Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:40:48 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2004 at 23:26:30, Mark Young 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. > >Hello Bob, > >I have a question.. > >Since we do have the games of the old retired giants. Is it valid to use todays >top programs to play over the positions of the old programs like Cray-blitz or >Deeper Blue. Would such data be valid when trying to compare the old >super-computers to todays top programs. I don't know. This is _not_ an easy issue to address. For example, if a modern program finds a mistake in an old deep thought game, what does that mean? Does it mean that the modern program would also find the good moves they played back then? Does it mean that the modern program would not make some other totally ugly move that would result in a loss? I'm not sure I would know how to take an old game and try to determine how that machine would do in today's computer chess competition. My main basis for the opinion I hold is that deep thought produced a 2650 rating against GMs in long games. In 1992 or so, 12 years ago. To "crush" deep though would require a rating 400+ points better. We don't have any 3000+ computers today, and likely won't for a _long_ while. > >I have seen this done on CCC before, but I am not sure if this kind of >comparison is valid. I guess that there is a chance that something could be learned, but it would take a _lot_ of work, because just finding one better move does not mean that program would play better...
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.