Slashdot Mirror
Draw!
An anonymous reader writes "Heise (publisher of the famous german computer magazine c't) started a most unusual CPU benchmark, today. A dual P4 Xeon 2400 and a dual AthlonMP 2000+ have to prove their abilities to ... play chess! The opponents are running two of the best chess AIs (Previews of Deep Fritz 7 and Shredder 6), so there are four different configurations. With each configuration about 55 matches (~24h) are played. As yet AMD/Fritz is leading, but the benchmark has just started. You can follow the duell online [Sorry, site is in german, but the graphics of the java-applet should be multi-lingual]. What's next? Who wouldn't like to see a Linux/Windows mine sweeper death match!"
It Is, It is!! Another First Post!
I hope high gas prices are depriving your children, you fucking dumbass.
please please pleaase
Str8Dog
using System.Darkside; public
I'm not asking for any other reason than I really want to know:
What does this prove about performance?
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Fritz on AMD is beating Shredder on Intel for now. What does this tell us about the quality of the programs and CPUs? Precisely nothing.
For each game, both opponents have 10 minutes in total plus 2 seconds per move. Everything else being equal (or symmetric, with all combinations of programs being used) it is not too far fetched to assume that the faster machine wins on average
How about Core Wars?
The article states that the winner will face IBM's Power4 64-bit RISC CPU.
Does anyone know how fast their clock speed is???
Who wouldn't like to see a Linux/Windows mine sweeper death match!
Wow. It's such a simple question, but your answer immediately determines if you're a lifeless, antisocial dork or not!
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
Once again the Athlon outperforms Intel processors on every benchmark and standard, and yet they are frowned upon by the world. Maybe this new publicity will boost them to a higher share of the market.
Satan, as a god, demi-god, personal saviour, or whatever you wish to call him,
was invented by the formulators of every religion on the face of the earth for
only one purpose - to preside over man's so-called wicked activities and
situations here on earth. Consequently, anything resulting in physical or mental
gratification was defined as "evil" - thus assuring a lifetime of unwarrented
guilt for everyone!
So, if "evil" they have named us, evil we are - and so what! The Satanic Age is
upon us! Why not take advantage of it and LIVE!* LOVE AND HATE SATANISM
represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
You cannot love everyone; it is ridiculous to think you can. If you love
everyone and everything you lose your natural powers of selection and wind up
being a pretty poor judge of character and quality. If anything is used too
freely it loses its true meaning. Therefore, the Satanist believes you should
love strongly and completely those who deserve your love, but never turn the
other cheek to your enemy!
Love is one of the most intense emotions felt by man; another is hate. Forcing
yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love
everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love.
Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional ailments. By learning
to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of
these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved
ones.
There has never been a great "love" movement in the history of the world that
hasn't wound up killing countless numbers of people, we must assume, to prove
how much they loved them! Every hypocrite who ever walked the earth has had
pockets buldging with love!
Every pharisaical religionist claims to love his enemies, even though when
wronged he consoles himself by thinking "God will punish them". Instead of
admitting to themselves that they are capable of hating their foes and treating
them in the manner they deserve, they say: "There, but for the grace of God, go
I," and "pray" for them. Why should we humiliate and lower ourselves by drawing
such inaccurate comparisons?
Satanism has been thought of as being synonymous with cruelty and brutality.
This is so only because people are afraid to face the truth - and the truth is
that human beings are not all benign or all loving. Just because the Satanist
admits he is capable of both love and hate, he is considered hateful. On the
contrary, because he is able to give vent to his hatred through ritualized
expression, he is far more capable of love - the deepest kind of love. By
honestly recognizing and admitting to both the hate and the love he feels, there
is no confusing one emotion with the other. Without being able to experience one
of these emotions, you cannot fully experience the other.
SATANIC SEX MUCH controversy has arisen over the Satanic views on "free
love". It is often assumed that sexual activity is the most important factor of
the Satanic religion, and that willingness to participate in sex-orgies is a
prerequisite for becoming a Satanist. Nothing could be farther from the truth!
In fact, opportunists who have no deeper interest in Satanism than merely the
sexual aspects are emphatically discouraged.
Satanism does advocate sexual freedom, but only in the true sense of the word.
Free love, in the Satanic concept, means exactly that - freedom to either be
faithful to one person or to indulge your sexual desires with as many others as
you feel is necessary to satisfy your particular needs.
Satanism does not encourage orgiastic activity or extramarital affairs for those
to whom they do not come naturally. For many, it would be very unnatural and
detrimental to be unfaithful to their chosen mates. To others, it would be
frustrating to be bound sexually to just one person. Each person must decide for
himself what form of sexual activity best suits his individual needs.
Self-deceitfully forcing yourself to be adulterous or to have sex partners when
not married just for the sake of proving others (or worse yet, to yourself) that
you are emancipated from sexual guilt is just as wrong, by Satanic standards, as
leaving any sexual need unfulfilled because of ingrained feelings of guilt.
Many of those who are constantly preoccupied with demonstrating their
emancipation from sexual guilt are, in reality, held in even greater sexual
bondage than those who simply accept sexual activity as a natural part of life
and don't make a big to-do over their sexual freedom. For example, it is an
established fact that the nymphomaniac (every man's dream girl and heroine of
all lurid novels) is not sexually free, but is actually frigid and roves from
man to man because she is too inhibited to ever find complete sexual release.
Another misconception is the idea that ability to engage in group sexual
activity is the indicative of sexual freedom. All contemporary free-sex groups
have one thing in common - discouragement of fetishistic or deviant activity.
Actually, the most forced examples of non-fetishistic sexual activity thinly
disguised as "freedom" have a common format. Each of the participants in an orgy
removes all clothing, following the example set forth by one, and mechanically
fornicate - also following the leader's example. None of the performers consider
that their "emancipated" form of sex might be regarded as regimented and
infantile by non-members who fail to equate uniformity with freedom.
