Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:35:37 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 11:37:17, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 11:22:14, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 29, 2001 at 09:33:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 29, 2001 at 08:29:28, Erkki Malkamaki wrote: >>> >>> >>>While the information is both good, and old, it won't help the argument. >>>A few are not going to let some facts get in their way when they want to >>>bash the machine or the "team" of developers... >>> >>>:( >> >>The only facts that can convince me is an anlaysis of the logfiles. >> >>Can you show me one main line of deeper blue >>that the best chess programs need many hours to get? >> >>My analysis suggest that deeper blue is 2-3 times faster than >>Deep Fritz pIII800 in finding some main lines. >> >>I am sure that if we analyze every position >>that Deeper blue pondered for some hours on fast PC we can find >>more positions when top programs find main lines that >>begin in the same moves as the main line of deeper blue. >> >>The interesting question is what is the speed ratio in these cases >>If the speed ratio is the same as the speed ratio that I found then >>it means that deeper blue is not strong. >> >>If in most of the cases when top programs find similiar main lines >>the speed ratio is at least 100 then it means that deeper blue >>was probably stronger then my impression. >> >>Unfortunately I found only one volunteer to help me to >>analyze the positions that deeper blue pondered and >>I am not going to use more than 20 hours of computer time >>per week to analyze. >> >>Uri > >These threads generally I read them a little but then I give up. >Just because I do not understand the point of the discussion. >So, this is the first time I will put my nose where I shouldn't >In this case, what is your point or your hypothesis? is that Deep Blue was not >good? (I cannot believe anybody will mean that but apparently some do, I guess) >is that Deep Blue was as strong as todays engines in current hardware? what is >it specifically? > >Regards, >Miguel The question is if deeper blue was stronger or weaker than the best commercial of today. I did not say that Deeper blue was weak and I believe it was clearly at GM strength and probably it's rating against humans could be at least 2700 at that time. I believe that the level of humans today is higher because they train more with computers so I suspect sure that 2700 today is better than 2700 at the time that deeper blue played kasparov. 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.