Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:56:16 09/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2005 at 14:51:03, A. Cozzie wrote: >On September 18, 2005 at 14:47:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 18, 2005 at 14:38:27, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On September 18, 2005 at 13:59:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 18, 2005 at 12:00:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 18, 2005 at 10:45:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>># Name 1 2 3 4 5 P BU SB G >>>>>1 Deep Thought II 2w1 5b0 7w1 3b1 5b1 4 13½ 11 5 >>>>>2 Zarkov 1b0 6b1 4w1 5b= 3w1 3½ 15 9¾ 5 >>>>>3 Star Socrates 10w1 7b1 5w1 1w0 2b0 3 12½ 5 5 >>>>>4 Now 6w= 10b= 2b0 8w1 9b1 3 10½ 5½ 5 >>>>>5 Mchess Pro 8b1 1w1 3b0 2w= 1w0 2½ 16½ 7¾ 5 >>>>>6 Cray Blitz 4b= 2w0 9w1 7b0 10w1 2½ 11 4 5 >>>>>7 Wchess 9w1 3w0 1b0 6w1 8b0 2 13½ 4½ 5 >>>>>8 Evaluator 5w0 9b0 10w1 4b0 7w1 2 10 2½ 5 >>>>>9 Innovation II 7b0 8w1 6b0 10b1 4w0 2 10 2½ 5 >>>>>10 Spector 3b0 4w= 8b0 9w0 6b0 ½ 12½ 1½ 5 >>>>> >>>>>Zarkov from those days had no problems beating your 3 million nps Cray Blitz. >>>>>Nor had Wchess problems beating your 3 million nps Cray Blitz. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Ask John about the game. First, this was a 500K program for rounds 2-4. And >>>>when you ask him, he'll tell you about our rather severe crash problem due to a >>>>missing test to limit ply to 64 or less. And in a couple of cute places, we >>>>went beyond that limit, crashed, and burned. We fixed it for the last round, >>>>but it really didn't matter to the final results. >>>> >>>>But notice the issue was about deep thought, _not_ about Cray Blitz. Did you >>>>see any of the micros coming close? (hint: round 2 was a forfeit which is why >>>>they were paired a second time, round 2 never got started for the DT MCP game). >>> >>>Deep Thought was significantly better than the micro of 1995 >>> >>>Uri >> >>I am well aware of that. And DB was 100x faster than deep thought 2, and also >>had a better evaluation... >> >>that was my point in all this... > >I don't think anyone disputes that in 1997 DB aws the best program around, but >how well do you think it would do in 2005? I mean, where do you think DB >finishes in the WCCC2005? > >anthony hard to predict, IMHO. It would _not_ finish at the bottom. But today's programs have closed the gap in speed very significantly (16M nps for my WCCC box, for example) which means that an overwhelming advantage has eroded to just a fairly significant advantage. They were the fastest/best at the WCCC in 1995, after all what computer program had produced a 2650+ performance rating against nothing but GM humans, in 40/2hr time controls besides them? Yet they lost to Fritz in a bit of terrible luck on when a comm line went down. So at WCCC 2005, I would expect them to do well, but not anything like they did thru 1994 where they simply won everything in sight every time... And no, I would not expect Diep to beat them either. :) Nor my program. But it would certainly be possible for anyone to beat them this year, since their 1000x speed edge has dropped to 10x or less. 10x is significant, but not completely overwhelming. Of course, had they continued development, they would be running in terms of billions of nodes per second since they could have taken advantage of 10 years of hardware development just as well as we have. And that would be overwhelming in today's tournaments. But it's all speculation, the only advantage I have over almost anyone here is that I have actually sat across the table from them and played them, or sat behind them and talked to Murray and Hsu as I watched their output. Most of the 'naysayers" have never even seen one of the authors or been in the same city with the program playing in a match...
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.