The Satanist realizes that if he is to be a sexual connoiseur (and truly free
from all sexual guilt) he cannot be stifled by the so-called sexual
revolutionists any more than he can by the prudery of his guilt-ridden society.
These free-sex clubs miss the whole point of sexual freedom. Unless sexual
activity can be expressed on an individual basis (which includes personal
fetishes), there is absolutely no purpose in belonging to a sexual freedom
organization.
Satanism condones any type of sexual activity which properly satisfies your
individual desires - be it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even asexual,
if you choose. Satanism also sanctions any fetish or deviation which will
enhance your sex-life, so long as it involves no one who does not wish to be
involved.
The prevalence of deviant and/or fetishistic behavior in our society would
stagger the imagination of the sexually naïve. There are more sexual variants
than the unenlightened individual can perceive: transvestism, sadism, masochism,
urolagnia, exhibitionism - to name only a few of the more predominant. Everyone
has some form of fetish, but because they are unaware of the preponderance of
fetishistic activity in our society, they feel they are depraved if they submit
to their "unnatural" yearnings.*
Even the asexual has a deviation - his asexuality. It is far more abnormal to
have a lack of sexual desire (unless illness or old-age, or another valid reason
has caused the wane) than it is to be sexually promiscuous. However, if a
Satanist chooses sexual sublimination above overt sexual expression, that is
entirely his own affair. In many cases of sexual sublimination (or asexuality),
any attempt to emancipate himself sexually would prove devastating to the
asexual.
Asexuals are invariably sexually sublimated by their jobs or hobbies. All the
energy and driving interest which would normally be devoted to sexual activity
is channelled into other pastimes or into their chosen occupations. If a person
favors other interests over sexual activity, it is his right, and no one is
justified in condemning him for it. However, the person should at least
recognize the fact that this is a sexual sublimation.
Because of lack of opportunity for expression, many secret sexual desires never
progress beyond the fantasy stage. Lack of release often leads to compulsion
and, therefore, a great number of people devise undetectable methods of giving
vent to their urges. Just because most fetishistic activity is not outwardly
apparent, the sexually unsophisticated should not delude himself into thinking
it does not exist. To cite examples of the ingenious techniques used: The male
transvestite will indulge in his fetish by wearing feminine undergarments while
going about his daily activities; or the masochistic woman might wear a rubber
girdle several sizes too small, so she may derive sexual pleasure from her
fetishistic discomfort throughout the day, with no one the wiser. These
illustrations are far tamer and more prevalent examples than others which could
have been given.
Satanism encourages any form of sexual expression you may desire, so long as it
hurts no one else. This statement must be qualified, to avoid misinterpretation.
By not hurting another, this does not include the unintentional hurt felt by
those who might not agree with your views on sex, because of their anxieties
regarding sexual morality. Naturally, you should avoid offending others who mean
a great deal to you, such as prudish friends and relatives. However, if you
earnestly endeavor to escape hurting them, and despite your efforts they
accidentally find out, you cannot be held responsible, and therefore should feel
no guilt as a result of either your sexual convictions, or their being hurt
because of those convictions. If you are in constant fear of offending the
prudish by your attitude towards sex, then there is no sense in trying to
emancipate yourself from sexual guilt. However, no purpose is served by
flaunting your permissiveness.
The other exception to the rule regards dealings with masochists. A masochist
derives pleasure from being hurt; so denying the masochist his
pleasure-through-pain hurts him just as much as actual physical pain hurts the
non-masochist. The story of the truly cruel sadist illustrates this point: The
masochist says to the sadist, "beat me." To which the merciless sadist replies,
"NO!" If a person wants to be hurt and enjoys suffering, then there is no reason
not to indulge him in his wont.
The term "sadist" in popular usage describes one who obtains pleasure from
indiscriminate brutality. Actually, though, a true sadist is selective. He
carefully chooses from the vast reserve of appropriate victims, and takes great
delight in giving those who thrive on misery the fulfillment of their desires.
The "well-adjusted" sadist is epicurean in selecting those on whom his energies
will be well-spent! If a person is healthy enough to admit he is a masochist and
enjoys being enslaved and whipped, the real sadist is glad to oblige!
Aside from the foregoing exceptions, the Satanist would not intentionally hurt
others by violating their sexual rights. If you attempt to impose your sexual
desires upon others who do not welcome your advances, you are infringing upon
their sexual freedom. Therefore, Satanism does not advocate rape, child
molesting, sexual defilement of animals, or any other form of sexual activity
which entails the participation of those who are unwilling or whose innocence or
naïveté would allow them to be intimidated or misguided into doing something
against their wishes.
If all parties involved are mature adults who willingly take full responsibility
for their actions and voluntarily engage in a given form of sexual expression -
even if it is generally considered taboo - then there is no reason for them to
repress their sexual inclinations.
If you are aware of all the implications, advantages, and disadvantages, and are
certain your actions will hurt no one who does not wish or deserve to be hurt,
you have no cause to suppress your sexual preferences.
Just as no two people are exactly the same in their choice of diet or have the
same capacity for the consumption of food, sexual tastes and appetites vary from
person to person. No person or society has the right to set limitations on the
sexual standards or the frequency of sexual activity of another. Proper sexual
conduct can only be judged within the context of each individual situation.
Therefore, what one person considers sexually correct and moral may be
frustrating to another. The reverse is also true; one person may have great
sexual prowess, but it is unjust for him to belittle another whose sexual
capacity may not equal his own, and inconsiderate for him to impose himself upon
the other person, i.e., the man who has a voracious sexual appetite, but whose
wife's sexual needs do not match his own. It is unfair for him to expect her to
enthusiastically respond to his overtures; but she must display the same degree
of thoughtfulness. In the instances when she does not feel great passion, she
should either passively, but pleasantly, accept him sexually, or raise no
complaint if he chooses to find his needed release elsewhere - including
auto-erotic practices.
