Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:17:33 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 01:56:58, Derrick Daniels wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 22:03:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 29, 2001 at 16:39:09, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On August 29, 2001 at 16:22:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 29, 2001 at 16:16:06, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 15:36:54, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 15:21:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I consider the top programs of today as clearly smarter than Deep thought. >>>>>> >>>>>>Deep thought had also a problem in the repetition detection and I believe that >>>>>>the search algorithm of the top programs of today is superior because Deep >>>>>>thought did not use null move or other pruning methods. >>>>> >>>>>I agree, and there are many games to play over that show todays programs are >>>>>much smarter and faster then Deep Thought of 1992. Even without a 8-way box. To >>>>>me it is clear that preparation is not the problem, as any GM can play much >>>>>stronger programs then Deep Thought, Hitech, Etc. of the 1980's and early >>>>>1990's. And it has already been suggested as fact all programs have the same >>>>>fundamental weaknesses. So playing any top program or studying any old Deep >>>>>Thought games should be the only preparation needed. As this is the only prep >>>>>the early GM's had when facing Deep Thought. >>>>> >>>>>BTW. I don't understand how we take as fact that "Byrne. Larson. Browne. >>>>>You-name-it" prepared for their games with computers, but any of today's GM's >>>>>that know their playing computers and also lose don't prepare for their games. >>>>> >>>>>How does Bob and other know what kind of preparation past or present GM's do >>>>>when they know they are facing a computer program. >>>> >>>>Perhaps we ask? I know several that will answer. >>> >>>Let ask, GM Leko, GM Huebner, GM Pablo Ricardi, GM Andres Rodriguez, GM Oscar >>>Panno, GM Alejandro Hoffman, for starters. >>> >>>BTW: What kind of preparations did GM Byrne, GM Larson, and GM Browne do to >>>prepare for Deep Thought since you already know. >> >>I didn't talke to Larson, ever. I talked to byrne on more than one occasion >>as he helped me with some analysis of some moves by Cray Blitz. Browne was >>quite calm about Deep Thought. I looked over his shoulder one night and >>watched him play over several deep thought games from memory. Which showed that >>he had studied the thing at length. Byrne thought Deep Thought was the >>beginning of the end for humans being the best chess players around. He took >>DT very seriously. And he studied the games several times looking for ways to >>exploit the thing. He simply wasn't up to it tactically, however. >> >>The others you mention will _never_ sit across the table from a computer, >>in a tournament where the game result affects the GM's final standing and how >>much money he takes home. In 1992 they _did_ have to face the computers in >>OTB tournaments and losing hurt. It was taken seriously although I don't >>think they gave much thought to the micros that were present as they were not >>serious threats to any GM and would not likely make it to a point where such >>a pairing was possible. But DT was a different case altogether. It took >>several GM scalps home from various events... >> > > > > Yes, but isn't it true, they couldn't take deep thought home with them like >they can with today's DFritz. As I have heard you say often, once the shock >wears off, then the grandmasters begin to find weakness. In another post you >said Deep thought is on the same level as today's programs yet you would never >give today's PC programs the same praise as Deep thought, Double standard >perhaps? I would hope not. My "on the same level" was an attempt to be "generous" and show that even if this were true, DB2 is so far beyond DT that saying today's DF/DJ is better than the 97 DB2 is ridiculous. I've never said today's programs can't play chess. And I have said they are very dangerous to GMs until they learn how to play against computers in general (not against a particular program). But todays programs are _not_ anywhere near DB (yet). This is based on simple conjecture using historical data from deep thought and known hardware details about DB2. >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>If Fritz 7 does happen to win its match with GM Kramnik we better not here one >>>>>word about GM Kramnik not being prepared for the match, as we heard with the >>>>>Deep Fritz Vs GM Huebner match, Chess Tigers great win in Argentine, and Deep >>>>>Junior's 2700+ TPR at Dortmund Etc. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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.