Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:21:09 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 14:41:48, Mark Young wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 14:03:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 29, 2001 at 13:52:33, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 29, 2001 at 12:52:15, Roy Eassa wrote: >>> >>>>This sentence DOES say a lot, doesn't it: >>>> >>>>"By the summer of 1990--by which time three of the original Deep Thought team >>>>had joined IBM--Deep Thought had achieved a 50 percent score in 10 games played >>>>under tournament conditions against grandmasters and an 86 percent score in 14 >>>>games against international masters." >>>> >>>>That was 7 years before, and many-fold slower hardware (and much weaker >>>>software, no doubt), than what played Kasparov in 1997. >>> >>>No >>>This sentence tells me nothing new. >>> >>>I know that humans at that time did not know how to play against computers like >>>they know today. >>> >>>Today programs got clearly better results than deep thought >>>and there is more than one case when they got >2700 performance inspite of >>>the fact that the opponents could buy the program they played against them >>>something that Deep thought's opponents could not do. >> >>Deep thought produced a rating of 2655 over 25 consecutive games against a >>variety of opponents. None of them were "inexperienced" in playing against >>computers. Byrne. Larson. Browne. You-name-it. That argument doesn't hold >>up under close scrutiny. > >In some ways, it appears that the GMs of today are >>prepared far worse than the GMs of 1992 were prepared to play computers. > > >I don?t see how GM?s of today are less prepared to play computers. Anyone of >them can and has played computer programs at home stronger then the programs of >the early 1990?s. I am basing that on the games I have seen, plus the important detail that in 1992, strong GM players at the US Open, the World Open, and other events (particularly those in the northeast US) knew they would be facing Hitech, Deep Thought, and at times, Belle and others. Since 1995 this has not been the case as it is nearly impossible to find a tournament in the US that will allow a computer to compete. If they aren't going to face the machines, they aren't going to study them. > >I don?t think preparation is the problem. It is the strength of the programs of >today. It seems if you are not in the top 100 of the Fide list your chances of >besting the better programs is not very good. > >It seems clear that the programs of today are stronger then Deep Thought of 1992 >that produced a rating of 2655 playing against "Byrne. Larson. Browne. >You-name-it". Do you agree with this? No I don't. I would agree that probably they programs of today are in the same league with Deep Thought of 1992, maybe. At least on the 8-way boxes. Their NPS speed would be similar. Deep Thought wasn't known to be an incredibly "smart" program, neither are today's programs. So they are probably within a few dozen rating points (at most) of each other. But DB2 was 100X faster and 25X (at least) more complex. I think the comparison falls apart when DB2 enters the discussion. > > >> >>In 1992 GMs _were_ encountering computers in various tournaments, from the >>World Open, to the US Open, right on down to the state level. Today computers >>are not playing in any of those... There were dozens of deep thought games on >>the internet, so the humans had good ideas about the programs strengths and >>weaknesses. >> >>DT was just very, very strong. And DB/DB2 were both _far_ stronger. >> >> >>> >>>Uri
This page took 0.02 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.