The ideal relationship is one in which the people are deeply in love with one
another and are sexually compatible. However, perfect relationships are
relatively uncommon. It is important to point out here that spiritual love and
sexual love can, but do not necessarily, go hand in hand. If there is a certain
amount of sexual compatibility, often it is limited; and some, but not all, of
the sexual desires will be fulfilled.
There is no greater sexual pleasure than that derived from association with
someone you deeply love, if you are sexually well-suited. If you are not suited
to one another sexually, though, it must be stressed that lack of sexual
compatibility does not indicate lack of spiritual love. One can, and often does,
exist without the other. As a matter of fact, often one member of a couple will
resort to outside sexual activity because he deeply loves his mate, and wishes
to avoid hurting or imposing upon his loved one. Deep spiritual love is enriched
by sexual love, and it is certainly a necessary ingredient for any satisfactory
relationship; but because of differing sexual predilictions, outside sexual
activity or masturbation sometimes provides a needed supplement.
Masturbation, considered a sexual taboo by many people, creates a guilt problem
not easily dealt with. Much emphasis must be placed on this subject, as it
constitutes an extremely important ingredient of many a successful magical
working.
Ever since the Judaeo-Christian Bible described the sin of Onan (Gen. 38:7-10),
man has considered the seriousness and consequences of the "solitary vice". Even
though modern sexologists have explained the sin of Onan as simply coitus
interruptus, the damage has been done through centuries of theological
misinterpretation.
Aside from actual sex crimes, masturbation is one of the most frowned upon
sexual acts. During the last century, innumerable texts were written describing
the horrific consequences of masturbation. Practically all physical or mental
illnesses were attributed to the evils of masturbation. Pallor of the
complexion, shortness of breath, furtive expression, sunken chest, nervousness,
pimples and loss of appetite are only a few of the many characteristics
supposedly resulting from masturbation; total physical and mental collapse was
assured if one did not heed the warnings in those handbooks for young men.
The lurid descriptions in such texts would be almost humorous, were it not for
the unhappy fact that even though contemporary sexologists, doctors, writers,
etc. have done much to remove the stigma of masturbation, the deep-seated guilts
induced by the nonsense in those sexual primers have been only partially erased.
A large percentage of people, especially those over forty, cannot emotionally
accept the fact that masturbation is natural and healthy, even if they now
accept it intellectually; and they, in turn, relate their repugnance, often
subconsciously, to their children.
It was thought that one would go insane if, despite numerous admonitions, his
auto-erotic practices persisted. This preposterous myth grew from reports of
wide-spread masturbation by the inmates of mental institutions. It was assumed
that since almost all incurably insane people masturbated, it was their
masturbation that had driven them mad. No one ever stopped to consider the lack
of sexual partners of the opposite sex and the freedom from inhibition, which is
a characteristic of extreme insanity, were the real reasons for the masturbatory
practices of the insane.
Many people would rather have their mates seek outside sexual activity than
perform auto-erotic acts because of their own guilt feelings, the mate's
repugnance towards having them engage in masturbation, or the fear of their
mate's repugnance - although in a surprising number of cases, a vicarious thrill
is obtained from the knowledge that the mate is having sexual experiences with
outsiders - although this is seldom admitted.
If stimulation is provided by envisioning one's mate sexually engaged with
others, this should be brought out into the open where both parties may gain
from such activities. However, if the prohibition of masturbation is only due to
guilt feelings on the part of one or both parties, they should make every
attempt to erase those guilts - or utilize them. Many relationships might be
saved from destruction if the people involved did not feel guilt about
performing the natural act of masturbation.
Masturbation is regarded as evil because it produces pleasure derived from
intentionally fondling a "forbidden" area of the body by one's own hand. The
guilt feelings accompanying most sexual acts can be assuaged by the
religiously-acceptable contention that your sensual delights are necessary to
produce off-spring - even though you cautiously watch the calendar for the
"safe" days. You cannot, however, placate yourself with this rationale while
engaging in masturbatory practices.
No matter what you've been told about the "immaculate conception" - even if
blind faith allows you to swallow this absurdity - you know full well if you are
to produce a child, there must be sexual contact with a person of the opposite
sex! If you feel guilty for committing the "original sin," you certainly will
feel even deeper guilt for performing a sex act only for self-gratification,
with no intention of creating children.
The Satanist fully realizes why religionists declare masturbation to be sinful.
Like all other natural acts people will do it, no matter how severely
reprimanded. Causing guilt is an important facet of their malicious scheme to
obligate people to atone for "sins" by paying the mortgages on temples of
abstinence!
Even if a person is no longer struggling under the burden of religiously-induced
guilt (or thinks he isn't), modern man still feels shame if he yields to his
masturbatory desires. A man may feel robbed of his masculinity if he satisfies
himself auto-erotically rather than engaging in the competitive game of woman
chasing. A woman may satisfy herself sexually but yearns for the
ego-gratification that comes from the sport of seduction. Neither the quasi
Casanova nor bogus vamp feels adequate when "reduced" to masturbation for sexual
gratification; both would prefer even an inadequate partner. Satanically
speaking, though, it is far better to engage in a perfect fantasy than to
cooperate in an unrewarding experience with another person. With masturbation,
you are in complete control of the situation.
OMG BIG PENIS ATE MY SOUP
I AM A KARMA WHORE.
Is overclocking considered cheating? I hope the AMD doesn't get hot "under the collar"!
It looks like they are on opposite teams to me.
Instead isn't it better to let the program analyze some given position and compare the search rates in nodes/sec?
