Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: LCT II Fin4, Deep Thought, and Deep Blue (was Re: LCT II results...)

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 11:37:25 01/07/98

Go up one level in this thread

On January 07, 1998 at 14:20:05, Don Dailey wrote:

>On January 07, 1998 at 06:24:02, Amir Ban wrote:
>>On January 06, 1998 at 20:10:07, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>This I don't follow.  What micro has beaten a GM in 40/2?  In a match
>>>of 40/2?  What micro has beaten as many GM's as DB in anything
>>>blitz, where most micros do ok at times)...
>>Are you joking ? This is happening all the time nowadays. I didn't
>>count, but I think the most numbers of computer wins over GM's at full
>>time come from Aegon. There's also Rebel-Yusupov, and I think I remember
>>at least one time with Fritz  (Glek ?). My own contribution is Gofshtein
>>(1994) and Kossashvili (1996). There are only several GM-computer games
>>played each year, but the computers have decent percentages, which is
>>not surprising since they are playing at the strong-IM/GM level
>>Matches ? There weren't any. OK, there was Rebel-Yusupov, and
>>Junior-J.Polgar (which I lost). These things don't happen because
>>there's no money. The truth is that there was only one company that
>>would put up a million dollars to drag the world champion to its back
>>yard, and even it lost interest now. I know from experience that even a
>>few thousand dollars is next to impossible to get. We are trying to
>>organize a Polgar rematch without success for two years, and there are
>>plans to organize a Junior-Alterman match which proceed smoothly until
>>money is discussed.
>>Most GM wins at non-blitz ? I have eight: Gofshtein, Bikhovsky, Har-Zvi
>>(twice), Liss, Finkel, J.Polgar, Kossashvili, plus a few draws including
>I wanted to respond to this one too.  I do believe Deep Blue is better
>than all the micros's but I don't believe that the very best micros
>are very far behind.   I think there are folks who believe Deep Blue
>is thousands  of points stronger than the best micros but this seems
>on the high side to me.   Their record is good, they consistantly place
>somewhere near the top in every event they play in and they beat
>in a short match.  All the real evidence (hard stuff not anecdotes and
>2nd hand stories) puts them well above where everone else was a year
>or two ago.  The latest match is more evidence that they are better,
>I just wish it was more than 6 games.   My impression was that the
>match was close (although for some reason it's being remembered as
>a crushing win for Deep Blue) and it's not hard to believe that a top
>micro MIGHT get a very short match to be close too.  I say MIGHT
>because I believe it is less likely than Deep Blue doing it.

a couple of points.  #1, since chiptest hit the street, they have won
*over* nine of every ten games against computers at ACM and WCCC events.
you can figure out what that means, Elo-wise, but it is *way* over +200.
#2, they played even with the world champion over 12 games, at a long
control, with a *huge* amount of money at stake for both matches.  No
one else has a prayer of staying within one game of kasparov over 12
games.  probably not within 10 games of him, assuming they could weasel
a couple of draws which is doubtful.  #3 there's no evidence that a
has any sort of prayer of staying close to kasparov, based on past
plus comments he made about his training games vs Fritz and Hiarcs,
he simply outplayed both, and thought he would do the same since he
that DB wasn't too far ahead of Fritz (fatal mistake, listening to those
say micros are "close"... Garry found out that they were talking
distances and not inches, so that if they are a "parsec" apart, it
close until you figure out how big that is.. :)  )

I don't remember DB vs Kasparov as a crushing win.  If they had lost by
one game it would have been a crushing *event* because no one thought it
was possible.  So far, no one (other than them) has been able to
other GM players in OTB matches (Byrne and Benjamin come to mind,
there were others as well that took them on in training matches and got
waxed thoroughly by the "deep blue junior" box they used for
And if no one can reproduce their results against "lesser GM's" they
have a prayer of coming close with a super-GM.  But the point is that DB
played *with* Kasparov for 12 games.  It didn't get left in the dust as
the rest of us would have, easily.  And if you look at the difference
a "normal GM" and a "super-GM" you get a feel for just how far they are
of the rest of us, because we haven't caught the normal GM players and
pulled even with them yet, much less the top guys..

>But there are those who will read this and assume I am putting Deep Blue
>down (I guess because I'm not in the "Deep Blue is GOD" camp.)  I don't
>understand this at all.    I am not a "deep blue sucks" guy and I don't
>want to be cast this way.  I don't want to be on either side and that's
>my story (and I'm sticking with it.)

I simply give them credit for what they did.  They built a machine that
is hundreds of Elo rating points ahead of anything else playing on a
computer.  How many hundreds?  I'd guess at *least* 300, because I have
never seen a program produce the type of TPR they produced over the last
12 games, and don't forget DB's ancestor dominated computer chess like
other for 10 years, and probably can barely win one game out of 10 vs
real deep blue.

I'm good at math, and at architecture, and reasonably good at computer
chess.  And adding all those together lets me form the opinion that they
are *something*.  Not just a few inches ahead, but a couple of
astronomical units ahead.  whether we gain on them depends on only
they stop or continue.  if you look at *our* speed over the past 12
and at *their* speed over the past 12 years, they are on an exponential
curve ahead of us.  And the gap widens each and every year...

>- Don

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.