Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:27:15 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 04:19:03, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 have seen this done on CCC before, but I am not sure if this kind of >>comparison is valid. > >What do you mean with valid? - > >It depends of what you want to find out. > >Think for yourself if a position from tournament play could really be taken in >analysis mode for a comparison in 'strength'. I would say yes and no. Overall >yes but in detail you must consider that the time management is important for >the found solutions. So, if on that aspect today's level is higher developped >(time spent pro specific _chess_ position) you will get different answers. But >it doesn't mean neccessarily that today is 'stronger' than past what the ability >of the past is concerned. > >Alone the idea that you can take single position from a game and then make >comparisons is problematic. Because trivially you dont have the results of the >old ones in analysis mode too. For a specific position. > >Hence - I would say that such comparisons and direct conclusions on "the" >strength differences are not valid. With one caveat, perhaps I'm just too >unexperienced to know that you can fake tournament mode and all of the past with >the actual progs. Only that would allow comparisons - supposed you can fake the >same opponent from the past too. ;) > >But think of the possibility that actual progs wouldn't attain such positions. >But if they go for different positions, how could you know how the ancient progs >would play? Problems over problems. > >[For human chess the answer is clear! Solving a chess position is NOT the same >as if you play the same position in a game. Would you really have that position >on the board / in your mind before? So here you see the key point. With such >position solving you can emulate a much higher strength than you really could >achieve in tournament play. For human chess the most difficult is to achieve a >winning position and then technically win it. In computerchess you always have >the difficulty if a program knows what is crucial in a specific position, >crucial in terms of winning. It would be interesting to compare the different >historical periods on such aspects - for example.] > > >Rolf Yes, that sounds right. Even if the times taken in the old games were duplicated, there is still the difficulty in duplicating the contents of hash tables. Incidentally, I do not know what the "old" machines used for hash tables. Bob D.
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.