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.