Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:47:41 09/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2005 at 16:23:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 20, 2005 at 15:53:32, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>>>>(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. > >None of those address my point. If you play in N tournaments, and pick one, you >can get most any sort of TPR you want. If you play nothing but GM players, and >I do mean _no_ IM/FM/lower players, and you play 25 consecutive games, counting >each and every one, a 2650+ is really a daunting task. > >I won't say none of these programs can do that. I will say that none have >_done_ it yet. The fredkin prize was specifically structured to require 25 >games so that a single tournament could not be used, for the reason given above. > >So your examples, while certainly amazing enough, are not (yet) in the same >category as what a 1992 special-purpose piece of hardware did. We are now 15 >years beyond the point where DT2 was put together in 1990. > >Secondly, while not being sure, I do not believe all the events given below are >40/2. Some certainly are, particularly those Ed was doing in his GM challenge. >But most tournaments have gone to faster time controls. And in one of the >listed cases, the games were mixed. Two slow, two faster, two faster still, >etc. Nobody doubts that computers can produce 3000+ ratings at blitz. They >have already done it and have been doing it for several years now.; Some points: 1)I think that comparison against humans at different times is a problem because it is possible that humans learned to play better and getting performance of 2650 in 1994 was easier than getting performance of 2650 today. The only right comparison is comparison against computers or comparison against humans at the same time. 2)Computers can do better at blitz but it is not obvious that slower time control always help humans. Remember that humans get tired and computers do not get tired. It is possible for example that fischer time control like 90+30 may be better for part of the humans relative to 120/40 when they play against computers also for another reason. I know that at least there are humans who do not use time in a logical way and get into serious time trouble and 90+30 may force them to use time in a more logical way. <snipped> >>>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 is speculation. Since it has _not_ been done yet. My point. DT did it 13 >years ago. And its "big brother" was 100X faster than that. Do you _really_ >think it was a patzer??? Or something pretty remarkable for its time (or for >any time, really)? I think that 100x faster is also a speculation. I know that DB added extensions to DT because they believed that extensions are more important than additional depth. It is possible that the extensions were counter productive and practically did DB to be equivalent to 20 times faster than DT instead of 100 times faster in terms of playing strength. Uri
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.