Hey everybody complaining about this not being a benchmark... presumably they are going to compare performance such as "AMD Fritz vs. Intel Shredder" against "Intel Fritz vs. AMD Shredder" when the games are all over. Unless the first move for instance contains some random factor the games should be exactly the same, no matter which processor is running the program. So they'll add up how long it takes for each processor to decide to make the same moves. Maybe?
The chess benchmarks are really a test of integer performance, not float. The higher clock speed should win. But since these are dually systems, it will prove who has the best SMP implementation. I think that what they will find is that AMD is now the premier computations CPU. But at least P4 is outstanding in the Q3A benchmarks, truly a consumer CPU. I hope the scientific/computational community takes note and tells INTEL to stick it up their Goatse.cx arse.
My MS-DOS 5/286 Commander Keen is challenging Taco's lesbian Sims running on a Linux
ThinkPad, to a side scrolling mud fight.
What exactly does speed/power have to do with this?
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
all this processing power, and i'm watching two computers too stupid to draw.
move 125! move 126! move 127!
...
move 32489! move 32490!
[insert blue screen of death on both computers here]
Is there an over-riding force to prevent stalemate moves from continuing forever?
It would be much more interesting to see them each perform calculations based on say ten thousand different chess scenarios, and show that side by side in the java applet. This way they are both presented with the same problem solving task.
Right now the games seem to AMD/Shredder vs. Intel/Fritz. Is there going to be a round with AMD/Fritz vs. Intel/Shredder? Any why not have plain AMD/Fritz vs. Intel/Fritz?
Google Translation
A condition for complete regarding of this side is a Java suited Browser with switched on Java. Applet used from us to the representation of the animated chessboard with numerous Web Clients under different operating systems one tested. Incompatibilities with certain Browserkonfigurationen are not to be excluded nevertheless.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; EN-US;q247804
That is _seriously_ funny. One of the best written pieces of documentation for the Linux platform... on how to remove it.
It would be more useful (and more entertaining) if each box were given a battery pack and a set of wheels, and AI to duke it out in the ring.
Somehow, this reminds me of the Rocky movies...ah yes, Intel's P4 clad in patriotic colors as Uncle Sam....
...
this is much better than what's currently on the tv. been watching this 1 game for the past 10 minutes...they have distinct personalities.
at one point they played a game of 'follow-me-around;' quite comical.
too bad I cant read German...
the history of the world
AMD is up 11-7, with 8 stalemates. AMD has 15 points (57.7%) while Intel has 11 (42.3%). I assume the points are some sort of chess match scoring mechanism. I've only had 2 years of rudementary German, so I can't translate the article or anything close.
Note that both programs learn from game to game within each match, but are reset after the match. In the first match, Shredder started very weak and had a steeper learning curve against Fritz. Since in the second match Shredder/AMD already started strong, a landslide victory for this combination appears likely.
Can't wait for Big Blue to rock up and kick both their asses :)
Slashdot takes no responsibility for any injuries that may result from any type of "death match," and does not encourage such activities. The above story is offered for informational purposes only, and is not to be construed as condoning any type of violence.
Slashdot's Attorney
Each side is evaluating moves with a maximum time limit per move. If they make a decision sooner, that's fine. But if the time expires, they just take the best move they've found so far.
In theory, whichever side can evaluate more moves to evaluate the alpha-beta minimax tree to a deeper level within the time allowed _should_ win.
So, in effect, they are evaluating which side can look at more nodes/sec, but taking an average over the entire game, and reducing the answer to a one-or-the-other result instead of a numerical comparison.
Like most benchmarks, all it tells you is how well the benchmark ran. But, I have to admit, this is a pretty novel approach.
I hope neither of these machines is also hosting the web server, because it looks like it just got slashdotted.
:(
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
I have a better idea. Put up two identical websites; one on AMD, one on Intel. Post the links on Slashdot and see which one stays up the longest.
Your $1.00 is 0.98 now. But give or take two more Enrons and you can kiss your sig goodbye ;)
The contest is already running for more than a day, it was not started today:
According to the contest's page the contest was started on June 25th, 5pm local time.
More or less just nitpicking. :-) But
the programs have already played several
dozend matches. (and scored nearly exactly
1:1 the last time I had a look - 29 won by
Athlon, 29 won by Xeon, for example.)
The reason that the counters are at "0" at the moment is that they are being reset at about this time of day everyday.
