Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 14:00:07 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 11:49:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 26, 2004 at 11:24:58, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>On January 26, 2004 at 09:33:41, Robert Hyatt 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. >>> >>>Fine. That is an opinion I don't agree with. But since there is no way to test >>>the hypothesis, it is not worth the long argument. >>> >>>>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. >>> >>> >>>You _do_ know that deep thought, _not_ deep blue, but deep thought produced >>>a 2650+ performance over 25 consecutive 40 moves in 2 hours games against GM >>>competition to win the last second Fredkin prize? >> >>It was pretty weak nevertheless. It was not at all near 2650 level. >>Many of those GMs didn't know anything about its significant weaknesses. >>Deep Thought II played 1991 in Hannover against several German IMS and GMs. >>It scored 3.5/7. >>That was not even close to a 2650 performance. > >And your point would be? I have played games with versions of my program >that were simply terrible, due to bugs and so forth. They had their share. > >But the Fredkin prize left little doubt, IMHO. 25 _consecutive_ games played >over a year+, counting only games against GM players, games that were at least >40 moves in two hours + 20 moves in one hour. Whatever happened in various >things they did, you can _not_ play 25 consecutive games against varied GM >players and pull off a 2650 without being _good_. Or do you really believe that >a weak human player could do that also? I don't... Assume you could play a large number of games against strong human opponents with 1. Crafty 19.09 on the Quad Opteron 2. Chess Genius 1.5 on a Pocket PC (400 Mhz) The humans don't get any information about program and hardware. I would expect both programs to score well. Maybe Craftys performance would be 50 ELO better. If you match both computers Chess Genius would lose badly of course. Performances against humans are a weak argument. The initial posting was about computer-computer games. That is something entirely different. > > >> >>[D] 1r1q1rk1/pp1b1ppp/3p4/2pBpP2/P2nP3/2NP2P1/1PP2R1P/R1Q3K1 b - - 0 15 >> >>Any strong program that does not avoid Bc6 in some ms? > > >Again, the point would be? Pick _any_ program and look at 10 of its games. And >pose the question "any program that would avoid this terrible move?" And you >will get a dozen answers, including answers from programs that have no chance at >all of beating the program in question... Well, King safety is very important. The most important factor in chess of course. Deep Thought would IMHO lose badly to Shredder 8 or Deep Junior 8 on a mere 2Ghz PC. Deep Blue might be the sole exception. From a humans point of view todays top programs are strategical clearly stronger. Should be more important than Deep Blues possible tactical superiority. Michael > > >> >>[Event "Hanover"] >>[Site "Hanover"] >>[Date "1991.??.??"] >>[Round "7"] >>[White "Tischbierek, Raj"] >>[Black "Deep Thought II"] >>[Result "1-0"] >>[ECO "B23"] >>[PlyCount "44"] >>[EventDate "1991.05.??"] >> >>1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nge2 e5 4. Nd5 d6 5. Nec3 Nge7 6. Bc4 Nxd5 7. Bxd5 Be7 >>8. d3 Nd4 9. O-O Bh4 10. f4 O-O 11. f5 Rb8 12. a4 Bd7 13. g3 Bg5 14. Rf2 Bxc1 >>15. Qxc1 Bc6 16. f6 gxf6 17. Qh6 Qb6 18. Qxf6 Be8 19. Raf1 Qxb2 20. Qg5+ Kh8 >>21. Nd1 Qb4 22. c3 Qa3 1-0 >> >>[D] r1r3k1/1q1n1p1p/p2Q2pb/3Rp3/P1p1P3/1P3P2/5BPP/4KB1R w K - 0 22 >> >>How long does it take Crafty to avoid 22.bxc4? > >Perhaps more important: How long would it take Crafty to play all the other >_good_ moves they played there? > > > >> >>[Event "Hanover"] >>[Site "Hanover"] >>[Date "1991.??.??"] >>[Round "6"] >>[White "Deep Thought II"] >>[Black "Wahls, Matthias"] >>[Result "0-1"] >>[ECO "E86"] >>[PlyCount "56"] >>[EventDate "1991.05.??"] >> >>1. d4 d6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 Nf6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 e5 7. Nge2 c6 8. Qd2 >>Nbd7 9. d5 cxd5 10. Nxd5 Nxd5 11. Qxd5 Nb6 12. Qb5 Bh6 13. Bf2 Be6 14. Nc3 Qc7 >>15. b3 Nd7 16. Qb4 a6 17. Rd1 Rfc8 18. Nd5 Bxd5 19. Rxd5 b5 20. a4 bxc4 21. >>Qxd6 Qb7 22. bxc4 Bf8 23. Qxd7 Qb4+ 24. Rd2 Rd8 25. Qxd8 Rxd8 26. Be3 Bc5 27. >>Bg5 Rd6 28. Ke2 Rxd2+ 0-1 >> >>Michael >> >> So thinking that its >>>successor, which was 100x faster, would lose badly to today's programs is simply >>>logic that I can't follow. There is absolutely _no_ basis to make such a wild >>>leap of faith. >>> >>>For the record, Cray Blitz, in 1980, had a USCF rating of 2300. Running exactly >>>one thousand nodes per second. Be careful of what you write if you are not sure >>>of your facts. In this case you are simply wrong.
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.