Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:47:58 08/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2002 at 17:09:08, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On August 18, 2002 at 15:27:44, José Carlos wrote: > >>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. > >I agree with you completely, there is a reason that todays top GM's show a lot >of respect for players of the old days when talking about them... > >You could also flip the tennis analogy and have todays top players go back in >time and see how they would fare with wooden rackets and slower balls, against >the top players from back then. > >Regards >Jonas I hope you realize very clearly that Deep Blue can't get upgraded. Yes it was a big achievement for 1 man to make all that. The chip programmed by 1 person. It's incredible. But please don't compare it with 2002 software. It's going to get raped, dicked and completely annihilated *everywhere*. Opening, first moves out of book with structure, mobility, even good/bad bishop, king safety (see the major errors it made there which none of todays program makes), exchanging to endgame (2 horrible exchanges of a queen in the 1997 games, one Qxg6?? being a full blunder making from a better position a lost one) and finally endgame. So the comparision is not fair, but i hope you realize how bigtime it would get completely *destroyed* with induction against todays programs. Not a single area where it is impressing. Let's not discuss tactics. If you get 11-12 ply then tactics do not decide the game. I feel it wasn't bad tactically at all if i look to the design specifications of the extensions. Best regards, Vincent
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.