Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 12:14:58 01/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2004 at 09:57:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 27, 2004 at 03:37:23, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>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. > >You might say impossible, but I have seen it happen. One case in point was a >couple of years ago, I had a bug that on rare occasions would leave a Crafty >process running after a game, even though a new instance of Crafty was fired off >by xboard. 8 threads does not work well with the assumptions I have made in my >parallel search, and crafty was playing very weakly due to some 3-4-5 ply >searches. I watched a GM start a game, and by move 25 he was playing _way_ more >aggressively than normal and he won, as he did in the next couple of games. I >looked to see what was wrong, found the extra crafty running and killed it. In >the next game he eased up on the wild stuff once the game was underway. > >I view it as trying to push an unknown object around. You can quickly tell how >hard it is pushing back and adjust your strategy... Chess Genius plays reasonable chess moves in normal positions. Even on a Pocket PC. It's a _very_ tough opponent of course if you don't try to attack it with a suitable opening variation. Crafty 19.09 "kills" my Chess Genius (PC) with the typical calm but strong positional play. Michael > >> >>> >>>> >>>>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. > >Not the same thing. Current Crafty would score _significantly_ better against >the same pool of GM players. And it would score significantly better against >the old crafty/hardware. That was my point. I can't imagine a circumstance >where two programs play humans and produce similar results but play each other >and the result is way lop-sided. One could certainly be more anti-human, but it >is not going to get killed by the other program if they both play GM players at >a similar result level. > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>[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)? > >Yes, and I have seen games where it didn't see what was coming until it was too >late, as well. It's a fine line for balancing something and it can fall either >way... I can recall at least one game within the last year against Crafty, >where Crafty was losing at around -3.5, but Junior (some copy on ICC) played a >move and my score rose to 0.00 very quickly. And later Junior's dropped to 0.00 >as it was definitely a deep repetition draw... That happens... both ways... > > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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 > >I'll gently remind you it is the _only_ match against computers that K has lost. > :) That's not a bad accomplishment under any circumstances... > > > > > >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>[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.