42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
Top 10 Reasons to Upgrade to Visual Basic NETMicrosoft Visual Basic NET included in Microsoft Visual Studio NET Professional Enterprise Developer and Enterprise Architect editions is the latest version of Visual Basic built specifically for existing Visual Basic developers who want to get the most out of the software development experienceIn addition to more power productivity and application stability Visual Basic NET provides key enhancements that solve the most pressing challenges that Visual Basic developers face today From the new integrated development environment IDE to a modern streamlined Visual Basic language Visual Basic NET delivers the top requested features built for todays Visual Basic developerNumber 1Seamless DeploymentVisual Basic NET solves the most pressing issues around Windowsbased application deployment and makes DLL Hell and component versioning issues a thing of the past New XCOPY deployment enables developers to install a Windowsbased application simply by copying files to a directory With Visual Basic NET and new autodownload deployment Windowsbased applications can be installed and executed simply by pointing a Web browser to a URLNumber 2More Robust CodeVisual Basic NET delivers the feature most requested by existing Visual Basic developersfewer bugs in the code they write Features in the new Visual Studio NET IDE such as the realtime background compiler and the task list keep Visual Basic developers uptodate on any coding errors as they occur enabling quick and effective error resolution Enhancements to the Visual Basic language such as strict type checking and structured exception handling enable developers to write code that is more robust maintainable and less prone to runtime errorsNumber 3Powerful Windowsbased ApplicationsVisual Basic NET is the most productive tool for constructing powerful Microsoft Windowsbased applications The new Windows Forms Designer enables developers to get their desktop applications to market in less time New features include control anchoring and docking to eliminate the need for complex resize code the inplace menu editor to deliver WYSIWYG menu creation and the tab order editor to provide rapid application development RAD organization of controlsNumber 4Powerful Flexible Data AccessVisual Basic NET provides developers with both the ActiveX Data Objects ADO data access programming model that they know and love plus the new XMLbased Microsoft ADONET With ADONET developers gain access to more powerful components such as the DataSet control and a new strongly typed programming model that provides Microsoft IntelliSense statement completion within data access codeNumber 5Simplified Component CreationVisual Basic NET brings RAD to component development Developers can use nonvisual toolbox and server explorer components to easily incorporate resources such as message queues event logs and performance counters into their applications without writing a single line of codeNumber 6Enhanced Control CreationVisual Basic NET provides unprecedented flexibility in building customized user controls Developers can easily extend preexisting user controls and Windows Forms controls as well as design their own controls that generate custom user interfacesNumber 7Complete Direct Access to the PlatformVisual Basic NET provides complete direct access to the Microsoft NET Framework enabling Visual Basic developers to quickly access the registry event log performance counters and file system Visual Basic NET also eliminates the need for declares statements for access to the operating system In addition the new Windows service project template enables rapid application development of real Microsoft Windows NT ServicesNumber 8Integrated Reporting with Crystal ReportsUpgrading to Visual Studio NET Professional Edition or later provides Visual Basic developers with the power of Crystal Reports directly within the IDE Crystal Reports delivers the most productive integrated and RAD experience for creating highly graphical and interactive relational data reports These reports can be generated for the entire array of Visual Basic NET application types including Windows Web and mobile applicationsNumber 9Easy Webbased Application DevelopmentVisual Basic NET delivers Visual Basic for the Web Using new Web Forms you can easily build true thinclient Webbased applications that intelligently render on any browser and on any platform Web Forms deliver the RAD programming experience of Microsoft Visual Basic 60 forms with the full power of Visual Basic NET rather than limited scripting capacity The new HTML designer delivers IntelliSense statement completion for HTML tags and the separation of user interface UI and code enable more efficient teambased developmentNumber 10Existing Investments Carry ForwardVisual Basic NET enables developers to leverage their existing investments in code and skills Windows Forms provides a robust container for Microsoft ActiveX controls Component Object Model COM Interoperability provides bidirectional communication between existing Visual Basic applications and those written with Visual Basic NET The upgrade wizard enables developers to seamlessly migrate up to 95 percent of existing code to Visual Basic NETPut these top 10 features to work in the applications you are building today with Visual Studio NET and Visual Basic NET
-pwpbot
I may not be the best at understanding german, but I can certainly translate this:
... this is even more premature than CNN declaring Gore, then Bush, then Gore, then Bush the winner of Florida ...
Anmerkung zur Runde 1: Fritz/AMD gewinnt geget Shredder/Intel 20 Partien, remiseirte 29 Partien und verliert 22 Partien
into
Noted for round 1: Fritz/AMD won against Shredder/Intel in 20 games, got a draw in 29 games and lost 22 games.
Translating that into points, AMD has 34½ points (20 wins * 1 point/win + 29 draws * ½ point/draw) and Intel has 36½ points (22 * 1 point/win + 29 draws * ½ point/draw).
How is AMD winnning?
And at the moment, that score means nothing, as Shredder could be the better program, but being held back by the Intel CPU, just as Fritz could be the better program being held back by the AMD CPU - we won't know until the bitter end.
Talk about premature conclusions
Next time - learn the language of the article before drawing conclusions.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Teenagers these days don't have as much sex as they want each other to think they do.
A rock/paper/scissors benchmark.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Queen's Rook to Queen's Rook 3.999998456
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Hmm ... next time, I should enable Java in my browser ... hehe
It would appear that at this moment, AMD has 49½ points and Intel has 47½ points. But it's still too early to define a winner.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Off topic, yes - but can someone point me in the direction for the Java Plugin for Mozilla. I just hate to use IE these days.
I didn't know that :)
I just found out my on-line therapist is actually a P4 Xeon 2400. I felt I was getting bad advice from it...
I found a page that has jpgs of the processor and the motherboard, but I couldn't find any mention of the OS or how much RAM they plugged into these guys?
anyone else find ?
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
GO AMD!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...that chess is one of the most computationally intense applications known to man. Assuming you want to plot and evaluate full strategies, that is.
;-)
Mind you, I couldn't even beat the chess program on my Sinclair Spectrum with 48Kbytes of RAM, let alone a modern machine
-psyconaut
In any case, the about 400 games to be played should suffice to find the true chess champion among both dual-processor setups.
all this processing power, and i'm watching two computers too stupid to draw.
Chess has several ko rules that will end the game after no progress. For instance, if twenty-five rounds have passed without a capture or pawn move, or if the same board position has appeared three times, the game is a draw.
Will I retire or break 10K?
article:
---"Who wouldn't like to see a Linux/Windows mine sweeper death match!"
Does a crash count as a withdraw?
Too bad this wasn't on Tom's Hardware instead. Regardless of the winner of the chess match, Tom's would determine the winner by highest frame rate in Battle Chess.
"Despite losing to the AMD, the Intel with the GeForce8 XP 512GB AGPxxx had a frame rate of 1882 FPS. Any chess player would appreciate the 4X anti-aliased graphics of the rook rock-monster pounding the opponent's pawns to pieces."
4 seperate rounds of roughly 55 games day. We've caught it at the beginning of the second day. AMD lost the first day by a couple points 20 wins, 29 ties, and 22 losses. AMD is currently winning the second round as of 8:28PM EST 12-7-9. Everyday they reset the computers (since the programs learn over the course of the day), and switch the programs. Obviously they're going to attempt to fill the product matrix and see which processor performs better with the different programs.
I'm curious to see how the different platforms perform...
How many people ask why this shows which processor is faster.
