Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 19:34:04 08/18/02

Go up one level in this thread


On August 18, 2002 at 20:47:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>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.

Would you mind explaining that?

1.  The software part of the search most definitely could be "upgraded"
as it was done many times...

2.  The hardware could _also_ be upgraded.  Deep thought was upgraded to
deep blue.  Deep Blue was upgraded to deep blue 2.  Why would you write
something that is so obviously wrong???

3.  Even if the chess chips were "static" could not IBM give them a _bigger_
(or faster) SP2?  They could easily fab more chips.  And run faster...  Of
course that overlooks points 1 and 2 above completely, which is not reasonable.



>
>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.