Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:36:12 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 04:34:54, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >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. >> >>Dave >I encourage you to read Vincent Diepeeveens threads on this subject.He is a >1.Fidemaster (unlike most posters here) 2.A chess programmer (unlike most people >here who are endusers of products).Furthermore an American chess program >has NEVER been no1. on the SSDF list .All current Commercial programs are from >Europe.Makes me wonder about things like Deep Blue ....Just an intuitive feeling I suppose you notice that Vincent has _never_ been number one on the SSDF either, so the fact that I have not is hardly a kiss of death. As far as your "number one on the SSDF" who cares? No "big iron" program was _ever_ on the SSDF, but I doubt any program in the first 10 years of the SSDF could win more than one random game out of 25 against the "big iron" programs... Your logic is _sorely_ lacking, as are your facts... >..........
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.