Hey, people quit complaining about how this is pointless or what-not.
It's just damn cool. I'm interested in the results because, well it's just cool.
Go ahead mod me down. This is "key", people who think this isn't "key"... well they aren't "key". Scornful moderators aren't key.
Get your Unix fortune now!
A huge veneurability has been discovered in the BSD unixes, and Slashdot rejected my submission, so I'm posting it off-topic here.
xBSD has a bug in the resolver library, allowing root access through any program that uses DNS resolution! You will need to install a patch, and then recompile your entier operating system!
See the FreeBSD Security post HERE, or the Pine advisory at HERE
This is not a hoax, do not mod down! Posting anonymously so it doesn't look like I'm karma whoring.
There are AI competitions http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html
-Jon
this is my sig.
Is there an over-riding force to prevent stalemate moves from continuing forever?
See my other comment.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Here are my benchmarks, if the lameness filter lets them by.
:; done
/usr/src/linux; make ; done
/tmp/testfile; done
Lower scores are better.
CPUGigstone:
bash$ time for (( x=1 ; x1000000 ; x++ )); do
NetworkGigstone:
time for (( x=1 ; x100 ; x++ )); do wget www.slashdot.org; done
DeveloperGigstone:
time for (( x=1 ; x10 ; x++ )); do cd
HardDiskGigstone:
time for (( x=1 ; x10 ; x++ )) do; dd if=/dev/urandom of=/tmp/testfile bs=1G count=1; rm
All the benckmarks you will ever need.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I don't know much about chess algorithms, but aren't they exaustive calculations with integers only?
I mean, if we are not using (or using too litle) floating point units, the results of the test can be very biased. And, for financial, scientific, gaming, DTP, etc, FP is very used.
Anyway, this is one of the most fun bench tests I've seen.
Windows and Linux can coexist on the same computer. For additional information, refer to your Linux documentation.
But we won't show you how to do it... OH no...
Who wouldn't like to see a Linux/Windows mine sweeper death match!
Sorry? They're going to play each other in minesweeper?
Karma: T-rexcellent.
They already tried to pit Windows versus Linux in a chess match:
1) the Windows machine refused to make its first move-- Microsoft executives explained later that they shouldn't have to make the first move as this could lead to a compromise of it's security system, thereby leaving its horsey vulnerable to worm attacks.
2) Microsoft later on changed the rules of the chess game citing their freedom to 'innovate' chess, creating new game pieces like 'bazooka' and 'platypus'. Unfortunately, they wouldn't tell anybody else how to use the new pieces or even document that there _were_ new pieces. Once it became apparent that the new pieces were there the Linux camp asked to have them removed but Microsoft refused on the basis that removing the pieces would irretrievably 'break' the game of chess.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
Computers fight it out as only nerds can.
If they are claiming this as a benchmark then it must be that each CPU is given a certain amount to time to make their moves...
That way the test IS measuring speed... Which CPU can dive into the most iterations per X(second, minute?) and thus, win.
So... does this mean that Deep Blue has a better benchmark score than Gary Kasparov?
Fascinating...
PHOOIE! They need to use these machines in ROBOTS and annihilate each other! Now THAT would be a benchmark! moving little pieces two dimensionally, crapola, my olden daze 286 and old macs could do that, we want COOLFACTOR + 10!
Then, the losers human interface need to walk into the disintegration chamber! No gutz, no glory, enough with hding behind the hardware, if these guys are serious, we need COMBAT!
It seems to me that the end result of this would be that it is a stalemate (Draw).
I mean, both AMD and Intel processors can crunch the same amount of data, just not in the same amount of time...
and the other guy's turn kind of depends on how long one person/machine takes...
It proves nothing about chess, as chess is a contest between two human players: highly non-algorythmic tho a 'lie' in chess combat is quickly punished. I hesitate to call it a game, as chess is 'lawfull' - the rules of chess do not produce GOOD chess while the LAWS of chess ( ' can't allow your opponent to grab' ... open files/7th rank/outposts etcetc ... see -My System-) are only marginally related to the rules as every patzer quickly learns.
Chess being a "lawful" , rather than a rule_driven game, some moves are IMPOSSIBLE to compute --- see Godel for details ... BigBlues actions were 'queered' by a dozen, human GMs feeding clues BB could NEVER have found itself .
It's fascinating to see computers already at the point where they are practically players in a spectater sport. The Science Fiction authors of the 60's had it half right: technology has taken over, but not violently. Rather than be dominated by violent, fascist robots, we have chosen to assimilate computers into our very lives.
I'm proud of humanity, and I'm thankful for the visionaries who warned us away from the dark side of technology. I always love a chance to be proud of humanity.
Some things have changed since the 60's, but love of life and nature isn't one of them. I can't wait to see what comes up next...we're all in it together, and the grand finale is right around the corner!
"I'm a rocket man / Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." - Sir Elton John
Your first posts suck! Musical Troll, where are you!?!?!?
Yes, it has a strategy, but if you have perfected the strategy it all boils down to a game of chance, with random odds. It might be a good test for your computer's random number generator but that's about it. (And this happens to be the case on both Linux and Windows, except on Windows you have the added risk that your computer might crash while you're playing.
Dumb asses, benchmarking CPU's for chess playing ability is done ALL THE TIME. Just because it is new to one geek doesn't mean it is news worthy.
I swear...
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
this is retarded...
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
A very basic concept in chess computers is the min-maxing:
At turn n lets say the computer looks 4 turns ahead, including the current (very simple example): The algorithm chooses the most favorable move in its own turns (turn n and n+2), and the least favorable in the opponents turns (turn n+1 and n+3). The best achieveable result possible for a given move is hereby found and stored. When all moves has been examined the one with the highest min-maxing score is chosen.
