Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 00:37:23 01/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2004 at 22:09:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 26, 2004 at 17:00:07, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>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. > >I would expect it to be much worse, myself. GM players are not to be laughed at >for their tactics. I believe that then can quickly "feel" how well tactically >the program is playing and adjust on-the-fly if they feel it is not very >tactically aware... In a single game? Impossible This might be true if they would play quite a few games in a row against the same program. > >> >>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. > >One thing is pretty sure, a program that plays pretty equally with another >program when they are pitted against GM players is _not_ going to smash the >other program. It might _beat_ it, but not _smash_ it. Particuarly when we >also have lots of data about how well DT did against computers up through 1994. > Assume you would match an old crafty version on the 200 Mhz machine with Crafty 19.10 on the Quad. Now that would be a pretty onesided match. I would call this a smash. But Crafty scored already well against GM opponents back in 1996. > > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>[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. > >:) > >Remember that Hsu talked about the DB king safety advantage over the commercial >programs of 1996/1997? He _specifically_ mentioned that their king safety was >not up to the standard of DB and that led to the really bad results that all >programs were reported to have against them in their lab, against a crippled >processor version of DB, including yours truly... > Have you ever seen one of those Deep Junior games where it spotted a decisive King vulnerability 5 full moves before the opponent saw the 0.00 score (and after another 3 full moves a losing score)? > > > > >> >>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 >> > >Except no one has said Deep Blue was strategically inferior either. The second >game was uniformly praised (game 2 match 2) as the best strategic game ever >played by a computer, and of such high quality as to be as good as any GM game >ever played, strategically. > This game is highly overrated. The opening variation was ideal for any computer program. Deep Blue just made normal moves that improved its position. Black had no chance to get a dynamic counter play. At the end Deep Blue even almost spoiled it. 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.