Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:28:22 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 First, what you are saying is wrong. But arguing about it is pointless since the test can't be run. Second, to see how good deep blue was, why not go back to 1987's ACM computer chess event and look at _every_ one through 1994, the last one held, including the WCCC events. People are impressed when Shredder wins three out of five WMCCC/WCCC events today. Deep Thought did a "tad" better than that. The only event they didn't win was the WCCC in 1995. Pretty remarkable, and it shows that they were extremely strong compared to everyone else during that period. DB was just "a lot faster, and a lot smarter" than deep thought. It was (and would still be) competitive...
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.