A very important extension of this principle is pruning (yes it's called that....), which means that after the first move has been analysed completely and the min-maxing score found, the algorithm needs only check other moves until the opponent in his turn (n+1 and n+3 in the example) has the opportunity to chose a move with a worse min-max score. This cuts off whole "branches" of moves to search.
And although you can optimize the choice of which moves to search first (you'll want to search the best moves first, so that you can quickly prune later moves) you can never be sure. And that introduces an element of chance into an otherwise luck-free game.
Of course with the amount of iterations of the algorithm, it's very unlikely that this will not even out.
- Skov
The way computers play chess is almost completely unrelated to real world tasks.
Moves are generated by representing the chess board as a set of 64-bit integers, where each bit of the integer represents a yes/no property of one of the 64 squares (i.e. is this square occupied by a white pawn?). By using boolean algebra on these integers (called bitboards) you can perform most of the operations required very efficiently. For example, to see which white pawns could advance you might take the white pawn bitboard and left shift it by 8 (moving each pawn up one row) then AND that bitboard with the logical NOT of a bitboard with the OR of all the pieces on the board. Does this sound like any day-to-day applications you know of (zero floating-point)? Didn't think so.
In fact the instruction set of most CPUs aren't well suited for some of the more difficult parts of move generation (like bishop, rook, and queen moves), so Deep Blue used specially made "chess chips" from IBM. They probably did more than just move generation, but the details are a little thin.
Beyond move generation, these programs use a very sophisticated set of heuristics to decide which moves should be analyzed first and which lines of play are not worth exploring too deeply. It's these algorithms that make the big difference between one program and another, not hardware.
So, these results will say something about which chipset is better, but it's in a very narrow area that doesn't matter too much.
You make it sound like it was done during the games. No, this was pre-match preparation, and the exact same thing is done by human players in preparing for a match. They also have "seconds," with whom they sit down each night and analyze the day's game. If the game was adjourned, meaning it will be completed the next day, then they analyze that position, too.
Put a bunch of Eraserbots on each machine and let them deathmatch it out.
Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
Seems like a win-win situation: Scenario 1 (AMD loses): "Well, of course, I could have told you AMD was going to lose from the beginning. How could you even think to compare a 2ghz rated cpu with a 2.4ghz one! Duh!" Scenario 2 (AMD wins): "Well, of course, I could have told you AMD was going to win from the beginning. How could you even think that a P4 could compete with advanced Athlon technology! Duh!" Righteous militant Intel-bashers, come forth!
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Subject speaks for itself.
Playing Chess? C'mon.
Why don't we set these boxes up to analyze and plot out the RIAA's next Evil Plan® before even they come up with it. God forbid we actually protect ourselves from Jack the RIAApper.
404 File Not Found
The requested URL (sig) was not found.
That any java applet will cause Mozilla and MSIE to freeze if you give it enough time. Mod me down if you like, but it's true. In my case my browser locked tight after watching 10 moves. I'm using the newest of the new JRE 1.4 plugin.
I've been watching this match on and off for the last couple of hours, and it seems to me, that they have some pretty weird opening moves (as in "non classical") ...
1. d2-d4 Ng8-f6
2. c2-c4 g7-g6
3. g2-g3 Bf8-g7
4. Ng1-f3 0-0
Not having played a lot of chess on time, I'm not entirely sure, if these are regular moves to upset the board quickly - any players willing to venture some guesses?
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
They should involve a PowerPC/Mac and some other CPUs/OSes in the fray. THAT would make an interesting tournament...
You're smoking rock.
Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem: Any adequate axiomatizable theory is incomplete. In particular the sentence "This sentence is not provable" is true but not provable in the theory.
Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem: In any consistent axiomatizable theory (axiomatizable means the axioms can be computably generated) which can encode sequences of numbers (and thus the syntactic notions of "formula", "sentence", "proof") the consistency of the system in not provable in the system
The reason you're smoking rock: Chess is a finite state machine, not an axiomatizable theory.
Chess is not an axiomatic system that is used to prove or disprove statements (an 'axiomatizable theory'). The rules of chess are not an axiomatic system that make statements about number theory or anything else, they are merely rules that can be applied to get from one board position to another. In other words, chess is a finite state machine, with the players deciding what move to make (when it's their turn) to get to the next state. There are, admittedly, a huge number of states, but to apply Godel's theorem you'd have to be able to truthfully say something like 'There is a position in chess which is a legal position, but is not reachable by starting with the initial board position and applying moves". You cannot make this statement truthfully, since if it were unreachable in this fashion, the conceived-of position is not legal.
Code or be coded.
I like the bazooka and the platypus reference.
I got a good laugh.
Oh, come on! That wouldn't even be a challenge. Windows wins hands down... I mean, you stick with what you're good at, right?
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
Windows would win cause their version of Minesweeper has that little bug w/ the pixel in the upper left hand corner of the screen showing you when the mouse is over a bomb!
Dont believe me? fire it up, type xyzzy on your favourite windoze buddy's computer, then press the left shift button..
You might have to refresh the background to get it to work..
-- -=innocent ramblings from the mind of an insomniatic programmer=-
The full install of Fritz 7 includes software to play chess on their Playchess.com servers. What's pertinent to this discussion is the 'Engine Room' area where you can load various chess-playing engines (like Fritz7, Shredder, Gambit Tiger, Junior et al...) and have your computer play someone else's computer. Generally, the person with the faster computer (and/or better engine, though most use Fritz7) has a much higher chance of winning. My computer (Athlon XP 2000+, GB of RAM [500mb for hash tables]) has played over 1200 games there (you can leave it unattended, so no I don't sit through all those games :P ) and is usually near the tops of the rankings. With tens of thousands of games being played daily there between engines, and considering the results support the 'faster computer wins, all engines being equal' theorem, statistical laws should help support the argument that chess IS a test of CPU might.
