Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Wanted: Deep Blue vs. today's top programs recap

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 09:15:31 08/27/01

Go up one level in this thread


On August 26, 2001 at 18:19:04, Uri Blass wrote:

I have many analysis left from the past with many programs at the
different mistakes and ! moves which DB has done according to
Seirawan.

Note i disagree with 1 move being bad and that's Qf1 from DB in game 2.
Seirawan considers this a dubious move, i consider it a normal move
as there is a trick for black when playing the adviced Qf2?? move.

For those who want a reprint of the article, this article is owned by
the ICCA you can reach Joke Hellemons (the only active ICCA member)
asking for the article at herik@cs.unimaas.nl

P.S. i've got a dual 1.2Ghz AMD idling here.

Best regards,
Vincent

>On August 26, 2001 at 17:33:47, Rajen Gupta wrote:
>
>>On August 25, 2001 at 20:47:44, Mig Greengard wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry to dredge this up yet again, and ignore this rather than turn it into a
>>>flame war or something worse. I know feelings on this topic can run hot.
>>>
>>>Although we do not have enough of Deep Blue's games to make anywhere near an
>>>accurate assessment of its chess strength, I am requesting a summary of thoughts
>>>on how today's top programs measure up on a science level. In the past I've seen
>>>some admirably objective breakdowns on this topic from Bob Hyatt and a few
>>>others, but did not save them.
>>>
>>>Put Deep Fritz, or other top programs, on the best available platform on which
>>>they can run, and I imagine this is what they will have in Bahrain, and knowing
>>>what we do about DB, what comparisons can we make?
>>>
>>>Subjective arguments (chess knowledge in particular) are also welcome, but
>>>should be concise as opposed to argumentative!
>>>
>>>Thanks, Mig
>>>
>>>Editor-in-chief
>>>http://www.kasparovchess.com
>>
>>hi mig; i think deep blue searching 200 million positions per second vs deep
>>fritz searching at most 3-4 million would clobber the hell out of deep fritz any
>>day(or night) the hardware is one factor in the equation and i think the
>>software was at least as good as what the best programmer of the day could
>>produce(ie fritz5; cm 5000 level)
>>
>>imagine fritz 5 or cm 5555 running on hardware that is 40 times as powerful vs
>>deep fritz.  it would be a no contest.
>>
>>rajen
>
>I guess that you did not analyze Deeper blue logfiles.
>I did some analysis of them and my impression based on the analysis that I did
>is that Deeper blue is only 2 or 3 times faster than Deep Fritz on P800.
>
>The idea was to compare the times that Deeper blue got it's main line and the
>time that the top programs get the same beginning of the main line when you give
>the top programs some hours.
>
>In most cases it is impossible because we do not have similiar main lines but
>there are some cases when there are similiar main lines.
>
>I did not anlayze most of the positions from kasparov-deeper blue match so I am
>practically sure that you can find more cases of similiar main lines and the
>question is if other programs are faster or slower in finding the similiar main
>lines.
>
>pavel told me here that he is interested to help.
>
>If other people are interested to help in this task then they can send me an
>email and I am going to tell them positions to analyze with top programs.
>
>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.