Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:22:33 01/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 16:10:28, David Dory wrote: >On January 26, 2004 at 04:22:47, Rolf Tueschen 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. >> >>Hence - if you take away opening book standard and tablebases of these modern >>days? We have the same dumbness, no?! >> >>Rolf > >I wouldn't be near that harsh, Rolf! While I think a great deal of advances in >CC have been due to the tremendous increase in hardware, I do believe that the >accumulated tweaks in code over the years, do add up to a better program. > >But every modern program checks thousands of nodes (or millions) to judge the >next move. Such (nearly) brute force type programs are blind and hence left >dumb, without the ability to visit all these nodes in the game tree. > >Dave Thanks, I understood after I read your answer to Mark. Rolf
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.