I'm certainly not advocating Anand's or Tom's or whoever should drop explicitly empirical benchmarks in favor of chess, but personally, doesn't a bit of direct machine competition throw a bit of fun (dare I say) into the whole 'this hardware is better than that hardware' (in this case, MP's and Xeons) benchmarking struggle?
Black is, of course, king's indian defense
What if I was playing chess on the bed and someone came and jumped on the bed and knocked some of the pieces onto the covers?
Huh, what kind of move is that, huh? Knight to pillow3? Not illegal like I'm going to get thrown in jail (I hope, chess is strict).
What does Goody-Godel have to say about that?
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
linux is usless as a desktop OS. period. it will never go to mainstream, and for good reason. im sure we all already agree on that. then lets look at the other opportunities linux has...as a server utility.
e b
o mp arisons/comparisons/nt4vlinux.asp
http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html#w
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/ProductInfo/C
rite there. end all debate. look at the god-damn facts. linux sux, period, the only reason i check this site is b/c on the rare occasion that they actualy do have a usfull piece of news, they have it like 5 days before any other typical source, and there is lots of intelegent conversation about it. too bad you fat open source morons are too fuckin ignorant to realize that you're wasting your time on this linux bullshit.
Who could win in an armwrestling match, Linus or Bill?
is it just me, or after a few pabsts, is this the best excitement on a wed. night...
Why not just set both computers to count in integers from 1 upgwards and see which reaches googol first.
If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
Interesting, but makes me think. Let's redefine the meaning of TRUE for a chess game to equal any state that does not per se contradict the rules, and FALSE to equal all other states. False states include, e.g., kings next to each other or all states containing any other number than exactly one king of each color on the board (I am considering chess to be a machine where each of the 64 variables can hold any single value for the group Empty, and pawn, horse, bishop, castle, queen, king of either color (there are thus 17**64 or the order of 1e78 states altogether). Furthermore, let's call the starting position of a chess play an axiom (it's the only one in this case). Now we can construct, starting from this axiom, other true statements (quite a large number of them, actually). However, there is also a large number of both true and false statements which cannot be reached from the axiom by applying the rules of chess. Let's consider some examples.
In any case, I do not think that one needs to take such a vehemently personal take on the topic. This is an interesting issue that I would like to discuss in a civilized manner (as people who have both played their share of chess and read enough Godel (and other mathematics as well)).
I'm a workaholic on withdrawal - and working hard not to relapse - comic-not
Existence usually comes as a surprise (Idem)
Sorry, 13**64 or 1e71. My mind was wandering. Anyway, the insight that Godel gave was exactly that although "King at E3, all other in their initial positions" is "illegal" since it cannot be reached by valid moves, it is still a "statement" of chess and as such an unprovable one.
Existence usually comes as a surprise (Idem)
Let me give you a bell! whatever!
First of all, chess programs don't use floating point calculation, so this aspect is not compared.
Second, there are chances Fritz is optimized for the Intel. It's proprietary so we don't know but Fritz is known for having parts of it written in assembler, and these are surely optimized for Pentium.
Bye the way, wouldn't it have been simpler to just run the Fritz benchmark on both machines?
-- 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Sc3 de4: 4.Se4: Sd7 5.Sg5 Sgf6 6.Ld3 e6 7.S1f3 h6 8.Se6:
Personally, I'm looking forward the Intel Shredder vs. AMD Leonardo, Donatello, Raphael and Michaelangelo.
Will the rooks look like Technodromes? Will Krang (?) play the king? April could definitely be the queen, although it's a bit of a wierd combination with Splinter, who'd have to be the other king..
Game on!
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your 0.02, so :P
.9832-37 (ask/bid), moving towards parity. Time to change your sig? :-)
EUR/USD currently at
This same test run on 2 identical machines, identically configured ( OK, you could use a tag or something to diferentiate among them :-) ) . If any one wins more than 50%, the test is crap.
They should make them bots on an unreal tourny 2k3 server. That would be pretty sweet.
As far as I can tell this isn't proving anything about the two processors since they are both running separate chess AIs.
There's no way to tell whether it's the processor power or the AI that's determining who's winning.
Je mange maise souffle dans le salle de bain avec mon chien.
The rules is 50 moves without a pawn move or a capture, not 25.
Yes, IAATD (I Am A Tournament Director)
What I wanna know is... How the hell did AMD Fritz lose Game 4 with 3 pawns, a knight and the king against a pawn and king from Intel Fritz?
Duh... my faith in AMD is waning!
Unfortunately, the whole affair came to an abrupt end today when some bigger, more popular computers beat up the nerdy chess computers.
The rules is 50 moves without a pawn move or a capture, not 25.
Fifty moves (as you said) equals 25 rounds (as I said), right?
Will I retire or break 10K?
current scores:
Fritz/AMD wins 20, draws 29 and loses 22 games
Shredder/AMD wins 26, draws 22 and loses 23 games
Fritz/Intel wins 27, draws 42 and loses 18 games
There is also a flash version available.
Linux - where do you want to be tomorrow?
True enough, and then Godel's theorem would apply, to the axiomatic system that you just defined. However, that system is -not- the game of chess, you grok? It would be an axiomatizable theory based on the rules of chess, but any true but unprovable statement in your axiomatic theory would -not be a legal position- in chess. All legal positions in chess are reachable via the rules, since the rules are what defines a legal position. Therefore, no positions _impossible_ to calcucate (however, there is the practicality issue)
I wasn't taking a vehemently personal stance, I was vehemently disagreeing - the 'you're smoking rock' bit wasn't intended as a personal attack but as an emphasis of my position, I apologize if it was taken in another manner.
Code or be coded.
If you brought a bed in to play chess on at a ;)
:)
tournament, and jumped on it, the judges would
probably either kick you out or make you walk up to the scoreboard and mark yourself a loss
Thanks for the laugh, i enjoyed it.
Code or be coded.