Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:17:04 08/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 1999 at 18:48:08, blass uri wrote: >On August 12, 1999 at 14:39:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: > ><snipped> >>We did (not myself, but a member of the CB team with Crays in every room where >>he works) play lots of games. CB was winning about 9 of every 10 games. Note >>that this was a 'reliable' version, and not one of the versions we wanted to >>try in ACM events but which often blew up in unexpected ways due to lack of >>testing.) For the record, our most reliable version (prior to singular >>extensions) was very 46e, which is what we used for playing about 50 games. > >I think that this reliable version did not play against deep thought so it is >not clear that Cray blitz could not beat deep thought. > 46e did play deep thought. I am not sure when, but It certainly happened. That was a very solid program. But Deep Thought simply outsearched it badly. > > ><snipped> >>Check out the following tournaments: >> >>1983 wccc event. 4 wins 1 draw. Including beating the then world champion >>Belle and drawing Nuchess. >> >>1984 ACM tournament, where we beat the #2, #3 and #4 finishers in that >>event. In fact, we had won before the final round started our pairings were >>so tough. >> >>1986 WCCC rounds 3, 4, and 5. >> >>Those were all highly regarded games. And most of those events included >>'micro smashes' here and there. > >I think that in these years Cray blitz was clearly slower then cray blitz of >today and I am interested in the ability of cray blitz that can look at >7,000,000 nodes per second. > > > same program, just newer hardware with lots more cpus... :) > ><snipped> >>>2)Crafty may have better positional understanding relative to cray blitz because >>>you learned to change crafty from experience of many games in ICC when you had >>>not the same experience with cray blitz. >> >>They are _very_ similar. Most of crafty's eval came from Cray Blitz, except >>for things that I can't do due to them being too expensive on a non-vector >>machine. Cray Blitz actually has a _bigger_ eval than Crafty, not smaller. > >The question is if it has better evaluation. >I understand that you did in cray blitz things that you cannot do in crafty but >I guess that you know today from your experience in ICC things that you did not >know some years ago when you worked on cray blitz. > >Uri Hard to say... we got lots of advice even back then. GM Kaplan lived just a few miles from Harry and played lots of games and gave us feedback, for example. We never had the chance to play as many games as Crafty has played, of course. And there is little doubt that crafty of today is more robust that Cray Blitz of years gone by. However, every now and then we did have a chance to do a lot of testing on Livermore's computers (where Harry worked/works). And those versions could be very solid. Our 'suspicious play' started in the 90's as we began to find it impossible to get time on parallel cray machines to test. And that is what caused us the most grief... as every new (and faster) machine would expose more timing problems that had not been seen before. IE in 1995 we searched so deeply we blew out arrays that had never been blown out before...
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.