Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 12:53:32 09/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
>>>(1) deep thought (deep blue's direct predecessor) was the first (and only) >>>program to produce a 2650+ performance result, playing games only against GM >>>players, at 40 moves in 2 hours only for the time control. It did this over 25 >>>consecutive games (intervening games could not be ignored if the result was >>>bad). No other program has yet accomplished this. >>> >> >>This was impressive 10 years ago, but today any commercial program (and probably >>a fair number of amateurs) could easily accomplish this feat running on ordinary >>hardware. >> > >Why haven't we seen it happen? Note I am not talking about the much faster time >controls we have seen more of lately. But real 40 moves in 2 hours. I don't >believe _any_ program today could pull this off on "ordinary" hardware. They >would be hard-pressed using very high-end (say quad opteron) systems... > There are so many examples it's hard to know where to begin. I'll just list a few. Chess Tiger 14 - Argentina 2001 - 2788 performance rating (P3-866) http://www.rebel.nl/resu.htm Shredder 7 - Argentina 2003 - 2753 performance rating. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1111 Shredder 9 - Argentina 2005 - 2758 performance rating. (P4-3500) http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=2538 And many more. (Note this article was written in 2003) http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1141 >>>(3) deep blue was 100x faster than deep thought 2, with more chess knowledge >>>than deep thought 2, and this is the box that beat Kasparov in a 6 game match. >>> >>>It is certainly possible that todays fastest computers, running today's best >>>commercial programs, are playing at an equal level when compared to deep blue, >>>although the Kramnik/etc matches were played at faster time controls generally, >>>than 40 moves in 2 hours. But at best the best micros of today are maybe as >>>strong as the 1997 deep blue system. Far from being far superior to it. Based >>>solely on the observations given above. Each of which can easily be verified >>>multiple ways... >> >> >>I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that DB '97 is an upper bound for >>the strength of todays micros. It certainly doesn't follow from the >>"observations given above". >> > > >The GM results of 2M nodes per seconds, vs the DB hardware 100X faster. What PC >today could do better than a 2650 performance against GMs at 40/2??? > Every single commercial and probably at least the top 5 amateurs. -Peter
This page took 0.01 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.