Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:03:47 08/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2002 at 11:13:20, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 18, 2002 at 10:54:25, Uri Blass wrote: > >5k2/7R/4P2p/5K2/p1r2P1p/8/8/8 b LCTFIN04 (...h3!) >h4h3 > >without EGTBs what time do programs need to get an aboslute draw >score for h3 here? > >So *search* till it is a draw score. > >another thing. with 500k nodes a second, chiptest/deepthought 1, >only searched 8 ply and became computer chess world champion with it. > This is wrong. We searched 8 plies at 20K nodes per second in Cray Blitz. Logs for the 1983 WCCC event were published showing that. Belle also searched 8 plies in 1980... with a less efficient search going faster. Deep Thought searched 10 plies in the first version I saw, and in 1989 they were reporting 11-12 plies. I know. I played them and was watching their screen as we searched 10+ plies ourselves... >This was in a time that every computerchess game was decided before >move 25 or so, by major blunders from all computers. > >I do not see why this old software doesn't get put in the right contest. >It was good when it was produced, not it is of course outgunned by a >zillion times by modern software. > >>On August 18, 2002 at 10:38:19, Robert Hyatt 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, >>> >>>How would you figure that? Deep Thought produced a 2650 rating over 25 >>>consecutive 40/2hr games against GM players. Anybody else done that yet? >>>Not that I have seen. >> >>If we look at the games we can find tactical mistakes of deep thought that >>the top programs of today have no problem to avoid. >> >>One example is that deep thought let judit polgar to draw because deep thought >>did not detect repetitions in the last plies and there are more examples. >> >>I do not know about impressive moves of deep thought from games that the top >>programs of today have problems to find. >> >>I also believe that humans today know better than they knew at the time of deep >>thought so comparing rating is not convincing. >> >>It is more interesting to compare moves and I know of no impressive move from >>deep thought from games(there are moves that the programs of 1990-1995 on the >>hardware of 1990-1995 could not find but the programs of today on the hardware >>of today are clearly better). >> >>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.