 21:48:01, Robert Hyatt 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. >> > > > >If you want to quote me, get it _right_. > >Nowhere will you find me saying "a lousy program running 1000x faster is better >than a good program." > >So maybe it isn't "hyatt" that makes false statements. What I _did_ say was >that given two programs that are "reasonable" if you run one of them 1000x >faster, that is an _overwhelming_ advantage. I agree Note only that reasonable program of today may be lousy program in the future and I guess that we are going to see faster progress in software in the near future thanks to the source code of Fruit2.1 Uri
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.