Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is Deep Blue still considered better than Deep Junior ?

Author: José Carlos

Date: 12:27:44 08/18/02

Go up one level in this thread


On August 18, 2002 at 12:41:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On August 18, 2002 at 11:31:54, Chris Taylor wrote:
>
>>On August 18, 2002 at 09:06:02, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>>
>>>   Kasparov proved that he can defeat programs at fast time controls when he
>>>defeated Deep Thought in a game/90 two games match in 1989. This program was
>>>weaker than Deep Junior is today, as it searched well over 2,000,000 NPS, but
>>>didn't have as much chess knowledge as Deep Junior.  He also defeated Deep Blue
>>>in 1996. This program is obviously much faster than Deep Junior is today, but in
>>>my opinion Deep Junior still has more chess knowledge than Deep Blue had back in
>>>1996.
>>>
>>>PS: It is hard to compare Deep Blue of 1997 vs Deep Junior of today, but in my
>>>opinion Deep Junior Chess Knowledge could make up for the difference of Deep
>>>Blue super calculating power of 1997.
>>>
>>>Pichard.
>>
>>One way would be to play some games with Deep Blue and Deep Junior.  Guess that
>>would settle once and for all who is the strongest.  Or would it just pour fuel
>>on the **whos** best fire.  Put together the blue box and match it up.  After
>>all it did beat the best player in the world at that time!  The advert could be
>>quite powerful.  The machine that beat Kaspy goes for Junior. Methinks there
>>could be some money to be made here? So this may not happen, shame?
>
>that will of course never happen. Just like fischer still is world
>champion, deep blue will be world champion in some scientist eyes forever
>too.
>
>To be clear. I feel that any 2650+ player of todaywill wipe out fischer
>if he plays like he played in 1970.
>
>New theory, better tactics, more insight in strategies, better training.
>
>A 2650 player of today is going to crush any world champ from before Karpov
>of course. No doubts.
>
>Robert J Fischer when the rating list started had 2780 or something. that was
>superb compared to anyone in those days. He was the best back then. No one
>was as good.
>
>But the level has improved a lot. Many will say now: "this is not a fair
>compare a modern 2650 player against someone who had only an old
>book from capablanca and tarrasch, if he could read german anyway".
>
>In fact a grandmaster did this comparision. He compared a top tournament
>in 1991 with a top tournament from 1920. The grandmaster was called Nunn
>if i remember well.
>
>The last few players in that tournament around the start of the 20th
>century, they simply blundered away piece
>after piece. Would be rated at most 1500 nowadays.
>
>The 'better players' in the tournament, considered *clear world top*
>back then, they blundered on average 5 times a game.
>
>*no modern topgrandmaster is doing that*.
>
>The level of the world top increases. This is logical. Suppose you
>get to the tennis court with a wooden racket. Even if you're called
>John McEnroe you will be of course get completely annihilated. A wooden
>racket and services of 160KM/hour (the speed at which McEnroe served) it
>is no compare to the 180-220 KM/hour services of modern tennis of today.
>
>He won't manage a single break of course.
>
>This is logical. Sport progresses. computerchess even faster. saynig that
>deep blue/deep thought was good in its days is justified. It beated some
>GMs. That the GMs played big shit games because they cared shit as they
>had nothing to proof and would get money anyway, that's no issue here.
>
>The issue is that it is so *obvious* that software in 2002 is much better
>than in 1997 that i am amazed that only Hyatt here doubts it.
>
>>Chris

  Couldn't disagree more. Give Capablanca or Lasker a couple of months to train
against today's GM's and they'll do quite well. Talented players learn fast,
Vincent. It's not like programs. A program is "closed", it can't modify itself.
A player such as Lasker would be able to catch up in very little time.
  As for tennis, a fair comparison would be give McEnroe a new racket and see
how long does he need to get used to it. Otherwise it's not a fair comparison.
Lasker brain would not be obsolete today. His knowledge would be, but knowledge
can be learnt.

  José C.



This page took 0.01 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.