Author: David Dory
Date: 12:46:13 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 04:30:06, Mark Young 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. > >I'm not sure this is correct. > >It seems to be clear higher standards of programming have change that. Run some >Nolot positions for example with todays programs. You will find a few positions >solved in seconds with the correct key move, and line of play with high scores, >that DT took minutes or hours to find. > >This covers just the tactical end... Positionally the programs of today seem >much better, with much slower hardware. > >> >>Dave Think of the VERY old chess programs - they used a very selective search, no iterative deepening, no null move, and, since most of the programmers weren't strong chess players, rather weak positional eval. Now look at the new chess programs. Say after Slate & Atkins's CHESS 4.6. The real improvements have been pretty limited on the software side. Null move and rotated bitboards and better pruning are the only 3 basic improvements to chess engines I can think of right now. I don't count TB's because that's usually another program, altogether. Lots of tweaking with better understanding of passed pawns, etc., and those DO make for a stronger program, but the basic chess software algorithim hasn't changed much since CHESS 4.6 days. And if the computer can't evaluate the nodes with Alpha-Beta, in a pretty darn exhaustive manner, the program won't know a toadstool from a pecan pie. That's what I mean by being blind means being dumb to a chess program. Even with A-B cutoffs, thousands or millions of nodes must be "seen" before the program can find out anything about a position. 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.