Author: Theo van der Storm
Date: 10:03:44 08/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2001 at 07:46:55, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 09, 2001 at 07:12:11, Tanya Deborah wrote: >>Is really Deep Fritz running in 8 processors stronger that Deep Blue (97)??? > >I believe that it is stronger. >>.. >>I think that if Deep Fritz could see 500 millions nodes per second, Kramnik will >>be dead. > >I do not agree. >I expect 4.5-3.5 for kramnik in this case. > >I expect Deep Fritz to win in this case if kramnik has no previous games of the >program but this is not the case in this match. > >> >>And why i find an article that said that Deep Fritz 7 recently beat Deep Blue, >>the same machine that beat Kasparov in 1997. It is true????? Where i can find >>the games?? > >I understand that it is not true and it is one of the wrong facts that >newspapers published. >I believe that they translated words in the wrong way and they translated the >speculation that Deep Fritz is better than Deeper blue to the claim that Deep >Fritz beated Deeper blue. > >Uri I expect Kramnik to win. Some advantages can make a big difference in required computing power for a certain level of play. Depth-exponential gains are to be found here. This is about move-ordering, selection of "interesting moves" and quality of the evaluation function, so the difference between the two is probably not as big as you would expect from the computing power. The difference in playing strength between single processor Fritz and other known programs is not very high, so I dare to rate their success in the potential advantages mentioned above only as "somewhat successful". My conclusion: I think it's very unlikely that Deep Fritz '1 is stronger than Deep Blue '97. The confusion, or any other word you wish to use for it, about Fritz beating Deep Blue goes back to this single game. [Event "WCC95"] [Site "Hong Kong"] [Date "1995.05.29"] [Round "05"] [White "Deep Blue Junior"] [Black "Fritz"] [Result "0-1"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 f4 13.O-O Rg8 14.Kh1 Rg6 15.Qd1 Rc8 16.c4 Qh4 17.g3 Qh3 18.Qd2 f3 19.Rg1 Rh6 20.Qxh6 Qxh6 21.cxb5 Bxd5 22.exd5 Nb4 23.Bf5 Rc5 24.bxa6 Nxa6 25.Nc2 Qd2 26.Ne1 Rxd5 27.Nxf3 Qxf2 28.Be4 Ra5 29.Rg2 Qe3 30.Re1 Qh6 31.Bc6+ Kd8 32.a3 f5 33.Rc2 Rc5 34.Rxc5 Nxc5 35.Rf1 Be7 36.a4 f4 37.gxf4 Qxf4 38.Rg1 Nxa4 39.b4 Qxb4 0-1 The important info to note is: "1995", meaning 2 years of significant IBM Research work-effort earlier and "Junior", meaning: single processor. Theo van der Storm
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.