Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:36:30 04/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 1998 at 21:13:32, Howard Exner wrote: >On April 23, 1998 at 20:12:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 23, 1998 at 09:20:34, Don Gaetke wrote: >> >>> >>>On April 23, 1998 at 08:13:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 22, 1998 at 23:56:17, Don Gaetke wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>On April 22, 1998 at 22:10:34, Joe McCarron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I wonder what computer and software will be the first Chess World >>>>>>Champion. Does anyone want to venture a guess when that will be? >>>>>>Evidently IBM has no interest in trying to attain the title for deep >>>>>>blue. >>>>>> >>>>>>in response to your post If we had better data on how well micros do >>>>>>against GM's, then the answer to the current poll question would provide >>>>>>the answer to your poll question. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is beyond my unserstandign why we don't have better information on >>>>>>how well these computers do against GM's. I mean we all know IBM was >>>>>>afraid to play Deep blue against GM's more regularly but these other >>>>>>software programs would seem to jump at the chance to butt heads with >>>>>>GM's. What is the hold up? >>>>> >>>>>In DBll's case as with the previous programs DB,DTll, and DT, there has >>>>>always been a strong need to keep things "hush, hush", in order to have >>>>>the greatest chance to prove the point that IBM had something unique >>>>>among computers. It was not advantageous to disclose any performance >>>>>than was absolutely neccessary. >>>>> >>>>>It may yet be that the micro's will threaten the esteem of IBM's not so >>>>> minor accomplishment. After all if a PC can beat any top 5 player in >>>>>the world in a real match, then it takes away from IBM's SuperComputing >>>>>achievement in the eyes of the general public. >>>>> >>>>>Don >>>>> >>>>>P.S. CCC is such a breath of fresh air. :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>A couple of points: (1) Until the "IBM" days, information about the >>>>internals was readily available. A chapter of a book here, a journal >>>>article there... chiptest/deep thought/deep thought 2 and so forth were >>>>well written-up. (2) today, there's little chance of a micro beating a >>>>top-5 GM in a match. It is unlikely in a single game, unless the match >>>>is long enough (and I'm *not* talking about blitz games, there they have >>>>a chance).. >>> >>>Actually, I was referring to the "performance" on the board. >>>Information on DeepeBlue2 as a chess player has been scant, which is >>>consistant with the overall history of the project. >>> >>>Average GM's are already threatened today at tournament level, in 6 >>>months to a year the top 5 will be as well thanks to some serious speed >>>increases just over the horizon. >>> >>>Don >> >> >> >>IMHO, you should change 6 months to a year to 6-10 years. The Micros >>are *not* a factor of two away from playing evenly with GM players yet. >>Not even close... >> >>We already have a PII/400 at the office. Intel says 450 late this >>year, and (possibly) Merced next year. We already have machines as >>fast as merced... they are spelled "alpha"... no one's *close* to a >>GM yet... > >IMHO you should change "no one's *close* to GM yet" to no one's >close to a super GM yet. I believe that the top micro's on this fast >hardware >play at a weak GM level (2450 - 2550). at faster time controls, yes. at 40/2, no. not yet... an occasional win will happen. but when you see a "top micro" get squashed by a USCF master, you *know* it is not a GM. GM's don't lose to masters very often... yet on ICC these programs lose to them on a regular basis... except that the "operators" won't play such a player more than once...
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.