Author: ALI MIRAFZALI
Date: 04:49:30 09/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2005 at 07:39:50, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 18, 2005 at 07:24:43, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: > >>On September 17, 2005 at 21:51:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 17, 2005 at 17:10:00, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >>> >>>>On September 17, 2005 at 13:42:07, Albert Silver 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. >>>>> >>>>>The idea of testing this is certainly interesting but the conditions seem rather >>>>>dubious IMHO. For one thing, 4 games really is COMPLETELY meaningless, andwith >>>>>all due respect to claim you don't think the result could have been different >>>>>shows how much you don't understand this. >>>>> >>>>>BTW, does Tiger really only get 500 nodes per second on your Palm? That seems >>>>>ridiculously low. I don't have Tiger, nor a Palm for that matter, but on my Dell >>>>>Pocket PC at 624MHz, I get about 50,000 nps on average for Fruit 2.1. >>>>> >>>>>Note that if one is to believe the results of Hiarcs site >>>>>(http://www.hiarcs.com/phresults.htm), Tiger on the Palm has inordinately bad >>>>>results (they claim it plays over 400 points worse than Hiarcs on identical >>>>>hardware, which is HUGE), so perhaps it isn't the ideal choice. >>>>> >>>>> Albert >>>>Yes indeed Tiger does get 500 Nps on the palm Tungsten E.Note that it is Hyatt's >>>>claim that I am disproving.According to him a NPS of 1000X factor would be >>>>impossible to overcome even in 4 games >>> >>> >>>No, what you are disproving is a false statement you are making. Since I never >>>said what you claim, it would be just a bit difficult to disprove it, since it >>>was never said. >>> >>>Grow up or try again... >>Well ,this is what you have said in the past:Programs of similar search >>techniques or something to this effect.I do remember you and me having this >>conversation in another thread .At that time I was going to try to find a 1000X >>NPS difference Experiment.And why do you call GNU chess4 a lousy program?For >>1996 standards it was good.But this is the whole point:Deep Blue was also 1997 >>standards. > >2 points: > >1)Gnu was not good for 1996 standards. >Genius3(a program of 1994) win it convincingly and programs that are not close >to Genius3's level are not good for 1996 standards. > >2)Programs that were good for 1996 standards may be lousy programs later. > >Uri You may be correct Uri :but the point is:Was Deepblue good for 1997 standards? your point no 2 proves what I am saying Deepblue would get crushed by todays programs
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.