Author: Slater Wold
Date: 16:01:39 03/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2002 at 17:47:24, Mike Hood wrote: >On March 27, 2002 at 15:44:42, William H Rogers wrote: > >>On March 27, 2002 at 15:35:47, Slater Wold wrote: >> >>>On March 27, 2002 at 15:09:05, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >>> >>>My responses, based on the hundreds of hours I've spent reading about this >>>project. >>> >>>>As i have read in theses messages;You believe that Current programs >>>>are stronger than the 1997 Deeper Blue.Since that was a dedicated machine not a >>>>program that can be run on different Computers I have the following questions. >>>> 1.What Elo would the 1997 version of Deep Blue get on the SSDF >>>>(this is a hypothetical question;that is if SSDF tested Deep Blue.) >>> >>>2890. >>> >>>> 2.Same question for the 1996 version. >>> >>>2675 >>> >>>> 3.How important is pruning? Why or why not do the current programs >>>>have better pruning than Deep Blue? >>> >>>Deep Blue didn't prune. Brute force, no null move. Hsu looked into null move, >>>however he felt against Kasparov, that it might be a risk. Therefore he didn't >>>use it. On a 1.0Ghz machine, that extra ply from pruning is a make or break >>>thing. At 200M nps, you've got some nodes to spare. >>> >>>> 4.If current programs (shredder 2715 Elo on 1200 Mhz For example) >>>>are indeed sronger than Deep Blue 1997;What specifically makes them stronger? >>> >>>They aren't. They won't be for a long time. >> >>That is a moote question or answer as we do not know just how strong Deep Blue >>really was. If during the game with Kasparov, he was not at his best, and if >>they had played more games, say 5 or 10, then we might have a much closer >>guestimate as to the playing strength, but for now we do not. It is also known >>that we have programs now with much better chess knowledge than they had when >>Deep Blue was written. Remember that DB relied mostly on its tremendous speed >>not on a great amount of chess knowledge. It is quite possible that Shredder or >>some of the other programs written today would fair much better than the last >>version of DB, but we will never know as IBM, once the got the title, did not >>want to risk losing it. > >If IBM ever has the guts to resurrect Deep Blue, let's hope they play it against >a selection of the best current chess programs for PCs and (money allowing) >several top GMs, not just Kasparov. IMO Anand is a better anti-computer player >than Kasparov. I hope that Vincent Diepeveen could also play against Deep Blue. >That will finally give us a half-way decent rating for Deep Blue, instead of the >bloated Elo figure sometimes thrown about. I agree. But there's only 1 way to retire a champ. The Fischer way. ;)
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.