Author: Mark Young
Date: 01:06:14 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 01:29:15, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 23:15:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 29, 2001 at 16:35:15, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >> >>>On August 29, 2001 at 15:43:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Top programs of today _still_ seem to be unable to understand >>>>simple chess concepts like the pawn majority we have been discussing in another >>>>thread. I discovered, by bits and pieces, some of the knowledge in deep >>>>thought, and it was not "small" at all. Everyone assumes that the micros are >>>>much smarter... and that us old supercomputer guys simply depended on raw speed >>>>to win games. If you look at the game Cray Blitz vs Joe Sentef, from 1981, >>>>you will find a position that many programs today will blow, and that programs >>>>of 5 years ago would totally blow (bishop + wrong rook pawn ending knowledge). >>>>We weren't "fast and dumb" at all. Neither was DT, DB or DB2. Fast, yes. But >>>>definitely not "dumb". The "intelligence" of todays programs is mostly myth >>>>brought on by fast hardware that searches deep enough to cover for some of the >>>>positional weakness the programs have. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>From the above statement it seems that no significative advancements were made >>>in computer chess since then... are you sure that is a realistic conclusion ? >>> >>>with best regards. >> >> >>Since DT's time? I would say that is realistic. There have been small >>qualitative improvements in the micro programs, to be sure. But things that >>I was doing in 1992 are _still_ not done in many programs. The pawn majority >>discussion is just one example. > >I saw a lot of gaes of deep thought and I never saw a position when this was >relevant for the game so I think that this knowledge is not the important >knowledge and the important knowledge is how to play the middlegame. > >I also checked some games of Deep thought and found that in the tactical >positions Deep fritz is simply better and there are cases when it can avoid the >blunders of deep thought. playing over the games of Deep Thought I drew the same conclusions, my guess any top program today on a PIII 800 or better would win a match against Deep Thought, Hitech, etc. Today micros are that good in my judgement playing over the old game files of the past "super computers". > >I do not talk only about the repetition bug. > >I saw good moves of deep thought that programs of 1992 could not find but I do >not know about good moves of deep thought that Deep Fritz cannot find(I did not >analyze all games so there may be but the fact that I found only blunders of >deep thought and not impressive moves of deep thought from Deep fritz's point of >view suggest that Deep thought was not strong). > >I saw cases when Deep Fritz can avoid blunders of Deep thought and I do not mean >only to positional blunders but also to tactical blunders when Deep Fritz like >the move of Deep thought after few seconds or few minutes but changes it's mind >leter when the time of finding the right move or the time of failing law is >enough to avoid the blunder at tournament time control. > >> >>I've said this _many_ times in the past... I don't believe there have been >>more than a small number of "revolutionary" ideas in computer chess in the last >>35 years. Hashing was certainly one. Perhaps null-move another although it >>is not clear that you must use null-move to be competitive as Rebel shows (and >>the DT/DB/DB2 machines as well). Iterative deepening with full-width search >>is another. Extensions are collectively another one, some more-so than others. >>Perhaps EGTBs is the most recent one. Everything else has been slow, methodical >>progress, something many won't like to hear. Part of the progress has been due >>to incremental changes to chess engines/evaluations/etc, part has been due to >>the hardware speed advances. Probably more of the latter than the former, if >>the truth is known... > >I think that advances in software from Genius2 to Deep Fritz is more than 200 >elo at tournament time control. I have played matches with today’s programs with the programs of 10 years ago for fun; mismatch is an understatement in describing the outcome for the older generation 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.