Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:31:04 09/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2005 at 07:49:30, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >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 I have the same opinion that deep blue whould get crushed by today programs but it cannot be proved by np experiments. I agree that if we wait enough time the improvement in software may be equivalent to 1000:1 hardware advantage. I do not think that the improvement from 1997 to 2005 is enough for it but I also do not think that it is easy to compare speed of Deep Blue and speed of other programs. Note that deep blue had bugs (I remember that it did a stupid blunder because of bug in the first game) Parallel search is not a simple task and we do not know if there were other bugs and what was the influence of them so I think that it is better not to discuss about things that we cannot check. 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.