Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 01:22:47 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 03:54:04, David Dory wrote: >On January 26, 2004 at 02:14:39, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: > >>On January 25, 2004 at 21:38:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 25, 2004 at 20:04:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>- - in a famous German forum the kids are on the streets and they shout: >>>> >>>>These old-fashioned Cray Blitz and Deep Blue monuments won't be "disqualified" >>>>by their authors with actualized Elo numbers. >>>> >>>>Is that true? Would these legends lose badly against today's elite of >>>>computerchess programs? >>>> >>>>I'm waiting! >>>> >>>>Rolf >>> >>> >>>I don't believe _any_ of them would "lose badly". Any "super-program" from deep >>>thought through Cray Blitz would be very tough opponents for today's programs. >>>However, hardware is beginning to catch up. Someone just pointed out on a chess >>>server last night that this quad opteron system I have is about the same speed >>>as the Cray T90 I ran on in 1995, in terms of raw nodes per second (6-7M back >>>then, 7-8M typically on the quad opteron). So it is now probable that Crafty >>>could actually win a match from Cray Blitz on a T90 with 32 CPUs, assuming I use >>>the quad opteron. My quad xeon 700 got ripped by the same machine a couple of >>>years back, however, so it would still be dangerous. >>> >>>I can't say much about how it would compare to other commercial programs as I >>>didn't run those tests with very little test time to play with the T90. >>> >>>The superiority of today's programs over the super-computers of 1995 are mainly >>>mythical, IMHO. I suspect the games would be a _lot_ more interesting than some >>>would believe. Of course, there is little chance to test such a hypothesis >>>since most old programs are long-retired, and such hardware is not readily >>>available today. >>I disagree.DeepBlue would get slaughtered ;by todays top commercial programs. >>It is known that standards in the midninties were not very high compared to >>today.I think you over estimate Nodes per second for some reason.For instance >>chess Tiger on Palm has a respectable SSDF rating of 2101 searching about >>only 200 positions per second on the palm.A decade ago at such low NPS it was >>inconceivable to get such rating. > >This is the question, then. Did Deep Blue meet the standards of the 90's or did >DB blow the lid off those 90's standards? > >I believe the latter. > >Robert probably "overestimes" node per second because he's old enough to >remember when those n/s were quite low - and how much that restricted the search >horizon. The chess programs were almost blind to the game. Indeed, in early >matches, the authors would agree to simply quit playing because their programs >just couldn't "understand" the end game. No table bases remember, and inadequate >search speed to find any way to make progress. > >A "blind" chess program is a dumb chess program, and no "higher standards" of >programming will change that. Hence - if you take away opening book standard and tablebases of these modern days? We have the same dumbness, no?! Rolf > >Dave
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.