Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:28:56 09/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2005 at 09:28:52, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >On September 18, 2005 at 10:30:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 18, 2005 at 07:04:36, 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... >>>What??? you have made this remark many times.Of course due to the volume of >>>your remarks I cant pin point the exact time and day. >> >> >>You can't point it out because I didn't say that. >> >>Again, whenever you want to try a 1000:1 handicap match using the program of >>your choice vs Crafty, step right up... But none of this "lets take program X, >>then remove features Y and Z and use that." >Look at the 4 game match nothing was removed .Why did this remove this remove >that come into the conversation? Because gnuchess 4 was not a very strong program given equal hardware, and comparing it to _any_ program of the chess-tiger palm era. Effectively you took a program from today, and removed features (to turn it into gnuchess 4, a 10-year old program) for the comparison. Pick a reasonable program from today and play that match. Then you will get a feel for what a factor of 1000 is really worth. And we can end this argument quickly... Don't pick something that is completely non-competitive and then use that to produce data to support your point of view, it is poor science...
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.